ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Lolwat the so called "Muslim ban" was completely constitutional (trump v Hawaii).
They didn't "try", they enacted a perfectly constitutional provisions you disagreed with.
Your reference to that can get added to the list it demonization of policies you disagree with while being perfectly allowed and so democratic
I don't think you know what democratic means.
What evidence do you have of that?
The democrats are clearly the party limiting democracy by trying to remove Trump from the ballot
Are they?
Colorado GOP participates in landmark lawsuit that seeks to block Trump from ballot
https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/09/19/...
"The Colorado GOP in the case wants to protect its authority to select the Republican candidates who appear on the ballot."
"The plaintiffs include former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who now lives in Colorado; former Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, an unaffiliated voter who recently left the Republican party; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian."
Which democrats were trying to remove Trump from the ballot in that Colorado case everyone is talking about? Sure looks like Republicans with the backing of Colorado GOP to me.
What evidence do you have of that?
Are they?
Colorado GOP participates in landmark lawsuit that seeks to block Trump from ballot
https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/09/19/...
"The Colorado GOP in the case wants to protect its authority to select the Republican candidates who appear on the ballot."
"The plaintiffs include former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who
It was a democrat appointed Supreme Court and other democrat states as well . In Colorado it may have been some GOP but it was the court that ruled on it
It was a democrat appointed Supreme Court and other democrat states as well . In Colorado it may have been some GOP but it was the court that ruled on it
The Colorado supreme Court was not exclusively Democrat. And they were voted on by the people to retain their positions.
So then it was some of both? Then why did you say it was Democrats doing it?
And you forgot to answer my question about what evidence you have that I don't what the word democratic means.
It was a democrat appointed Supreme Court and other democrat states as well . In Colorado it may have been some GOP but it was the court that ruled on it
I get what you mean and I insisted on the same (but in a more nuanced way) in the past but please consider Colorado move would have had no impact on the election even if trump name was off ballot.
Biden won Colorado by 13 points in 2020 and Colorado moved blue a tad since then (old people dying, new slightly democrat leaning domestic immigrants coming in).
There is no election where Colorado makes a difference.
Either Biden autowins there, or if Colorado is in play Trump wins like 40 states or something so he wins without Colorado anyway.
That's the unfortunate consequence of american electoral laws, you could remove the unfavourite name for POTUS from 40+ states ballots and in 99% of cases it wouldn't make any difference at all.
The important part of the Colorado trial is that Trump was found to have committed insurrection by the court and no other court has materially disagreed with that finding. That's a trial complete with Trump's defense team arguing against it and everything.
Trump just nicknamed himself Honest Don lololol
At least we know it will never backfire in his face and be hilarious.
.
Baham , what final result trickle down economic should result to, in your opinion, to say it’s successful ?
Do wages for median income and the poor has any weight in your expectation?
About wealth accumulations ?
About government debt level ?
Is it solely about gdp going up regardless of everything else ?
Or Is there any good “intentions” behind the trickle down economics you think should result into ?
to me trickle down economic doesn’t just m
Where did baham go , never answered my question ?
Saying wages haven't kept up with inflation over a 40 year period isn't proof that trickle down doesn't work. You need to prove that over the last 40 years we were using trickle down and show what wages (and other economic indicators) would have done without trickle down.
No I don’t need too .
I just look at what actual data said what happened .
It’s impossible to know what would happened without trickle down beside checking when other policies were followed and many data point suggest the promises of trickle down economic never worked ….
You are welcome to show the numbers ….
Saying CEO salaries grew way faster than other employee salaries over a 40 year period isn't proof that trickle down doesn't work. You need to prove that over the last 40 years we were using trickle down and show what CEO salaries grew way faster than other employee salaries (and other economic indicators) would have done without trickle down.
Sorry to beat the same drum again, but you made the same mistake montreal did.
Put in another way, d
For completeness from your own link :
Excessively high tax rates on high-income earners in the 1950s and 60s were followed by tax cuts that helped lift the economy in the late 20th century. That necessary shift provides compelling evidence that lower tax rates—even on the rich—are better for everyone.
And that wasn’t the first time tax cuts proved to be a major success. In the 1920s, tax rates were cut from 71% to 24%, and the economy grew by a massive 59%. In the early 1930s, top rates were raised back to 63%, which only made the Great Depression harder to climb out of.
President John F. Kennedy lowered the top tax rate in the 1960s, and President Ronald Reagan lowered it again in the 1980s. Both of those tax cuts were followed by two of the longest economic expansions in our history.
This is where the problems arise in your logic baham .
Again you need to learn what the law of diminishing return means in economics.
Too much tax is bad , too much debt is bad but it doesn’t mean every cut by 10% means the same result for the economy….
Lowering interest rates from 20 to 15% for example do not produce the same results for lowering interest rates from 5% to 0% right ?
Obviously at 0% interest rates u can borrow infinite amount of money but not at 15% right ?
Btw you know why it worked under Reagan ?
Because he made a tremendous amount of debt that pump the economy .
Not because he lower taxes -> laffer curve
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-...
Dr. Laffer admits that "The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues."1 Instead, it shows that if taxes are already low, then further cuts reduce revenues without boosting growth. Politicians who claim tax cuts always raise revenues in the long-term misinterpret the Laffer Curve.
Here another points , lower taxes works in specific too high taxes like where the article you post said it did work because yes , tax were very high in those times but it doesn’t mean it always work !
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-...
During the Reagan administration, it seemed like trickle-down economics worked. The administration's policies, known as Reaganomics, helped end the 1980 recession.45
Reagan cut taxes significantly. The top tax rate fell from 70% for those earning $108,000 or more to 28% for anyone with an income of $18,500 or more. Reagan also cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40%.6
Trickle-down economics was not the only reason for the recovery, though. Reagan also increased government spending by 2.5% a year. He almost tripled the federal debt from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989.7 Most of the spending went to defense. It supported Reagan's efforts to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union.8
President George W. Bush used trickle-down policies to address the 2001 recession. He cut income taxes with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. That ended the recession by November of that year.9
But unemployment rose to 6%.10 That often occurs because unemployment is a lagging indicator. It takes time for companies to start hiring again, even after a recession has ended. As a result, Bush cut business taxes with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act in 2003.11
It appeared that the tax cuts worked. But, at the same time, the Federal Reserve lowered the fed funds rate from 6% to 1%.12 In this situation, it's unclear whether tax cuts or monetary policy caused the recovery.
Trickle-down economics says that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts should have helped people at all income levels. Instead, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80%. The top 1% saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.13
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also rejects the trickle-down theory. In its report authored by five economists, it argues that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20% results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. The IMF fight against income inequality revolves around the fact that expenditures of middle- to-low-income sectors are the drivers of the economy. Even a mere 1% increase in wealth for 20% of low-income earners yields a 0.38% growth in gross domestic product (GDP). On the other hand, increasing the income of the top 20% of high-income earners results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP.19
The Bottom Line
The trickle-down theory postulates that the benefits from tax cuts, capital gains, dividends, and even looser regulations on corporations and wealthy individuals would eventually flow down to benefit middle- and low-income earners. The extra wealth accruing from the deductions would drive the wealthy to invest in or expand businesses, boosting economic growth.
The Laffer Curve supports its effect but only up to the point where the tax rates are at a prohibitive range. Out of this range, trickle-down theory is deemed infeasible.
Trickle-down economics generally does not work because:
Cutting taxes for the wealthy often does not translate to increased rates of employment, consumer spending, and government revenues in the long term.
Instead, cutting taxes for middle- and lower-income earners will drive the economy through the trickle-up phenomenon.
The added income for the wealthy, resulting from tax cuts, will simply increase the growing income inequality in the United States.
montreal, instead of writing an incredible long novel like you often do you need to think about what you want to say and work on saying it in less than 1/2 the words. Also, don't ask other posters to answer 10 questions when you post - try to select the 3 or 4 you think are most important.
I think your main point is that there is a point where raising or lowering taxes on the rich has diminishing returns. I agree with this. Your other point that there are points on the laffer curve where tax rate cuts produce less tax revenue - I also agree with this. However, I don't think the goal should ever be to maximize tax revenues and we really don't know where we are on the laffer curve and won't for decades after each tax cut/increase since tax rates have a very long-term effect on economic growth.
I think your secondary point is that we can't compare what would happen during a certain time frame if we did or didn't cut taxes. Which is at least partially true.
Your third point seems to be that income inequality worsened because of tax cuts. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but I don't care because income inequality has never and will never be a problem in a country as free as the US is today. You aren't somehow worse off because your neighbor busts her butt creating a product that makes peoples' lives better and became a billionaire - if anything you are better off because her product may make your life better.
Well the Judge in the Georgia case tossed 3 of the minor charges against him now we wait if our favorite DA Fanni gets tossed.
My guess is she gets tossed and may face sanctions from the bar and reality is she should be charged with her boy toy for Perjury
He's not a Trump supporter though. Not at all.
3 down, 38 more to beat for Trumper and his cronies.
I am confused. Willis perjury was to win a case?
lolololozen as usual. He's just parroting what he heard on fox news.
