Vice presidential fact check

[4Figgy]

You mean like trumps(republican) doing by ballooning the deficit? You have to have a target before you start adjusting spending otherwise you cause more harm than good...at least that's what republicans were saying before trump took office now i guess it doesnt matter

I gave up on anyone doing anything about the debt in Obama’s second term. It can be done, but nobody has the balls to do it. All you have to do it cut 1-2% of the federal budget as a whole every year for a few years and we could get it under control.

 

[flenser]

All you have to do to reduce spending is to reduce borrowing. To do that you only need the Fed to raise the interest rates. No one is going to lend the politicians money at any rate when they can't borrow it themselves.

All this talk of planning and debt fixing is wasted air. Trump wants to keep low interest rates, Obama wanted to keep them low, Bush wanted to keep them low, all the way back to Reagan. They all got their wish, because the Fed and especially all the banks want interest rates to stay low too. They get to take from the savers, and give to the banks so they can loan to the poor.

 

[4Figgy]

All you have to do to reduce spending is to reduce borrowing. To do that you only need the Fed to raise the interest rates. No one is going to lend the politicians money at any rate when they can't borrow it themselves.

All this talk of planning and debt fixing is wasted air. Trump wants to keep low interest rates, Obama wanted to keep them low, Bush wanted to keep them low, all the way back to Reagan. They all got their wish, because the Fed and especially all the banks want interest rates to stay low too. They get to take from the savers, and give to the banks so they can loan to the poor.

Now that we are printing 100% of our “money” it’s only a matter of time before inflation takes over. Politicians want to stay where they are, and too many Americans are afraid of hardship. It will only take a couple more covid-19 specials sent from China to collapse the country. I’m not sure they want to start a fighting war, but it’s China so who knows.

 

[Oldschool]

trump is bad for the environment, and his tax cuts put us in an evn deeper deficit hole.

"
At a CNN climate change town hall for Democratic presidential candidates last year, Harris said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. Starting with what we can do from Day One on public lands.” Now, as Biden’s running mate, she is bound to his agenda, which is different.

Biden has an ambitious climate plan that seeks to rapidly reduce use of fossil fuels. He says he does not support banning hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, however, and says he doubts such a ban is possible.

As far as Trump and climate change, Trump’s public comments as president all dismiss the science on climate change — that it’s caused by people burning fossil fuels, and it’s worsening sharply. As recently as last month, Trump said, “I don’t think science knows” what it’s talking about regarding global warming and the resulting worsening of wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. He’s mocked the science in many public comments and tweets.

His regulation-cutting has eliminated key Obama-era efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions."

How do you stay warm in the winter Dresden? A solar panel? Wind turbine? Lol. Do you own and drive an electric car?

 

[flenser]

Now that we are printing 100% of our “money” it’s only a matter of time before inflation takes over. Politicians want to stay where they are, and too many Americans are afraid of hardship. It will only take a couple more covid-19 specials sent from China to collapse the country. I’m not sure they want to start a fighting war, but it’s China so who knows.

Price inflation is here. I see it in almost every product lately. There is more cash, a lot more, and far fewer people making things. You can blame China for the virus, but it was US politicians who needlessly locked down the population and crushed the economy.

 

[malfeasance]

you can decrease spending or increase it....but you can't stop it.

Dresden, what I wrote was not stop spending, but stop spending increases. You even re-wrote what I said in your next post following where you contended with what I had written.

The budget would balance soon enough if they simply froze spending.

The last time I checked, it would take only three years of spending freezes to balance the budget.

Or you could allow very small increases and still balance the budget a few years further down the road.

Keep the freeze or tiny increases in place, and suddenly there is a surplus. That surplus could go toward the debt each year.

 

[malfeasance]

trump . . . his tax cuts put us in an even deeper deficit hole.

Let us examine this claim, Dresden. If everything were static, and the national income is a set amount, and a set % tax on that amount raises simply x, where x = economy x %, then YES, with that sort of simplistic thinking, a tax cut reduces x, the amount of revenue. Correct?

A real economy does not work that way.

What if I tell you that I am gong to tax 100% of every dollar you make over $50k? Your boss says, "Hey, Dresden, times are booming for the business! I really need you to put in a bunch of time working your ass off, nights, weekends. You'll get overtime. Your normal $48,000 salary is not going to matter this year. You are easily going to make $90,000."

Are you going to bust your ass nights and weekends in addition to your full time weekday work to earn that extra money that you will never see because it is taxed away?

Now malfeasance is elected (in spite of you voting against me because I want to cut taxes and leave you free to make decisions for yourself). I propose, and Congress passes, a tax cut. Amounts over $50,000 are now going to be taxed at only 10%.

Now how do you respond to your boss? More favorably?

This is tax cuts and the economy, but multiply that simplistic example by millions of persons and trillions of dollars.

In the first example, you will actually pay NONE of those taxes, because you are not doing it. By the way, your employer will be worse off, the public will be worse of, less wealthy, because of the goods and services you did not produce.

In the second example, you are better off financially, your employer is better off, and the public is wealthier because of the goods and services you produce that they value (or else they would not be paying for them). Again, multiply this over millions of Americans and trillions of dollars and all sorts of economic decisions being made. Perhaps your employer is going to need to hire more employees and buy additional infrastructure and equipment to produce the new demand . . . everybody benefits.

And the tax revenues go UP, not down, because production is up, wealth and income are up, and it is income that is being taxed.

 

[malfeasance]

Now let us examine the actual impact of the tax cuts, which went into effect in 2018.

Federal revenue

2017 $3.32 trillion
2018 $3.33 trillion
2019 $3.46 trillion

As you can see, no dip in revenue occurred. The reason is that income went up across the board. Unemployment hit record lows, household income was up, corporate income was up, so tax revenue increased, not decreased.

Please carefully consider what has been set forth here and re-examine your premises. You may find you have to change some of your conclusions as a result. This is a difficult thing for most men to do, but I expect good things from you. Even if you don't change your mind, the introspection and consideration of how this information impacts the assumptions on which you base your conclusions is worthwhile in and of itself.

 

[malfeasance]

By the way, 2020 was projected to be $3.71 trillion, as the tax cuts have had a couple years to have a real effect. We'll see how the corona virus, the recession, and the recovery, affect that projected number.

 

[Dresden]

Or you could allow very small increases and still balance the budget a few years further down the road.

Keep the freeze or tiny increases in place, and suddenly there is a surplus. That surplus could go toward the debt each year.

This i agree with

 

[Dresden]

Now let us examine the actual impact of the tax cuts, which went into effect in 2018.

Federal revenue

2017 $3.32 trillion
2018 $3.33 trillion
2019 $3.46 trillion

As you can see, no dip in revenue occurred. The reason is that income went up across the board. Unemployment hit record lows, household income was up, corporate income was up, so tax revenue increased, not decreased.

Please carefully consider what has been set forth here and re-examine your premises. You may find you have to change some of your conclusions as a result. This is a difficult thing for most men to do, but I expect good things from you. Even if you don't change your mind, the introspection and consideration of how this information impacts the assumptions on which you base your conclusions is worthwhile in and of itself.

Good point and i get what you're saying/writing, But From a purely economic standpoint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been a mixed bag.

Let's start with jobs. Has the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created millions of new jobs, ? Nope. In the four years before the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month, that's not something i'm pulling out my ass, that's data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the nearly two years after it passed, job creation declined by an average of 11,000 per month.
The White House promised that the tax cuts would result in an https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Tax%20Reform%20and%20Wages.pdfage increase annually of $4,000 per household. not even close. Again, In the two years since the law passed, wage growth, after accounting for inflation, rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year for nonsupervisory workers . That amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker.
We also have been told, that tax cuts for the rich are good for the overall economy. In the four years before the law passed, real GDP grew by an annual average rate of about 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the nearly two years since, the GDP growth rate has inched only slightly higher to an annual average of 2.5%.
The claim that a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations would trickle down to everyone else was based on an outdated and discredited set of ideas for how the economy works. In that old framework, the way to produce a better economy is to get out of the way of job creators and let the free market do the rest. A tax cut for corporations, then, should have reduced the cost of capital and induced them to invest more, which ultimately is supposed to create jobs and push up wages.
But even that first step never happened. In the last two years, the growth rate of private direct investment has declined. In the four years before the law passed, private direct investment grew by about 3.3% annually, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. In the two years after the law was enacted, that rate went down to 2.5%.

The idea that tax cuts aimed at corporations and the rich would help all of us is flawed. Because that's not how the economy works in real life. Corporations don't make investment decisions based on tax giveaways.

 

[Big_Daddy]

Taxation is theft!!!

 

[Oldschool]

Good point and i get what you're saying/writing, But From a purely economic standpoint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been a mixed bag.

Let's start with jobs. Has the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created millions of new jobs, ? Nope. In the four years before the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month, that's not something i'm pulling out my ass, that's data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the nearly two years after it passed, job creation declined by an average of 11,000 per month.
The White House promised that the tax cuts would result in an https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Tax%20Reform%20and%20Wages.pdfage increase annually of $4,000 per household. not even close. Again, In the two years since the law passed, wage growth, after accounting for inflation, rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year for nonsupervisory workers . That amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker.
We also have been told, that tax cuts for the rich are good for the overall economy. In the four years before the law passed, real GDP grew by an annual average rate of about 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the nearly two years since, the GDP growth rate has inched only slightly higher to an annual average of 2.5%.
The claim that a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations would trickle down to everyone else was based on an outdated and discredited set of ideas for how the economy works. In that old framework, the way to produce a better economy is to get out of the way of job creators and let the free market do the rest. A tax cut for corporations, then, should have reduced the cost of capital and induced them to invest more, which ultimately is supposed to create jobs and push up wages.
But even that first step never happened. In the last two years, the growth rate of private direct investment has declined. In the four years before the law passed, private direct investment grew by about 3.3% annually, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. In the two years after the law was enacted, that rate went down to 2.5%.

The idea that tax cuts aimed at corporations and the rich would help all of us is flawed. Because that's not how the economy works in real life. Corporations don't make investment decisions based on tax giveaways.

Not our fault you are a lowly corrections officer. Lol. They don’t make shit. Why don’t you learn a new trade and better yourself? Instead of blaming the white man?

 

[ergomaniac]

 

[ergomaniac]

 

[Oldschool]

@Big_paul

Can you watch this and give me your summary please? Lol

This is MESO. What do you have to say about that video @Millard Baker
Going to post another bubble pic? @Senorman any comments?
Lol.

 

[4Figgy]

FACTS!!!

 

[Francois]

You want tax cuts across the board because it's the only way you will bankrupt the state.

The state needs money to incarcerate you.

It needs money to create endless legislation.

It needs endless money to put as many police on the street as possible, as many courts, judges, prosecutors, to build endless numbers of jails and prisons.

Fuck the state, fuck everyone that works for the state.

The only thing you need to fund is the military, but that needs to be highly scrutinized to make it as efficient as possible. The military industrial complex is just like the prison pipeline, it's a jobs program and a voting base.

Don't worry about who's not paying taxes, you're job is to pay no taxes yourself. Don't be a sucker, use your head and get paid under the table, do everything you can to make yourself invisible to the state.

As for the debate, it was worthless, it's a women with an identity chip on her shoulder that was born to two parents that were accomplished academics....boohoo.

And a man that is a dominionist tool that wants a theocracy and like trump thinks everyone should be happy with a police state as long as they have a job and plenty of overtime.

FUCK BOTH OF THESE IDIOTS.

This has been a message from your favorite anarchist troll, carry on.

 

[Oldschool]

You want tax cuts across the board because it's the only way you will bankrupt the state.

The state needs money to incarcerate you.

It needs money to create endless legislation.

It needs endless money to put as many police on the street as possible, as many courts, judges, prosecutors, to build endless numbers of jails and prisons.

Fuck the state, fuck everyone that works for the state.

The only thing you need to fund is the military, but that needs to be highly scrutinized to make it as efficient as possible. The military industrial complex is just like the prison pipeline, it's a jobs program and a voting base.

Don't worry about who's not paying taxes, you're job is to pay no taxes yourself. Don't be a sucker, use your head and get paid under the table, do everything you can to make yourself invisible to the state.

As for the debate, it was worthless, it's a women with an identity chip on her shoulder that was born to two parents that were accomplished academics....boohoo.

And a man that is a dominionist tool that wants a theocracy and like trump thinks everyone should be happy with a police state as long as they have a job and plenty of overtime.

FUCK BOTH OF THESE IDIOTS.

This has been a message from your favorite anarchist troll, carry on.

Wassup Sworder?

 

[Francois]

Wassup Sworder?

I'm doing well sir.