My impression of his plan is, 1. cut taxes, 2. improve medicare and ss by somehow making them cost less, and 3. balance the budget. Obviously the steps between 2 and 3 are a problem and that's his biggest issue, he won't tell us his plan. I agree with that 1,000% and that's what I tell my republican ideologue friends. What I am looking for is one instance of any republican leader saying we can balance the budget just by lowering taxes. That was what NC said every republican argued when in fact no one has said that.
"To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. " This makes no sense whatsoever. Slash more tax income and somehow there will be enough income to run the government. That's not a plan, it's a prayer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/ Here is an article that kills two birds with one stone: it contains a prominent Republican admitting that he subscribes to the notion that lowering taxes actually increases revenue and that tax increases have the opposite effect. It also contains some very common sense information about what really works. The Laffer curve is a pertinent theory because there is too little taxation and too much taxation. The key is for us to find a balance. No one likes paying taxes or wants to pay taxes but if they are truly for the betterment of society then I am all for it. If we were talking about an amazing amount of increase it would be another thing but if we raised the top marginal rate from 35% to 40% and raised the capital gains tax from 15% to 25%, raised other tax brackets accordingly we could gain control of our budget deficit and be working toward debt reduction in a serious way. this of course would have to be in conjunction with decreased spending for defense and entitlements to create a balanced package. in fact, spending cuts will probably make up about 65%-70% of any comprehensive debt reduction package.
How the fuck do you suppose we do this when "intellectual liberals" like yourself sign on to this notion of the type of shit you started this thread about? I mean fucking really dude? How high have you put Obama's pussy? You literally started a thread about a none existing republican budget, numbers you made up, and labeled a budget plan, THAT DOESN'T EXIST, to have holes.. Seriously, you talk about hypocrites. Pull Obama's nuttsack out of your throat and breath for a minute.
It doesn't make a fuck if you are generous or not. All the numbers are Fake and are not apart of ANY republican plan. Bottom line, you are starting a thread about some bullshit you made up and provided some home made numbers to back your own stupid fucking point. It is proven by the fact that you cannot site one budget you got your shit numbers from. Nor can you provide ANY information on the full budget. Also, as I have pointed out along with others, the republicans plan WOULD NOT only include tax cuts.
First, the graph above adjusts for GDP. I'd be interested to see how the graph looks unadjusted. Furthermore, what the graph shows is inconclusive, or at the very least the trend is not obvious. Revenues hover around 18% seemingly regardless of tax policies. Looking at Bush's tax cuts, there was a precipitous decline in revenues before the 2001 tax cut took effect, and after which there was an immediate decline in revenues followed by a recovery to about half of Clinton's peak revenue. Secondly, my question wasn't as much challenging the "tax cuts increase/don't increase revenue" claim, but rather to ask how you acquired the notion that republicans claimed full employment would solve the deficit problem. Last, spending reduction should make up 100% of the debt reduction package. There should be zero tax increases. Not a dime. I wouldn't trust this government, regardless of the party in power, to spend the spare change in my piggie bank at home. When the government shows that it spends with at least one eye on its revenue stream, then we can talk about tax increases.
I made up nothing. Notice that you are the only one who is contesting my numbers. I am sorry that the math doesn't work for your side of the argument but facts are facts. I am simply pointing them out. If my numbers are bull shit then why haven't you provided any evidence to the contrary?
