Did you read the quote I listed above? The only way that can't be cognitive decline is if the guy was barely literate to start with. It's baffling to me how you can listen to the absolute gibberish that comes out of Trump's mouth and seriously convince yourself that he's got all his faculties? Are you really being honest with yourself here?
Biden to end most tax cuts if he wins. This will be intriguing.
- Thread starter S2007S
- Start date
Yes I am being honest with myself. What you deem as gibberish is likely the same gibberish you witnessed prior to 2016 election. Trump's message and presentation is the same whether you like it or not. My opinion is not about Biden's views at all but about how Biden presents. I personally believe there is a 50% chance he won't be on the ballot in November. I actually view Biden's weakness as a risk for Trump as a replacement candidate may rock the boat and no I don't think it would be Bernie.
And yes I do agree with you that Trump does not do great speeches. He is no Bill Clinton or Barack at the Podium. Is he a narcassist? Maybe. I don't know. It doesn't matter if he saves our country. My comments are about the unknown and in this case it is who might replace Biden as a candidate or as President if he is elected.
Last edited:
https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...cut-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-for-itself/
The right question: What would revenues have been without the TCJA?
The most appropriate test of the revenue impact of the TCJA is to compare actual revenues in FY2018 with predicted revenues in FY2018 assuming Congress had not passed the legislation. In fact, the actual amount of revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projection of FY2018 revenue made in January 2017—before the tax cuts were signed into law in December 2017. The shortfall was $275 billion, or 7.6% of revenues that were expected before the tax cuts took place. Given that the economy grew, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the TCJA substantially reduced revenues.
Given that the economy grew in 2018, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the 2017 tax cut substantially reduced revenues.
The right question: What would revenues have been without the TCJA?
The most appropriate test of the revenue impact of the TCJA is to compare actual revenues in FY2018 with predicted revenues in FY2018 assuming Congress had not passed the legislation. In fact, the actual amount of revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projection of FY2018 revenue made in January 2017—before the tax cuts were signed into law in December 2017. The shortfall was $275 billion, or 7.6% of revenues that were expected before the tax cuts took place. Given that the economy grew, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the TCJA substantially reduced revenues.
Given that the economy grew in 2018, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the 2017 tax cut substantially reduced revenues.
It is an impossibility for the revenue of FY 2020 to be greater than FY 2019.
If it happens, I'll eat your hat.
2017 tax cuts will add two trillion to national debt.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/revisions-revenue-projections-suggest-tcja-cost-more-expected
In the meantime, the government now estimates it will lose $600 billion more in tax revenues than it initially thought, bringing the cut’s total cost to $1.6 trillion. Boosting the deficit while the economy is growing and at a late stage in its cycle is irresponsible, Page argues. “Usually at the peak of the economic cycle, that should be when deficits are at their lowest,” he said. “The economy is not going to grow forever, and at that point deficits will boom…stimulus policy will be needed. That’s one of the worries about running those deficits when times are relatively good.”
In the meantime, the government now estimates it will lose $600 billion more in tax revenues than it initially thought, bringing the cut’s total cost to $1.6 trillion. Boosting the deficit while the economy is growing and at a late stage in its cycle is irresponsible, Page argues. “Usually at the peak of the economic cycle, that should be when deficits are at their lowest,” he said. “The economy is not going to grow forever, and at that point deficits will boom…stimulus policy will be needed. That’s one of the worries about running those deficits when times are relatively good.”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45736.html
The 2017 tax law likely has had little effect on economic growth, investment, and wages in 2018, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) says in a new report.
The 2017 tax law likely has had little effect on economic growth, investment, and wages in 2018, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) says in a new report.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...s-work-as-promised-no-signs-yet/#10860f5d6998
And who lost? Future generations, who eventually must repay the staggering US debt. The TCJA [URL='https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/53651-outlook-2.pdf']will add almost $2 trillion to nation’s nearly $18 trillion public debt over 10 years, of which about $1.4 trillion was attributable to corporate income tax rate cuts. [/URL]
And who lost? Future generations, who eventually must repay the staggering US debt. The TCJA [URL='https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/53651-outlook-2.pdf']will add almost $2 trillion to nation’s nearly $18 trillion public debt over 10 years, of which about $1.4 trillion was attributable to corporate income tax rate cuts. [/URL]