It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats in High Tax States Plot To Blunt Impact of New Tax Law

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Also, even if CBO's estimate was accurate (which I just demonstrated it's unlikely to be accurate), it's still only a marginal increase in the debt. The federal debt is projected to be $30 trillion by 2027. With the additional $1-1.5T for the tax bill, it would be $31 or $31.5T. That's not a monumental increase. And the historical numbers suggest that's not going to happen anyway.




posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Wait so you've been hounding me to read the actual CBO report and then post a link to the Wall Street Journal? Can you say hypocrisy?



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Wait so you've been hounding me to read the actual CBO report and then post a link to the Wall Street Journal? Can you say hypocrisy?


Here you go 1.5 trillion increase in 2027. Provided the economy stays at 1.9 percent. Though with the dow setting records that's unlikely.

www.cbo.gov...



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Wait so you've been hounding me to read the actual CBO report and then post a link to the Wall Street Journal? Can you say hypocrisy?


Here you go 1.5 trillion increase in 2027. Provided the economy stays at 1.9 percent. Though with the dow setting records that's unlikely.

www.cbo.gov...


So you admit I wasn't lying after all and the $1.5T "cost" of the tax bill is unlikely. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Wait so you've been hounding me to read the actual CBO report and then post a link to the Wall Street Journal? Can you say hypocrisy?


I referred you to the CBO report numerous times and you refused to read it, so I gave you a source I thought you would read. You seemed unwilling to actually look at the numbers and analyze it yourself. If all you needed was someone to find the CBO report for you, that's your fault not mine.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's the rub. The economy is at near full employment. The "doesn't add 1.5 trillion" to the deficit argument is actually more wishful thinking than saying it will add to the deficit. Even if it isn't 1.5 trillion, being revenue neutral or positive can only happen through extremely good economic expansion. Something that is unlikely given how the economy is currently performing.

Since when do we assume the best?



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Oh I know what the CBO report says. I just make a point of not researching other people's claims. If you are going to say something to me, then you best be ready to back it up with a source whether I already know it or not. In fact, if you had stopped being arrogant for JUST a second and posted the CBO report like I asked you several times, I would have responded to you like I just responded to dragonridr.
edit on 5-1-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Oh I know what the CBO report says. I just make a point of not researching other people's claims. If you are going to say something to me, then you best be ready to back it up with a source whether I already know it or not. In fact, if you had stopped being arrogant for JUST a second and posted the CBO report like I asked you several times, I would have responded to you like I just responded to dragonridr.


Yeah, so you called me a liar for stating what the CBO report said because you knew what it said and knew I was right? You've twisted yourself into a pretzel. Lay off the dishonesty. You had no idea it assumed a measly 1.9% growth and that the $1.5T "cost" was unrealistic. Now you know. You're welcome.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's the rub. The economy is at near full employment. The "doesn't add 1.5 trillion" to the deficit argument is actually more wishful thinking than saying it will add to the deficit. Even if it isn't 1.5 trillion, being revenue neutral or positive can only happen through extremely good economic expansion. Something that is unlikely given how the economy is currently performing.

Since when do we assume the best?


Again false. The real unemployment rate is nowhere near "full employment". Now that one lie has been exposed, you have to switch to another one? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the truth?



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Believe what ever you want. You clearly believe that the economy can run at a super charged rate to prevent this tax bill from running a deficit already, so clearly nothing is stopping you from inventing my thought process in your head. I'm done arguing with you now though. It's a waste of my time.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's the rub. The economy is at near full employment. The "doesn't add 1.5 trillion" to the deficit argument is actually more wishful thinking than saying it will add to the deficit. Even if it isn't 1.5 trillion, being revenue neutral or positive can only happen through extremely good economic expansion. Something that is unlikely given how the economy is currently performing.

Since when do we assume the best?


Again false. The real unemployment rate is nowhere near "full employment". Now that one lie has been exposed, you have to switch to another one? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the truth?

Yeah all those 10 year old children and 80 year old retirees are just ITCHING to get to work right?



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Believe what ever you want. You clearly believe that the economy can run at a super charged rate to prevent this tax bill from running a deficit already, so clearly nothing is stopping you from inventing my thought process in your head. I'm done arguing with you now though. It's a waste of my time.


It doesn't have to run at a supercharged rate. It only has to run at an historically average rate. Are you physically incapable of typing something accurate on this issue? Run from the facts all you want. You're the one that was exposed as a liar.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's the rub. The economy is at near full employment. The "doesn't add 1.5 trillion" to the deficit argument is actually more wishful thinking than saying it will add to the deficit. Even if it isn't 1.5 trillion, being revenue neutral or positive can only happen through extremely good economic expansion. Something that is unlikely given how the economy is currently performing.

Since when do we assume the best?


Again false. The real unemployment rate is nowhere near "full employment". Now that one lie has been exposed, you have to switch to another one? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the truth?

Yeah all those 10 year old children and 80 year old retirees are just ITCHING to get to work right?


You clearly have no idea how that rate is calculated. I suggest you do some basic research before opining on subjects you know nothing about. I realize it's easier to just be told what to think by whoever your favorite pundits are, but they're giving you blatant disinformation. Get informed. You've embarrassed yourself repeatedly the last few pages by simply not knowing even the basics of the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join