The economy is good? Cut taxes! The economy is bad? Cut taxes! Taxes are too low? Cut taxes!

define "poor" please...

The piece you link to starts out with commenting on an article that refutes what you just said is "unrefutable."

If it can be refuted then it isn't what you claim it is.

After Bush's tax cuts the economy grew at a slower pace than the 7 years before his tax cuts. His tax cuts did not spur the economy to grow at a faster pace than prior to the cuts.

Just because sometimes the economy grew faster doesn't mean it is irrefutable. It only means that 50% of the time it probably will.

Well, considering the poor don't really pay taxes, who would you expect it to help?

The middle class ($50-$250 imho) could use a tax cut, but what are they gonna do with it? You'd think they might pay off some debt, but far from likely. Spend it on porn most likely.

The piece you link to starts out with commenting on an article that refutes what you just said is "unrefutable."

If it can be refuted then it isn't what you claim it is.

After Bush's tax cuts the economy grew at a slower pace than the 7 years before his tax cuts. His tax cuts did not spur the economy to grow at a faster pace than prior to the cuts.

Just because sometimes the economy grew faster doesn't mean it is irrefutable. It only means that 50% of the time it probably will.

I see. So your statement was factually incorrect and now you are back tracking trying to make it seem like you only meant 50% of Federal taxes when you said "taxes."

"Poor people do not pay taxes" is NOT the same thing as "poor people do not pay income taxes."

You are asking ME to define your statement for you?

I think that unwise of me, how 'bout you?

I'll wait...

parados wrote:

The piece you link to starts out with commenting on an article that refutes what you just said is "unrefutable."

If it can be refuted then it isn't what you claim it is.

After Bush's tax cuts the economy grew at a slower pace than the 7 years before his tax cuts. His tax cuts did not spur the economy to grow at a faster pace than prior to the cuts.

Just because sometimes the economy grew faster doesn't mean it is irrefutable. It only means that 50% of the time it probably will.

Try reading what I wrote a bit more carefully. I typed it very slowly so I think, if you really try to see what I wrote, you will see that what you say that I claimed is not what I claimed.

There is unrefutable evidence that responsible tax cuts do spur the economy and that in turn does increase tax revenues into the local, state, and national treasuries.

After Bush's tax cuts the economy grew at a slower pace than the 7 years before his tax cuts. His tax cuts did not spur the economy to grow at a faster pace than prior to the cuts.

You have no ability to follow a topic. I bet you are a blast at parties. Coming in late to a conversation and arguing about something completely irrelevant to the discussion.

parados wrote:

After Bush's tax cuts the economy grew at a slower pace than the 7 years before his tax cuts. His tax cuts did not spur the economy to grow at a faster pace than prior to the cuts.

If only there was a reason for that. Maybe something happening during those years that wasn't happening during the previous seven years...

It's dishonest unless it's tied to spending decreases directly.

It's dishonest unless it's tied to spending decreases directly.

There is unrefutable evidence that responsible tax cuts do spur the economy and that in turn does increase tax revenues into the local, state, and national treasuries. Spending reductions to 'pay for a tax cut' are necessary only within the context of how tax policy affects behavior.

Mostly it all comes down to basic ideology. If you think government does a better job of spending your money than you would do, you are in favor of more taxes. If you think the private sector does a better job spending the money, you are in favor of less taxes.

Conservative Republicans fall into the latter group more often than not.