Trump calls Warren 'Pocahontas' at event honoring Native American veterans

[Right_in_Virginia]

I will quit calling people Never Trumpers when they stop referring to Trump supporters as Orange Zombies or similar things.

 :thumbsup2:

[240B]

! No longer available


There are some people out there who definitely need to take a pill.
Valium or just drink a glass of wine. Life is good. We don't need to make it hard on ourselves.

[EasyAce]

I'll say it again, Trump is my President too and I reserve the right to ridicule him within the limits provided by Myst and her Mods.

Likewise I reserve the right to ridicule Donaldus Minimus and any member of the political crass---er, class.

[DB]

@DB

Interesting analysis.  Thanks for posting it.  (I’ve been out all day).  So, when personal tax rates went from 70% to 28%, tax receipts went from $600B in 1981 to $1T (round numbers) in 1989 and increase of $400B.  Given that this is a much more modest decrease, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with receipts with this tax decrease (especially the large corporate tax cut).  I remain skeptical.

There is a peak amount the government can siphon off the producers as a whole and historically that tends to be around 20%. Demanding more drives down economic activity lowering their overall take over the long term. Demanding less and they could have gotten more (whether it is justified or not) without substantial consequences. Through modern history governments that demand much more over that nominal 20% start to have their economies stagnating and at higher levels they start to decline long term. There are exceptions, for example oil rich countries that primarily export oil for their revenue. They can get away with more economic sins. But that isn't us.

Something that is misleading is if you increase taxes 10%, you will tend to get an increase in tax revenue by 10%. But only for awhile. It takes time for people to rearrange things to either avoid the new tax, work less or for the consequences of having less spending money to take hold.

Venezuela had lots of new tax money when they first went full blown socialist and had good times - for awhile. It took years for the consequences to come due, and now they starving.

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer @Concerned

[Emjay]

Got news for ya Emjay: you drop the "Never Trumper", and I'll drop the "Orange Brigadier." As I've said on multiple occasions, I didn't vote for him...nor did I vote for Hillary.

Trump's done some good things, such as Gorsuch.

He's done nothing IMO worthy of impeachment. If he wants to run for reelection, it's up to him. I have yet to see anyone on the Trump side interested in expanding the base. It's not just you, it's Salem Radio and their on air talent that says Trump can do no wrong.

Trump has been a democrat most of his life, but no, I'd rather not see a real Democrat in the White House...ever again.

Don't know where you got the impression that I have ever said or thought that Trump could do no wrong.

I don't care if you drop your favorite epithet or not.  It doesn't bother me so why should it bother Never Trumpers when I call them what they are.

[Emjay]

Likewise I reserve the right to ridicule Donaldus Minimus and any member of the political crass---er, class.

Of course, if that's your idea of fun and if it gives you satisfaction but what is the point?

[Right_in_Virginia]

'Bout as cute as he looked throwing a baseball and pedaling around in mom jeans. 

You asked for this @skeeter   

         

[EasyAce]

You asked for this @skeeter   

         

@Right_in_Virginia
Please, there is such a thing as the Eighth Amendment!

[EasyAce]

Of course, if that's your idea of fun and if it gives you satisfaction but what is the point?

I can think of far worse things to do to the political crass (er, class). Of course, they probably
wouldn't be half as horrible as the things the political crass (er, class) have done to us . . .

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia
Please, there is such a thing as the Eighth Amendment!

My apologies @EasyAce   

[RoosGirl]

Of course, if that's your idea of fun and if it gives you satisfaction but what is the point?

What is the point in posting any of your comments?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

@DB

Interesting analysis.  Thanks for posting it.  (I’ve been out all day).  So, when personal tax rates went from 70% to 28%, tax receipts went from $600B in 1981 to $1T (round numbers) in 1989 and increase of $400B.  Given that this is a much more modest decrease, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with receipts with this tax decrease (especially the large corporate tax cut).  I remain skeptical.

@DB @Concerned

I looked at the article, and tried to look at the link to the source data (got a 404).  I wasn't able to determine if these were real (inflation adjusted) or raw numbers.  There was a whole lot of inflation in the early 80's, so if those are not real numbers we may have actually seen a decrease in real tax receipts (I don't believe this, just pointing out that we need to be careful making comparisons).

I'd also point out what most conservatives miss about the Laffer curve.  It DOES NOT imply that tax cuts increase tax revenue.  It does imply that AT CERTAIN TAX LEVELS cuts increase tax revenue (and conversely that at certain tax levels rate increases increase tax revenue).  Therefore, what happened when top rates went from 70 to 28% does not provide any indication of what will happen if top rates go from 39% to something lower.

We also need to keep in mind that rate changes are not the only things that affect(ed) tax revenues.  For example, during the 80's the Boomers were starting to enter their most productive and high paying parts of their careers.  Could this be the real reason tax revenues increased, and would have increased regardless of any changes in tax levels?  We'll never know -- economics is not a science.  [That's just one example, BTW, a couple, perhaps even a few, other things also happened in the 80's]

[Frank Cannon]

What is the point in posting any of your comments?

With every 50th post, she gets a 1/2 off coupon to rotate her tires.

[RoosGirl]

With every 50th post, she gets a 1/2 off coupon to rotate her tires.

I'd pay in full for a tire rotation in perpetuity if she would stfu.  I think that's a damn good offer.

[Frank Cannon]

I'd pay in full for a tire rotation in perpetuity if she would stfu.  I think that's a damn good offer.

You'd think that, but the coupon is just a gimmick to get you in. After they get you on the lift then they always find problems that cost $$$$ to fix.

[skeeter]

You asked for this @skeeter   

         

Gee thanks.

I suppose we all need a reminder.

(some of us more than others!)

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Gee thanks.

I suppose we all need a reminder.

(some of us more than others!)

[roamer_1]

And he needs that now because I think you will admit that he has been more unfairly vilified than any other president

Oh, no... He's very fairly vilified - In the very same way that he shamelessly vilified others. Just desserts.

For that reason alone. I will never defend him on anything at all. He deserves absolutely everything he's getting.

Nuff said.

[corbe]

Don't know where you got the impression that I have ever said or thought that Trump could do no wrong.

I don't care if you drop your favorite epithet or not.  It doesn't bother me so why should it bother Never Trumpers when I call them what they are.

    I know this wasn't directed at me @Emjay but I feel the pleasant urge to pipe in.

   I remember you getting on Trump's azz in the past, only when he deserved it and there's no doubt in my mind you will again, if circumstances warrant (and knowing Trump, they will).
   It doesn't bother me at all to be called a NT'er here, I throw Trumper around a lot, I've been called much worse, even on here, it's the internet.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Simple cause and effect.  What was the CAUSE of the growth during the Reagan years?  Was it definitively an EFFECT of the tax cuts?  I have my doubts about that especially since we didn't see that kind of growth with the Bush tax cuts.

I see your point, but the hill has risen due to the tremendous debt Obama and the Dems piled upon us during the past 8 years.  That debt was not due to too little coming in.  It was caused by too much going out.

[Concerned]

I see your point, but the hill has risen due to the tremendous debt Obama and the Dems piled upon us during the past 8 years.  That debt was not due to too little coming in.  It was caused by too much going out.

There are few who are more hawkish on the debt/deficit than I am.  Whether it's caused by spending too much or not bringing in enough, I think we've got to stop adding to the deficit.  I criticized both Bush and Obama when they spent money we didn’t have just as I am critical of Trump doing it.  His budget continues the deficit spending that so many criticized Obama for, but many of these supposed fiscal conservatives are silent or even supportive when “their guy” does it.  I just don’t get that level of hypocrisy.

I was excited when Trump named Mick Mulvaney to head OMB.  He’s a debt/deficit hawk, but apparently his hands are tied by the desires of the President because I don’t believe he’s personally supportive of the current level of deficit spending and the lack of entitlement reform.

The fact that we have $20T in debt and it’s growing is why I’m so concerned when the CBO projects that this tax reform plan will add $1.4T to the debt/deficit.  If growth were assured, I’d be much more supportive, but it’s not.  There are lots of moving parts to the economy, and we just don’t know that growth will definitely follow.  I am very supportive of the automatic trigger being discussed that would raise taxes if the plan doesn’t generate as much revenue as expected. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There are few who are more hawkish on the debt/deficit than I am.  Whether it's caused by spending too much or not bringing in enough, I think we've got to stop adding to the deficit.  I criticized both Bush and Obama when they spent money we didn’t have just as I am critical of Trump doing it.  His budget continues the deficit spending that so many criticized Obama for, but many of these supposed fiscal conservatives are silent or even supportive when “their guy” does it.  I just don’t get that level of hypocrisy.

I was excited when Trump named Mick Mulvaney to head OMB.  He’s a debt/deficit hawk, but apparently his hands are tied by the desires of the President because I don’t believe he’s personally supportive of the current level of deficit spending and the lack of entitlement reform.

The fact that we have $20T in debt and it’s growing is why I’m so concerned when the CBO projects that this tax reform plan will add $1.4T to the debt/deficit.  If growth were assured, I’d be much more supportive, but it’s not.  There are lots of moving parts to the economy, and we just don’t know that growth will definitely follow.  I am very supportive of the automatic trigger being discussed that would raise taxes if the plan doesn’t generate as much revenue as expected.

I agree with you that increased debt is a huge issue as current politicians are spending the inheritance of our descendants; however, government income has never been higher so somehow believing that we need more income is a false premise.

That is way down the list of importance compared to control of government spending and the inherent printing of money we do not have to increase out debt loads.

BTW, here's some further evidence that even just the promise of tax cuts is causing growth.
U.S. Third-Quarter Growth Revised Up to 3.3%, Three-Year High
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/u-s-third-quarter-growth-revised-up-to-3-3-three-year-high

[Concerned]

BTW, here's some further evidence that even just the promise of tax cuts is causing growth.
U.S. Third-Quarter Growth Revised Up to 3.3%, Three-Year High
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/u-s-third-quarter-growth-revised-up-to-3-3-three-year-high

I missed the definitive "evidence that even just the promise of tax cuts is causing growth."  From the link you provided it seems as though consumer spending not the "promise of tax cuts is causing growth":

"While the revised growth rate is in line with President Donald Trump’s goal, economists generally see such a pace as unsustainable and expect growth to slow sometime in 2018. Trump and congressional Republicans are pushing a tax-cut plan with the aim of lifting GDP gains to 3 percent annually, though analysts expect any economic boost to be modest, on balance, if the proposal becomes law.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, continues to be the main driver of growth......"

Will consumer spending continue to go up if the tax reform plan becomes law?  I know that's the hope, but I believe that remains to be seen, and obviously other economists remain skeptical also as evidenced by your link and the quote I provided above.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Will consumer spending continue to go up if the tax reform plan becomes law?  I know that's the hope, but I believe that remains to be seen, and obviously other economists remain skeptical also as evidenced by your link and the quote I provided above.

Are you suggesting that placing more money in people's and business's pockets will not result in more spending by individuals and businesses?  What is your assumption they will do with that money?  Stuff it in mattresses?  The only thing I can think of is to spend it on the increased interest that will have to be paid as growth causes rate increases to debt.

[LMAO]

It almost feels to me like we have 6 year old as President. I hate the childish name calling. It belittles the office IMO.  His base may like it, but I don’t think it’s increasing the 46.1% of the vote he got last time.  Sadly, I just don’t think he can help himself.

@Concerned

Agree.

Just honor the code talkers. Thank them for their valuable service. No need to bring Warren up at this event.