Michelle Fields slams Van Susteren as 'Trump shill'

[MACVSOG68]

There are thousands of politicians  and  lawyers that I wouldn't want to send to the White House.

Well, you don't want a successful businessman to be the GOP nominee, and since the others are politicians I'm left with no alternative but to assume that's your preference.

So what is your source claiming tax cuts will cut out $10 trillion in "revenues" over 10 years.

The difference then is that I haven't ruled out everyone with political experience, especially governorships.   Nor would I rule out someone with business experience.  But I consider all of the pros and cons.  An especially important one is who can and cannot beat Hillary in November.  Some here don't care; bringing the White House back to a Republican is a plus for me.  Giving it to someone with little to no politically conservative ideology...not so much at this point in the primaries.

I did err in the number.  The Tax Foundation calculated around $12 trillion.  It's a lot to make up in addition to the $19+ trillion.  But he is a CEO...

[MACVSOG68]

 

[A-Lert]

How is your heroine, the serial liar, false accuser and hoaxer, Ms. Fields doing? Seems the thread has been slightly derailed.

[A-Lert]

The difference then is that I haven't ruled out everyone with political experience, especially governorships.   Nor would I rule out someone with business experience.  But I consider all of the pros and cons.  An especially important one is who can and cannot beat Hillary in November.  Some here don't care; bringing the White House back to a Republican is a plus for me.  Giving it to someone with little to no politically conservative ideology...not so much at this point in the primaries.

I did err in the number.  The Tax Foundation calculated around $12 trillion.  It's a lot to make up in addition to the $19+ trillion.  But he is a CEO...

Yes, Trump is a CEO, not a politician. You know, the critters responsible for the open/porous borders, poor trade deals, foreign aid and national debt. Why should any thinking voter presume that another politician is going to attempt to fix the problems?

[MACVSOG68]

How is your heroine, the serial liar, false accuser and hoaxer, Ms. Fields doing? Seems the thread has been slightly derailed.

And yet you're the one always complaining about a lack of civility?   Can you leave the personal crap on your keyboard...please.

[A-Lert]

And yet you're the one always complaining about a lack of civility?   Can you leave the personal crap on your keyboard...please.

Are you and Cipher one and the same? The question wasn't addressed to you.

[MACVSOG68]

Are you and Cipher one and the same? The question wasn't addressed to you.

Third time's a charm.  One more and I'll forget this whole civility thing.  Then at least you'll have something to really complain to management about. 

[R4 TrumPence]

 

Third time's a charm.  One more and I'll forget this whole civility thing.  Then at least you'll have something to really complain to management about.

 

[A-Lert]

Third time's a charm.  One more and I'll forget this whole civility thing.  Then at least you'll have something to really complain to management about.

I asked a simple question? No profanity, no personal attack, no denigration (unless of course being associated with Cipher IYO is), and no vulgarity. Why would I complain to management?

[flowers]

@flowers

[AnybodyButaDem]

Lots of CEOs I wouldn't want to send to the White House.  AS for the debt, Mr. Trump's tax cut plans will cut out $10 trillion of revenues over ten years, with only generalities about how that's going to cut the debt.   And since you've been so concerned about civility and personal shots, please don't tell me about who I want to see elected.  Thank you in advance.

By "revenues," do you mean money confiscated by the government of those working in private business, and
 then redistributed to those on welfare and who work for the government?

"Revenues" is a liberal code word for taxes.  pondering:p

[AnybodyButaDem]

I never thought I'd see the day when numerous alleged "conservative" posters agreed with a post that was against cutting taxes for the middle class.  And the GOPe crowd wonders why their voters are rebellious?  May as well vote for a Democrat if you don't want to cut taxes for the middle-class!!

[MACVSOG68]

By "revenues," do you mean money confiscated by the government of those working in private business, and
 then redistributed to those on welfare and who work for the government?

"Revenues" is a liberal code word for taxes.  pondering:p

Actually I was referring to the debt that already exists, and will apparently continue to increase.  It'll be our great-great grandchildren's problem so what the hell?

As for code words, tax analysis organizations always use the term revenues when looking at tax increases or tax decreases.  In fact I used it along with the term "Trump's tax plan".  I've no idea why anyone would have an issue with a term used almost everywhere, business, government.  The feds and other governments get taxes, fees, royalties, and other funds all amounting to revenues.   Hope that helped. 

[MACVSOG68]

I never thought I'd see the day when numerous alleged "conservative" posters agreed with a post that was against cutting taxes for the middle class.  And the GOPe crowd wonders why their voters are rebellious?  May as well vote for a Democrat if you don't want to cut taxes for the middle-class!!

Some of us tend to also look at the fiscal condition of the federal government.  We would all love tax cuts, even though our effective tax burden is among the lowest in the world.  Since Reagan cut taxes in the late 1980s, the higest marginal rates have gone down from 70% to 39%, and capital gains and corporate rates have been lowered as exclusions and credits have increased.  And yet our debt has gone from $908 billion at the end of FY 80 to a little over $18 trillion at the end of the last FY.  It went from 30% of GDP to over 100% of GDP today. 

Fiscal conservatism isn't just about a middle class tax cut, but rather a view to a fiscally responsible government.  Tax cuts are one consideration, but a balanced budget and a plan to reduce the debt should be just as important.  If tax cuts are under consideration, so also should be a plan to make them at least revenue neutral, and hopefully a plan to eliminate deficits as quickly as possible so the debt can begin to be retired.  Soon enough the interest on that debt may be one of the largest outlays of non-discretionary spending. 

Many of the rebellious voters may not be all that concerned about either deficits or the debt.  I am. 

[AnybodyButaDem]

Actually I was referring to the debt that already exists, and will apparently continue to increase.  It'll be our great-great grandchildren's problem so what the hell?

As for code words, tax analysis organizations always use the term revenues when looking at tax increases or tax decreases.  In fact I used it along with the term "Trump's tax plan".  I've no idea why anyone would have an issue with a term used almost everywhere, business, government.  The feds and other governments get taxes, fees, royalties, and other funds all amounting to revenues.   Hope that helped.

In summary, you are against cutting taxes.  At least that's how your initial post reads.  I happen to think that cutting taxes will increase jobs, which then organically increases the "revenues" because more taxpayers are in the system.

That used to be the conservative belief.  When did this change?

[AnybodyButaDem]

Some of us tend to also look at the fiscal condition of the federal government.  We would all love tax cuts, even though our effective tax burden is among the lowest in the world.  Since Reagan cut taxes in the late 1980s, the higest marginal rates have gone down from 70% to 39%, and capital gains and corporate rates have been lowered as exclusions and credits have increased.  And yet our debt has gone from $908 billion at the end of FY 80 to a little over $18 trillion at the end of the last FY.  It went from 30% of GDP to over 100% of GDP today. 

Fiscal conservatism isn't just about a middle class tax cut, but rather a view to a fiscally responsible government.  Tax cuts are one consideration, but a balanced budget and a plan to reduce the debt should be just as important.  If tax cuts are under consideration, so also should be a plan to make them at least revenue neutral, and hopefully a plan to eliminate deficits as quickly as possible so the debt can begin to be retired.  Soon enough the interest on that debt may be one of the largest outlays of non-discretionary spending. 

Many of the rebellious voters may not be all that concerned about either deficits or the debt.  I am.

Trump wants the richest taxpayers to pay more in taxes to help offset middle class tax cuts, with the hopes that the middle class can recover its purchasing power.  You knew this though, right? 

[MACVSOG68]

In summary, you are against cutting taxes.  At least that's how your initial post reads.  I happen to think that cutting taxes will increase jobs, which then organically increases the "revenues" because more taxpayers are in the system.

That used to be the conservative belief.  When did this change?

When the hopes didn't pan out. 

The Laffer curve leaves a lot of complexity out of it.  And two major tax cuts that were enacted were done so at a time when the Republican presidents were increasing military spending, and starting wars.  Timing is everything, but spending of any kind should not ever again be paid for through borrowing.  Some of our best periods of growth have come with far higher marginal rates than we have today.  Some growth has come with tax increases as well as decreases. The Reagan tax cuts were followed up by a couple of years of slight growth and we went into a recessionary period.  The Clinton tax increases did the same, a few years of growth and then a downturn.  The Bush tax cuts resulted in some anemic growth and then a recession. 

Tax cuts play a role, but the history of tax rates shows it's far from the national gold mine some believe.  I would rather see a fiscally responsible plan all the way around.  Our economy cannot continue to operate forever with the growth of debt that seems almost inevitable.

[MACVSOG68]

Trump wants the richest taxpayers to pay more in taxes to help offset middle class tax cuts, with the hopes that the middle class can recover its purchasing power.  You knew this though, right?

He may well want that, but his actual plan doesn't reflect it.  He cuts all brackets as well as cap gains, corporate rates and other taxes.  That's not to say there won't be a positive economic impact.  There probably would for a period, but as history shows, there's no reason to believe it will balance the budget, unless he can talk Congress into also getting rid of all the exclusions and credits.  Then the average effective rates would be about what they are today.  His economic growth plans are not nearly so well thought out as his tax cut plan.  But to be fair, neither of the other two candidates' plans are much better.  But we are in the primary season.  Tax cut proposals are the demands of the GOP voters while increased domestic spending dominates the demands of the Democrat voters.  So far, neither side has put up a true fiscally conservative plan.  But I'm always hopeful.