What can be done about Conservative talk show lying?

[CID1990]

Record tax revenues

While the deficit soars

It’s like Clitz says (when he isn’t contradicting himself)

We don’t have a revenue problem

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... 0b-deficit

[Ivytalk]

Record tax revenues

While the deficit soars

It’s like Clitz says (when he isn’t contradicting himself)

We don’t have a revenue problem

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... 0b-deficit

Chizzy is dead right about spending being the real problem, but I’m still waiting for his solution to the entitlement issue. I guess I’ll be collecting entitlements before he posts one.

[JohnStOnge]

Record tax revenues

While the deficit soars

It’s like Clitz says (when he isn’t contradicting himself)

We don’t have a revenue problem

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... 0b-deficit

Take it as you will but CNS News is rated as a "Questionable Source" by the site I use in order to get some kind of assessment of such things.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

[CID1990]

Record tax revenues

While the deficit soars

It’s like Clitz says (when he isn’t contradicting himself)

We don’t have a revenue problem

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... 0b-deficit

Take it as you will but CNS News is rated as a "Questionable Source" by the site I use in order to get some kind of assessment of such things.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

Are the numbers incorrect?

Glad you are here to do my heavy lifting, JSO

I'll wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Take it as you will but CNS News is rated as a "Questionable Source" by the site I use in order to get some kind of assessment of such things.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

Are the numbers incorrect?

Glad you are here to do my heavy lifting, JSO

I'll wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll be looking into it but I suspect that it's the same sort of thing that was done with the Reagan tax cuts. There is always going to be a trend towards greater tax revenue over time. There is this thing where people said Reagan cut taxes and revenues increased. And they did. But the question is whether or not what he did increased or decreased the RATE of increase. And the rate of revenue increase, in both raw and inflation adjusted terms, decreased. If you just look at what revenues would've been if they'd have continued to increase at the same rate as they did during Carter they'd have been higher than they were.

And that's the question in this case. It's not a question of whether or not revenues continued to increase. It's whether or not the RATE of increase is greater than the rate which would have been reasonably expected before the change was made.

Don't get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. But I don't favor them because I think they are going to create a better revenue situation.

[Chizzang]

Record tax revenues

While the deficit soars

It’s like Clitz says (when he isn’t contradicting himself)

We don’t have a revenue problem

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... 0b-deficit

Chizzy is dead right about spending being the real problem, but I’m still waiting for his solution to the entitlement issue. I guess I’ll be collecting entitlements before he posts one.

I don't know what the answer is - but I know the problem is NOT revenue

and
We're below the middle of the pack as far as Entitlement Spending when it comes to Industrialized nations
What question would you like me to answer..?

[JohnStOnge]

Take it as you will but CNS News is rated as a "Questionable Source" by the site I use in order to get some kind of assessment of such things.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

Are the numbers incorrect?

Glad you are here to do my heavy lifting, JSO

I'll wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok I went ahead and found something from what the site I use rates as a credible source:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 657338002/

The quote I think relates to what I wrote in my last post (with underline added for emphasis):

The right comparison is the total tax revenue the government would have collected under the old tax law versus the new one.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated fiscal 2018 revenue would be $3.5 trillion under the laws that were in place before President Donald Trump signed the GOP tax cut bill. The actual amount Treasury reported Monday was $202 billion less. That $202 billion would have more than covered the $127 billion in extra spending in 2018.

And that relates to the trick conservatives use all the time in situations like this. They talk about revenues increasing as though that means a tax cut caused a better revenue situation. What they leave out is that the RATE of revenue increase was less than it would've been if there hadn't been a tax cut.

Since I mentioned it here's the rating of USA today:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/

[CID1990]

Are the numbers incorrect?

Glad you are here to do my heavy lifting, JSO

I'll wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok I went ahead and found something from what the site I use rates as a credible source:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 657338002/

The quote I think relates to what I wrote in my last post (with underline added for emphasis):

The right comparison is the total tax revenue the government would have collected under the old tax law versus the new one.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated fiscal 2018 revenue would be $3.5 trillion under the laws that were in place before President Donald Trump signed the GOP tax cut bill. The actual amount Treasury reported Monday was $202 billion less. That $202 billion would have more than covered the $127 billion in extra spending in 2018.

And that relates to the trick conservatives use all the time in situations like this. They talk about revenues increasing as though that means a tax cut caused a better revenue situation. What they leave out is that the RATE of revenue increase was less than it would've been if there hadn't been a tax cut.

Since I mentioned it here's the rating of USA today:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/

I think we're going to need more than that, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Are the numbers incorrect?

Glad you are here to do my heavy lifting, JSO

I'll wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll be looking into it but I suspect that it's the same sort of thing that was done with the Reagan tax cuts. There is always going to be a trend towards greater tax revenue over time. There is this thing where people said Reagan cut taxes and revenues increased. And they did. But the question is whether or not what he did increased or decreased the RATE of increase. And the rate of revenue increase, in both raw and inflation adjusted terms, decreased. If you just look at what revenues would've been if they'd have continued to increase at the same rate as they did during Carter they'd have been higher than they were.

And that's the question in this case. It's not a question of whether or not revenues continued to increase. It's whether or not the RATE of increase is greater than the rate which would have been reasonably expected before the change was made.

Don't get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. But I don't favor them because I think they are going to create a better revenue situation.

So you admit it: you ARE a fan of tax increases. Just face the facts: you are a Donk and no Libertarian.

Fraud.

[Ivytalk]

Chizzy is dead right about spending being the real problem, but I’m still waiting for his solution to the entitlement issue. I guess I’ll be collecting entitlements before he posts one.

I don't know what the answer is - but I know the problem is NOT revenue

and
We're below the middle of the pack as far as Entitlement Spending when it comes to Industrialized nations
What question would you like me to answer..?

For starters, do you believe in means-testing for Social Security?

[JohnStOnge]

I'll be looking into it but I suspect that it's the same sort of thing that was done with the Reagan tax cuts. There is always going to be a trend towards greater tax revenue over time. There is this thing where people said Reagan cut taxes and revenues increased. And they did. But the question is whether or not what he did increased or decreased the RATE of increase. And the rate of revenue increase, in both raw and inflation adjusted terms, decreased. If you just look at what revenues would've been if they'd have continued to increase at the same rate as they did during Carter they'd have been higher than they were.

And that's the question in this case. It's not a question of whether or not revenues continued to increase. It's whether or not the RATE of increase is greater than the rate which would have been reasonably expected before the change was made.

Don't get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. But I don't favor them because I think they are going to create a better revenue situation.

So you admit it: you ARE a fan of tax increases. Just face the facts: you are a Donk and no Libertarian.

Fraud.

Typo. I meant to type I am a fan of tax decreases. But I don't favor them because I think....

I voted for Ronald Reagan. But I did not perceive him as making the case for tax decreases based on the idea that they would increase federal revenues over what they otherwise would have been. I perceived him as saying that government needed its allowance cut.

phpBB [video]

[Chizzang]

I don't know what the answer is - but I know the problem is NOT revenue

and
We're below the middle of the pack as far as Entitlement Spending when it comes to Industrialized nations
What question would you like me to answer..?

For starters, do you believe in means-testing for Social Security?

Nope,
everybody that paid in gets their calculated return monthly

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I went ahead and found something from what the site I use rates as a credible source:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 657338002/

The quote I think relates to what I wrote in my last post (with underline added for emphasis):



And that relates to the trick conservatives use all the time in situations like this. They talk about revenues increasing as though that means a tax cut caused a better revenue situation. What they leave out is that the RATE of revenue increase was less than it would've been if there hadn't been a tax cut.

Since I mentioned it here's the rating of USA today:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/

I think we're going to need more than that, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately we can't really assess it until a few years transpire. I can tell you that the Reagan tax cuts were followed by a decrease in the rate of revenue increase because there were a number of years involved. I can calculate the slope of increase under Carter and apply that slope to the Reagan years and say that if the slope of increase under Carter had been maintained the increase in revenues would have been greater. But we can't do that now for the most recent Republican tax cuts. What we CAN do is say that the CBO says we have less revenue now than we would have had if the Republican tax cuts hadn't been enacted.

The big thing is this: A statement that ANYTHING having to do with Federal revenues or expenditures is the HIGHEST EVER is virtually meaningless without context because both things are constantly increasing over time.

[Ivytalk]

For starters, do you believe in means-testing for Social Security?

Nope,
everybody that paid in gets their calculated return monthly

Fine. Do you then have any plan to ensure the solvency of Soc Sec and Medicare that does NOT involve a massive tax hike? I’m trying to probe whether you really care about runaway federal spending as much as you say you do, and these programs are YUGE. And don’t tell me how awesome life in Sweden and Finland is.

[CID1990]

I think we're going to need more than that, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately we can't really assess it until a few years transpire. I can tell you that the Reagan tax cuts were followed by a decrease in the rate of revenue increase because there were a number of years involved. I can calculate the slope of increase under Carter and apply that slope to the Reagan years and say that if the slope of increase under Carter had been maintained the increase in revenues would have been greater. But we can't do that now for the most recent Republican tax cuts. What we CAN do is say that the CBO says we have less revenue now than we would have had if the Republican tax cuts hadn't been enacted.

The big thing is this: A statement that ANYTHING having to do with Federal revenues or expenditures is the HIGHEST EVER is virtually meaningless without context because both things are constantly increasing over time.

That's what I thought, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Wait a second...are you telling me reaganomics was a sham?



"We don't have a revenue problem" is a nice bit of reductionism (which I usually like because I'm not all that bright). It's like Nike's "Just Do It". Makes you feel all strong and secure inside.

Also just as meaningless.

"Let's go to war!"

"How are we going to to pay for it?"

"We don't have a revenue problem."

[AZGrizFan]

For starters, do you believe in means-testing for Social Security?

Nope,
everybody that paid in gets their calculated return monthly

[AZGrizFan]

I think we're going to need more than that, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately we can't really assess it until a few years transpire. I can tell you that the Reagan tax cuts were followed by a decrease in the rate of revenue increase because there were a number of years involved. I can calculate the slope of increase under Carter and apply that slope to the Reagan years and say that if the slope of increase under Carter had been maintained the increase in revenues would have been greater. But we can't do that now for the most recent Republican tax cuts. What we CAN do is say that the CBO says we have less revenue now than we would have had if the Republican tax cuts hadn't been enacted.

The big thing is this: A statement that ANYTHING having to do with Federal revenues or expenditures is the HIGHEST EVER is virtually meaningless without context because both things are constantly increasing over time.

And the fact that we, as Americans, just blindly accept that expenditures MUST increase constantly over time is a large part of the problem.

[Chizzang]

Nope,
everybody that paid in gets their calculated return monthly

Fine. Do you then have any plan to ensure the solvency of Soc Sec and Medicare that does NOT involve a massive tax hike? I’m trying to probe whether you really care about runaway federal spending as much as you say you do, and these programs are YUGE. And don’t tell me how awesome life in Sweden and Finland is.

Like I said:
I don't know what the answer is
but the problem isn't revenue

I think a military budget of $650 billion is a bit outrageous
considering that Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell contribute nothing to it
They should each be billed $100 Billion a year towards military spending

[Ivytalk]

Fine. Do you then have any plan to ensure the solvency of Soc Sec and Medicare that does NOT involve a massive tax hike? I’m trying to probe whether you really care about runaway federal spending as much as you say you do, and these programs are YUGE. And don’t tell me how awesome life in Sweden and Finland is.

Like I said:
I don't know what the answer is
but the problem isn't revenue

I think a military budget of $650 billion is a bit outrageous
considering that Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell contribute nothing to it
They should each be billed $100 Billion a year towards military spending

Some WaPo reporter wrote a column a few months back about what the US could do with the “savings” if it reduced its military budget from 3.5% of GDP to the NATO benchmark of 2%. Spend it all on other cool stuff. Not a penny for saving entitlements.

[JohnStOnge]

And the fact that we, as Americans, just blindly accept that expenditures MUST increase constantly over time is a large part of the problem.

I think that no matter what we accept in terms of fiscal policy, yes, we must accept the idea of constantly increasing expenditures as long as the country continues to grow. Even if we reduce spending per capita up front to some lower level, there will need to be an increase in overall spending from that point because the "capita" will increase.

[JohnStOnge]

Wait a second...are you telling me reaganomics was a sham?

I don't think Reagan's idea that tax cuts would spur the economy was a sham. I think the idea that the tax cuts resulted in a better revenue situation is a sham. I could be wrong and maybe one of you guys can find something to show that Reagan claimed what he wanted to do would result in more revenue. But as of now I don't think he did that. I think he represented himself as wanting to CUT the amount of revenue the Federal government got.

[AZGrizFan]

And the fact that we, as Americans, just blindly accept that expenditures MUST increase constantly over time is a large part of the problem.

I think that no matter what we accept in terms of fiscal policy, yes, we must accept the idea of constantly increasing expenditures as long as the country continues to grow. Even if we reduce spending per capita up front to some lower level, there will need to be an increase in overall spending from that point because the "capita" will increase.

Bullshit. Elect me president and the government would shrink by 20% in about a week.

[css75]

I think that no matter what we accept in terms of fiscal policy, yes, we must accept the idea of constantly increasing expenditures as long as the country continues to grow. Even if we reduce spending per capita up front to some lower level, there will need to be an increase in overall spending from that point because the "capita" will increase.

Bullshit. Elect me president and the government would shrink by 20% in about a week.

Cut every department by that amount and you would be amazed that things still function, possibly more efficiently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Winterborn]

Typo. I meant to type I am a fan of tax decreases. But I don't favor them because I think....

I voted for Ronald Reagan. But I did not perceive him as making the case for tax decreases based on the idea that they would increase federal revenues over what they otherwise would have been. I perceived him as saying that government needed its allowance cut.

Those freudian slip's can be a real bugger.