Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[geetar]

I rarely vote for a winner. Usually oreo cookie, or my dog. I have a question I'd like to hear an answer too.

IF you swear an Oath to the Constitution, to hold an office and break that Oath, should you still be holding that office? I'll leave it at that.
View attachment 372134

Let's say we the people did overthrow the current administration who would we replace them with? To be clear this isn't a defense of the current administration. I'm not a big fan of the way a lot of it is going currently but if we did get rid of them who are we gonna put in office that is gonna be any better. The democrats pulled that late in the game stunt sliding Harris in proving they don't have any real candidates to beat Trump and I can't think of any Republicans since Mike Pence who has really taken a stand against anything Trump said and in reality Pence hasn't been seen or heard a whole lot since in any position of power. I agree with Lincoln on what he is saying but I don't know of a practical way to carry it out in today's society.

 

[Nick87]

Let's say we the people did overthrow the current administration who would we replace them with? To be clear this isn't a defense of the current administration. I'm not a big fan of the way a lot of it is going currently but if we did get rid of them who are we gonna put in office that is gonna be any better. The democrats pulled that late in the game stunt sliding Harris in proving they don't have any real candidates to beat Trump and I can't think of any Republicans since Mike Pence who has really taken a stand against anything Trump said and in reality Pence hasn't been seen or heard a whole lot since in any position of power. I agree with Lincoln on what he is saying but I don't know of a practical way to carry it out in today's society.

The people with the money aren't gonna let you have a better option. I'm sure they're out there but I doubt they'd stay true when faced with the kind of money and power politicians have. And even if they did, well then it'd probably look like suicide. All about that money.

 

[BuzzH]

Let's say we the people did overthrow the current administration who would we replace them with? I agree with Lincoln on what he is saying but I don't know of a practical way to carry it out in today's society.

 

[geetar]

The people with the money aren't gonna let you have a better option. I'm sure they're out there but I doubt they'd stay true when faced with the kind of money and power politicians have. And even if they did, well then it'd probably look like suicide. All about that money.

Exactly.

 

[SAJ-99]

?

Sorry, short and simple answer to your question. Signed into law Aug 1981. Federal tax receipts collected in 1981 wouldn't be reached again until 1984. ERTA was so bad that they had to pair back and reverse much of the aggressive tax policy changes in new 1982 tax bill. The Laffer curve is just a model, and correct in concept (Note that it never gives you an actual number?). Finding the level of taxes that maximizes growth and income collected is not easy, probably because it is a moving target and there are a lot of other things to consider. ERTA proved that economics is hard and there is a tax level where Congress can really F things up. But yeah, the 80's were great.

The same argument can be made for "Bush" tax cuts in 2001. Gov revenue declined. As I have mentioned, 2018 barely increased. We have had this convo other places. The economy normally goes up so tax receipts should as well. It's not a fair question to just look at nominal tax receipts. Maybe a better question should be has any tax cut not resulted in increasing the deficit?

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sorry, short and simple answer to your question. Signed into law Aug 1981. Federal tax receipts collected in 1981 wouldn't be reached again until 1984. ERTA was so bad that they had to pair back and reverse much of the aggressive tax policy changes in new 1982 tax bill. The Laffer curve is just a model, and correct in concept (Note that it never gives you an actual number?). Finding the level of taxes that maximizes growth and income collected is not easy, probably because it is a moving target and there are a lot of other things to consider. ERTA proved that economics is hard and there is a tax level where Congress can really F things up. But yeah, the 80's were great.

The same argument can be made for "Bush" tax cuts in 2001. Gov revenue declined. As I have mentioned, 2018 barely increased. We have had this convo other places. The economy normally goes up so tax receipts should as well. It's not a fair question to just look at nominal tax receipts. Maybe a better question should be has any tax cut not resulted in increasing the deficit?

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1983 is the only year i can find where revenue decreased - was also a very hard economic year.

Revenue didnt go down more than 3% from 1982, and then was dramatically higher every year.

If what you said was true - it would also be reflected in the 2017 tax cuts, or the bush tax cuts, or multiple years etc

But it isnt.

 

[SAJ-99]

1983 is the only year i can find where revenue decreased - was also a very hard economic year.

Revenue didnt go down more than 3% from 1982, and then was dramatically higher every year.

If what you said was true - it would also be reflected in the 2017 tax cuts, or the bush tax cuts, or multiple years etc

But it isnt.

You would have to tell me what the "it" is you are looking at. 1982 federal tax receipts were lower than 1981. And again, a tax bill was passed in 1982 that reverse a bunch of the ERTA 81 bill. That was the answer to your question. Sure, you can say "but this" or "but that" and I wouldn't disagree at all, and that is why the Laffer curve is useless. There are always lots of other things going on in an economy. It is probably impossible to find the exact perfect tax rate Laffer implies in the model. That's why it doesn't give you a number. In theory, a politician (or you) could say the tax rate that maximizes growth (and hence tax revenue) is 0%. You don't have to be good at math to recognize that is BS.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You would have to tell me what the "it" is you are looking at. 1982 federal tax receipts were lower than 1981. And again, a tax bill was passed in 1982 that reverse a bunch of the ERTA 81 bill. That was the answer to your question. Sure, you can say "but this" or "but that" and I wouldn't disagree at all, and that is why the Laffer curve is useless. There are always lots of other things going on in an economy. It is probably impossible to find the exact perfect tax rate Laffer implies in the model. That's why it doesn't give you a number. In theory, a politician (or you) could say the tax rate that maximizes growth (and hence tax revenue) is 0%. You don't have to be good at math to recognize that is BS.

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018

Federal tax revenue by source, 1934-2018. Compare federal tax revenue by source over time from 1934 to 2018. See more federal tax revenue analysis.

taxfoundation.org

 

[MTGomer]

I hate some of the things he’s doing because they suck. Like tariffs, which are a tax.
But yes, I think alot of people oppose everything he says or does beciase of who he is.

Democrats had redeemable qualities prior to Trump.

They opposed war, supported free speech, weren’t the party closest aligned to billionaires, the military industrial complex, big tech, big banks and big Pharma.
They could say that illegal immigration was a crime and they certainly didn’t protest the removal of violent, criminal illegals.
They were outspoken on legalizing marijuana. They had the support of not just union bosses, but blue collar union workers.
They’ve either given up on or proudly handed what the vast majority of moderate America thinks is the correct stance on every one of those issues to Trump and right wing populism.
They’ve thrown away any chance of getting a vote from a lot of people purely out of their spite and hatred for one person.



I’m talking about at the national level. There’s some great democrats in local and state politics in places like Montana and hopefully always will be.

Remember those Republican dip shits and their signal chat about bombing the Houthis…
When Democrats had redeemable qualities, they would’ve been enraged that the Republicans were waging war on one of the poorest countries in the world, with strikes that every single time kill scores of civilians, which creates more terrorists, and are doing so illegally and unconstitutionally, with no war declaration from congress.

The outrage wasn’t at the war. It was at the method used to talk about the war.

The Republicans aren't going to have any redeemable qualities after trump...

Seems there's a common denominator.

The smart Republicans better start putting distance between themselves and their daddy.

While that probably should be true, I don’t know that it is true.
Democrats have to offer something other than not liking Trump.
Blind TDS paired with demographic shift due to the voters that watch/believe cable “news” dying off while young men, blacks and Hispanics trend more conservative may not be a winning formula.
Not liking the other guy ain’t enough. Ask Ryan Busse, who ran a campaign centered on not liking the other guy and lost to Montana’s least likable governor by 20 points.

On Hunt talk, I think we lose ourselves in the echo chamber and think that the things that matter to us matter to everybody. (our thoughts on MT M deer vs the average MT hunter, for example)

On the political front, I bet 90% of Americans do not know about the budget amendment that calls for the sale of half a million acres in Nevada and Utah. And of the ones that do know, a good chunk of those don’t care or think it’s a good idea. Some of the one that think it’s a good idea would be people on the left, that as long as it was framed as a DEI housing initiative, would think it’s a great idea.


Most people will just go along with what their team says is a good idea;

 

[BuzzH]

Remember those Republican dip shits and their signal chat about bombing the Houthis…
When Democrats had redeemable qualities, they would’ve been enraged that the Republicans were waging war on one of the poorest countries in the world, with strikes that every single time kill scores of civilians, which creates more terrorists, and are doing so illegally and unconstitutionally, with no war declaration from congress.

The outrage wasn’t at the war. It was at the method used to talk about the war.

While that probably should be true, I don’t know that it is true.
Democrats have to offer something other than not liking Trump.
Blind TDS paired with demographic shift due to the voters that watch/believe cable “news” dying off while young men, blacks and Hispanics trend more conservative may not be a winning formula.
Not liking the other guy ain’t enough. Ask Ryan Busse, who ran a campaign centered on not liking the other guy and lost to Montana’s least likable governor by 20 points.

On Hunt talk, I think we lose ourselves in the echo chamber and think that the things that matter to us matter to everybody. (our thoughts on MT M deer vs the average MT hunter, for example)

On the political front, I bet 90% of Americans do not know about the budget amendment that calls for the sale of half a million acres in Nevada and Utah. And of the ones that do know, a good chunk of those don’t care or think it’s a good idea. Some of the one that think it’s a good idea would be people on the left, that as long as it was framed as a DEI housing initiative, would think it’s a great idea.


Most people will just go along with what their team says is a good idea;
View attachment 372144

We're going to find out in '26 if America survives as a democracy/representative Republic or moves to fascism.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You would have to tell me what the "it" is you are looking at. 1982 federal tax receipts were lower than 1981. And again, a tax bill was passed in 1982 that reverse a bunch of the ERTA 81 bill. That was the answer to your question. Sure, you can say "but this" or "but that" and I wouldn't disagree at all, and that is why the Laffer curve is useless. There are always lots of other things going on in an economy. It is probably impossible to find the exact perfect tax rate Laffer implies in the model. That's why it doesn't give you a number. In theory, a politician (or you) could say the tax rate that maximizes growth (and hence tax revenue) is 0%. You don't have to be good at math to recognize that is BS.

Thats not accurate or representative to the laffer curves.

The premise is there is an "ideal" tax rate - 0% is not enough for govt to function at all - 100% is not emough for the economy to function.

0% would result in 0% revenue.

 

[SAJ-99]

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018

Federal tax revenue by source, 1934-2018. Compare federal tax revenue by source over time from 1934 to 2018. See more federal tax revenue analysis.

taxfoundation.org

Welcome to the rabbit hole. There are some differences. Federal Tax receipts are what goes into GDP, so that is the number I used because that would fit the Laffer model better. Best I can say is, to more closely equalize, you have to take out the SS payroll taxes out of your total. Those are not relevant to the model for a few reasons. Even in your table you can see the problem in the second column (Corp taxes). That is why they had to have a do-over.

Thats not accurate or representative to the laffer curves.

Pretty familiar with the model and don't disagree on your take of 0%. I didn't say Laffer or his model would say that. I said Republican politicians' imply that. I don't think I disagree with the concept of the curve, but only would say it has problems when applied to reality. The number is out there, somewhere, but no one knows what it is in realtime and once they identify it, it changes.

I'm not sure what we are debating. You said "show me" and I gave you direct evidence of something you thought never happened. Again, looking at total nominal revenue for the federal government is not the way to look at it if you want solutions to fiscal and budge issues. In all cases, the government spends more than it brings in. The debt went up over 2.5x under Reagan. The tax bill being debated in the House won't fix any of it and will probably make it worse.

Enjoy your day.

 

[BuzzH]

Thats not accurate or representative to the laffer curves.

The premise is there is an "ideal" tax rate - 0% is not enough for govt to function at all - 100% is not emough for the economy to function.

0% would result in 0% revenue.

The economy used to function pretty well with corporate tax rates in the 80%+ levels.

 

[jimh406]

I can't think of any Republicans since Mike Pence who has really taken a stand against anything Trump said

Many of the Trump policies are pretty popular across the political spectrum, so it's reasonable for most Republicans to agree.

However, there are Republicans who disagree if you are interested. Maybe you need different sources. Try X or ask Grok this question. "what republicans have come out against trump"

 

[elkduds]

We're going to find out in '26 if America survives as a democracy/representative Republic or moves further to fascism.

FIFY

 

[Forkyfinder]

The economy used to function pretty well with corporate tax rates in the 80%+ levels.

Ah - when they could deduct interest on business loans from taxes?

The effective rate matters.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

The economy used to function pretty well with corporate tax rates in the 80%+ levels.

For career government employees the economic outlook is always rosy.

 

[BuzzH]

FIFY

More accurate, thank you for the correction.

If none of this sounds familiar, I would argue nobody is paying attention:

Key characteristics of fascism:

• Extreme Nationalism:
  Fascism emphasizes the importance of the nation above all else, often with a strong belief in its superiority and a desire for national expansion.
  
  
• Authoritarianism:
  Fascist regimes typically suppress individual freedoms and dissent, establishing a strong, centralized government led by a charismatic leader.
  
  
• • Militarism:
    Fascism often glorifies military power and is associated with a strong emphasis on military spending and preparedness.
  • Totalitarianism:
    Fascist regimes aim to control all aspects of public and private life, seeking to create a unified national community with little room for dissent.
  • Anti-Democratic and Anti-Liberal:
    Fascism rejects democratic principles and values like individual rights, pluralism, and the rule of law, viewing them as weaknesses that hinder national strength.
  • Social Hierarchy and Elitism:
    Fascism often emphasizes a rigid social hierarchy, with a belief in the leadership of elites who are seen as more capable and deserving of power.
  • Perception of National Decline and Crisis:
    Fascist movements often portray a nation as being in decline or facing threats, using this perceived crisis to justify strong leadership and national mobilization.
  • Cult of Personality:
    Fascist leaders often cultivate a cult of personality, presenting themselves as infallible and embodying the will of the nation.
  • Suppression of Dissent:
    Fascist regimes typically suppress dissent and opposition, using propaganda, censorship, and violence to maintain control.
  • Use of Violence and Paramilitarism:
    Fascism often embraces violence as a tool to achieve its goals, including the use of paramilitary groups to maintain order and suppress dissent.
  • Ingroup-Outgroup Dynamics:
    Fascism often involves a strong emphasis on an "us vs. them" mentality, with the creation of an ingroup that is seen as virtuous and an outgroup that is demonized and targeted.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

More accurate, thank you for the correction.

If none of this sounds familiar, I would argue nobody is paying attention:

Key characteristics of fascism:

• Extreme Nationalism:
  Fascism emphasizes the importance of the nation above all else, often with a strong belief in its superiority and a desire for national expansion.
  
  
• Authoritarianism:
  Fascist regimes typically suppress individual freedoms and dissent, establishing a strong, centralized government led by a charismatic leader.
  
  
• • Militarism:
    Fascism often glorifies military power and is associated with a strong emphasis on military spending and preparedness.
  • Totalitarianism:
    Fascist regimes aim to control all aspects of public and private life, seeking to create a unified national community with little room for dissent.
  • Anti-Democratic and Anti-Liberal:
    Fascism rejects democratic principles and values like individual rights, pluralism, and the rule of law, viewing them as weaknesses that hinder national strength.
  • Social Hierarchy and Elitism:
    Fascism often emphasizes a rigid social hierarchy, with a belief in the leadership of elites who are seen as more capable and deserving of power.
  • Perception of National Decline and Crisis:
    Fascist movements often portray a nation as being in decline or facing threats, using this perceived crisis to justify strong leadership and national mobilization.
  • Cult of Personality:
    Fascist leaders often cultivate a cult of personality, presenting themselves as infallible and embodying the will of the nation.
  • Suppression of Dissent:
    Fascist regimes typically suppress dissent and opposition, using propaganda, censorship, and violence to maintain control.
  • Use of Violence and Paramilitarism:
    Fascism often embraces violence as a tool to achieve its goals, including the use of paramilitary groups to maintain order and suppress dissent.
  • Ingroup-Outgroup Dynamics:
    Fascism often involves a strong emphasis on an "us vs. them" mentality, with the creation of an ingroup that is seen as virtuous and an outgroup that is demonized and targeted.

Fits the Democratic party better imho, but ok. Who am I to deride something you thoughtfully AI’ed or copy pasted.

 

[BuzzH]

Fits the Democratic party better imho, but ok. Who am I to deride something you thoughtfully AI’ed or copy pasted.

Obviously you're not paying attention. I'll put you in that column.