Author Topic: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?  (Read 1760 times)

Offline ldub23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money  into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 07:19:38 PM »
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money  into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.
Short answer: it's all bullshit. Obviously, there's no such thing as a revenue-neutral tax cut. It's all smoke and mirrors, brought to you by the same people who think you're so stupid as to believe that a smaller budget increase than they wanted is actually a "budget cut."
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Walter Josh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 09:42:58 PM »
The GOP is much more than the stupid party; they are the corrupt and dishonest party.
Consider the core of their policies, since Fremont in 1856.
*Their power derived from the post-Civil War Northern Mercantile class, later morphing into our modern corporatist industrial class. They never had anything to do w/the "little guy".
* During their ascendancy, from Johnston to Hoover, when they controlled all Branches of Government for some 70 years; they promoted and passed more than 50 excise taxes and protectionist tariffs using the scam that they were "shielding our infant industries". They never promoted free trade. Never!
*Also, during this era, Amendments 14,15,16 and 17 were passed and affirmed by SCOTUS, effectively centralizing power in DC; destroying the original intent of our Founders, which was the primacy of "States Rights".
Next time you trip over some republicrat asshole, bring the record of history to his attention.

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 07:04:30 AM »
The GOP is much more than the stupid party; they are the corrupt and dishonest party.
Consider the core of their policies, since Fremont in 1856.
*Their power derived from the post-Civil War Northern Mercantile class, later morphing into our modern corporatist industrial class. They never had anything to do w/the "little guy".
* During their ascendancy, from Johnston to Hoover, when they controlled all Branches of Government for some 70 years; they promoted and passed more than 50 excise taxes and protectionist tariffs using the scam that they were "shielding our infant industries". They never promoted free trade. Never!
*Also, during this era, Amendments 14,15,16 and 17 were passed and affirmed by SCOTUS, effectively centralizing power in DC; destroying the original intent of our Founders, which was the primacy of "States Rights".
Next time you trip over some republicrat asshole, bring the record of history to his attention.

Kinda hard on the history, ain't ya?

Your period of "ascendancy," as you define it, was 68 years, not 70. It starts with Andrew Johnson's term (he was a Democrat) and includes two separate terms for the Democrat Grover Cleveland, two contiguous terms for Progressive RINO Teddy Roosevelt, and the two contiguous terms of Woodrow Wilson, which capped the first great Leftist/Progressive upheaval in our modern history.

During your "ascendancy" period, Republicans generally dominated the Senate, though a very notable exception was the period 1913-1919, when Democrat control of both houses of Congress was critical for the Progressives. The House of Representatives was divided, going back and forth between parties; Democrats held the majority for a total of 25 of the 68 years.

Congress concentrated mainly on tariffs and duties and excise taxes during most of your "ascendancy" period, not because it was against free trade, but because that was just about the only way the federal government had to get its hands on any money. There was no permanent legal individual or corporate income tax in those days before 1913 because such taxes were expressly forbidden in the Constitution. (I do not count the temporary, illegal income tax levied during and for a short time after the Civil War.) In fact, the Founders envisioned a federal government so small, with such minor monetary needs, that tariffs and duties on foreign goods, along with excise taxes, would generally be sufficient.

The 14th and 15th Amendments, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, were the spawn of the Civil War; they granted citizenship and the vote to former black slaves. I'm not sure what they might have to do with centralizing power in D.C. The 16th and 17th Amendments were, without question, designed to centralize government power in D.C., but they were the product of the first great Progressive upheaval, which began around the turn of the 20th century, and gathered steam until its apex early in Wilson's administration. Both amendments were adopted in 1913. The 16th provided the government the (essentially unlimited) power to tax individuals and corporations on their property and earnings. The 17th changed the manner in which Senators are elected, removing the matter from the state legislatures and setting up a popular-vote system. Both amendments were initiated and supported by the Democrat Party, along with fringe parties like the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. Along with those two amendments, 1913 saw the enactment of the first federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve, both designed to place the federal government in a position of primacy, and both enacted by a Democrat-dominated Congress and signed into law by a Progressive Democrat president. 1913 was a very good year indeed, not for the GOP, but for Leftists and Progressives and Democrats.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Walter Josh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 10:46:17 AM »
Kinda hard on the history, ain't ya?

Your period of "ascendancy," as you define it, was 68 years, not 70. It starts with Andrew Johnson's term (he was a Democrat) and includes two separate terms for the Democrat Grover Cleveland, two contiguous terms for Progressive RINO Teddy Roosevelt, and the two contiguous terms of Woodrow Wilson, which capped the first great Leftist/Progressive upheaval in our modern history.

During your "ascendancy" period, Republicans generally dominated the Senate, though a very notable exception was the period 1913-1919, when Democrat control of both houses of Congress was critical for the Progressives. The House of Representatives was divided, going back and forth between parties; Democrats held the majority for a total of 25 of the 68 years.

Congress concentrated mainly on tariffs and duties and excise taxes during most of your "ascendancy" period, not because it was against free trade, but because that was just about the only way the federal government had to get its hands on any money. There was no permanent legal individual or corporate income tax in those days before 1913 because such taxes were expressly forbidden in the Constitution. (I do not count the temporary, illegal income tax levied during and for a short time after the Civil War.) In fact, the Founders envisioned a federal government so small, with such minor monetary needs, that tariffs and duties on foreign goods, along with excise taxes, would generally be sufficient.

The 14th and 15th Amendments, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, were the spawn of the Civil War; they granted citizenship and the vote to former black slaves. I'm not sure what they might have to do with centralizing power in D.C. The 16th and 17th Amendments were, without question, designed to centralize government power in D.C., but they were the product of the first great Progressive upheaval, which began around the turn of the 20th century, and gathered steam until its apex early in Wilson's administration. Both amendments were adopted in 1913. The 16th provided the government the (essentially unlimited) power to tax individuals and corporations on their property and earnings. The 17th changed the manner in which Senators are elected, removing the matter from the state legislatures and setting up a popular-vote system. Both amendments were initiated and supported by the Democrat Party, along with fringe parties like the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. Along with those two amendments, 1913 saw the enactment of the first federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve, both designed to place the federal government in a position of primacy, and both enacted by a Democrat-dominated Congress and signed into law by a Progressive Democrat president. 1913 was a very good year indeed, not for the GOP, but for Leftists and Progressives and Democrats.

Ascendancy reflects a change from no control to dominance of the executive, legislative and judicial branches; the reality from Johnston to Hoover! Party labels were irrelevant, as the GOP called the all the shots.
They were the errand boys for the crony capitalist class who had everything to gain as we morphed from an agrarian rural to an industrial urban economy.
So the GOP embraced Protectionism because they needed the money? How predictable when you're growing government expansively to satisfy the whims of your paymasters.
An astute observer, Irving Fischer, laureate in economics, labelled the Payne-Aldrich ('09) and
Fordney-McCumber('22) Tariffs, as instrumental in deepening the severity of the Great Depression.
So much for the economic principle of Free Trade and the GOP.
Repeating, despite their relentless sloganeering, the GOP has never been a principled advocate for plain people, free trade or states rights.
 

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22178
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2017, 12:16:22 PM »
I have never understood that. If you are going to have a tax "cut" that doesnt actually put  more money into the economy then why bother? Personally  i think reps are dragging their feet  on tax cuts  because they just  dont want to do anything that will help Trump get the economy  moving faster.

Whether federal revenue goes up or down is irrelevant.  Income is the private property of any person, and to seize it at the point of the gun is theft.

Don't let them sidetrack you.

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11956
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2017, 12:33:09 PM »
Whether federal revenue goes up or down is irrelevant.  Income is the private property of any person, and to seize it at the point of the gun is theft.

Don't let them sidetrack you.

Off subject, but how did you fare with the storm?

All this revenue talk is pure BS Washington speak. There never has been and never will be revenue neutral. Everything is pure speculation. I am not an economist, thank God, but I do know increased economic growth increases tax revenue.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2017, 06:28:54 PM »
Ascendancy reflects a change from no control to dominance of the executive, legislative and judicial branches; the reality from Johnston to Hoover! Party labels were irrelevant, as the GOP called the all the shots.
They were the errand boys for the crony capitalist class who had everything to gain as we morphed from an agrarian rural to an industrial urban economy.
So the GOP embraced Protectionism because they needed the money? How predictable when you're growing government expansively to satisfy the whims of your paymasters.
An astute observer, Irving Fischer, laureate in economics, labelled the Payne-Aldrich ('09) and
Fordney-McCumber('22) Tariffs, as instrumental in deepening the severity of the Great Depression.
So much for the economic principle of Free Trade and the GOP.
Repeating, despite their relentless sloganeering, the GOP has never been a principled advocate for plain people, free trade or states rights.

By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24561
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2017, 07:09:17 PM »
Class dismissed for the day.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2017, 07:18:18 PM »
Class dismissed for the day.

We'll see!  :tounge: I'm just getting wound up!  :laugh:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24561
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2017, 07:31:12 PM »
We'll see!  :tounge: I'm just getting wound up!  :laugh:


A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22178
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2017, 04:20:41 AM »
By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.

You should put that back-hand on ice.... keep the swelling down.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22178
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2017, 04:33:01 AM »
Off subject, but how did you fare with the storm?
I've been up north, so I haven't had to deal with any of that.

Quote
All this revenue talk is pure BS Washington speak. There never has been and never will be revenue neutral. Everything is pure speculation. I am not an economist, thank God, but I do know increased economic growth increases tax revenue.
Exactly.

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
Re: Why do the stupid republicans want a tax cut to be revenue neutral?
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2017, 09:46:30 AM »
Because today they are the "Washington Generals" of politics.

Lose every game to the "Globetrotters" (lol, just realized the clever tie-in there), but still, turn this into a 40-year-gig in a comfy role.

I just heard somebody this morning refer to the demise of the Whigs and the birth of the GOP.

We are there once again.  Look no further for a template, strategy, and plan of action.


 

Powered by EzPortal