To boost economy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/french-government-to-cut-taxes-on-businesses-households/ar-AAAzIId?ocid=spartanntp

Seems like it could be worth a shot.

It’s not what you say,but how you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Obama pass one of the largest tax cuts ever?

Didn't Obama pass one of the largest tax cuts ever?

four pinnochios


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-whopper-of-a-claim-on-tax-cuts/2011/09/06/gIQAmL2h7J_blog.html?utm_term=.e7ba8ae95fba

four pinnocchios


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-whopper-of-a-claim-on-tax-cuts/2011/09/06/gIQAmL2h7J_blog.html?utm_term=.e7ba8ae95fba
I didn't say anything about the middle class.

The overall French tax cut is 3 times higher for businesses than for households (in order to boost the economy).

The Congressional Budget Office reported in June that government debt will amount to 78 percent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product by the end of 2018, and based on current growth rates, the country’s debt will nearly equal the size of its economy by 2028, according to The Washington Post.

Can’t cut taxes and not match it with larger spending cuts, if we all balanced our personal budgets this way, how many would be filing bankruptcy soon after we can’t find another Peter to borrow from to pay Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't say anything about the middle class.



why do you hate the middle class?

The Congressional Budget Office reported in June that government debt will amount to 78 percent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product by the end of 2018, and based on current growth rates, the country’s debt will nearly equal the size of its economy by 2028, according to The Washington Post.

Can’t cut taxes and not match it with larger spending cuts, if we all balanced our personal budgets this way, how many would be filing bankruptcy soon after we can’t find another Peter to borrow from to pay Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is so obvious . . . so why hasn't that truism not caught on since Calvin Coolidge. Remember, it isn't the deficit that determines whether an administration is being held to the fiscal idea that you propose. The national debt is the final determining factor. Money is constantly being "spent" on paying the debt. That is no less a means of "spending" than money spent on "programs."

The overall French tax cut is 3 times higher for businesses than for households (in order to boost the economy).
Cutting taxes can be stimulative, the issue is that it's not always stimulative or not always sound fiscal policy. I'm not sure what the point is other than Macron seems to think it's the right fiscal or political thing to do given current economic conditions.

Cutting taxes can be stimulative, the issue is that it's not always stimulative or not always sound fiscal policy. I'm not sure what the point is other than Macron seems to think it's the right fiscal or political thing to do given current economic conditions.

Yes . . . exactly . . . . I think. You've certainly proposed enough possible generalities that you must be right . . . or at least not wrong.

Of course, the indefinite nature of your thesis, leaves the opposition party the option to refer to some of your specific uncertain possibilities--that is, to claim, using whatever variables that can be mustered by a sympathetic "economist," that the tax cuts are NOT sound fiscal policy . . . and not really stimulative . . . even if they appear to be . . . because they are actually remnants of previous administration policy . . . and will actually, when your policy kicks in, totally collapse the economy.

The Congressional Budget Office reported in June that government debt will amount to 78 percent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product by the end of 2018, and based on current growth rates, the country’s debt will nearly equal the size of its economy by 2028, according to The Washington Post.

Can’t cut taxes and not match it with larger spending cuts, if we all balanced our personal budgets this way, how many would be filing bankruptcy soon after we can’t find another Peter to borrow from to pay Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if tax cuts have any stimulative effect at all, you don’t need larger spending cuts. Apple alonenis paying tax of $38 billion in $250 billion they are bringing back. that alone, is a stimulative effect. i’m not stupid enough to say the cuts will pay for themselves, but they don’t fail to stimulate some growth either. no one knows how much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if tax cuts have any stimulative effect at all, you don’t need larger spending cuts. Apple alonenis paying tax of $38 billion in $250 billion they are bringing back. that alone, is a stimulative effect. i’m not stupid enough to say the cuts will pay for themselves, but they don’t fail to stimulate some growth either. no one knows how much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Report I saw the other week said only 3% of offshore money has been repatriated so far. Even Apple isn't moving very fast.

So the current theory is Reaganomics worked, I guess so as long as you use alternative facts.
The real facts say it didn't

So the current theory is Reaganomics worked, I guess so as long as you use alternative facts.
The real facts say it didn't

Ahhh . . . the REAL facts ploy.

So the current theory is Reaganomics worked, I guess so as long as you use alternative facts.
The real facts say it didn't
Biggest thing that helped Reaganomics was the invention of the personal computer.

Biggest thing that helped Reaganomics was the invention of the personal computer.

Yup. If you can't credit the previous administration, credit the computers.

Yup. If you can't credit the previous administration, credit the computers.
And super cheap oil.

A little history, plagiarized of course
As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.

A little history, plagiarized of course
As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.

So you swallowed that version of "history." The other version is that Congress never gave Reagan the spending cuts he asked for. But let's not confuse spending and taxes. Regardless of Got Stripers point about the necessity of them being parallel policies (One without the other leads either to deficit or surplus), spending is the sine qua non of progressive governance because, for it, government is involved in every aspect of the people's lives.

Progressivism is essentially more concerned with power than with budgets. So, in order for "Conservatives" to get policies approved, there has to be a Progressive "balance" which means more must be spent than collected. Ironically, government debt leads to top down government power.

So you swallowed that version of "history." The other version is that Congress never gave Reagan the spending cuts he asked for. But let's not confuse spending and taxes. Regardless of Got Stripers point about the necessity of them being parallel policies (One without the other leads either to deficit or surplus), spending is the sine qua non of progressive governance because, for it, government is involved in every aspect of the people's lives.

Progressivism is essentially more concerned with power than with budgets. So, in order for "Conservatives" to get policies approved, there has to be a Progressive "balance" which means more must be spent than collected. Ironically, government debt leads to top down government power.
That is how politics works in a democracy, not just one person gets to choose, remember Congress is elected by the voters also. Things don't just materialize in politics without a lot of work. It's easy to sell the popular stuff.
When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

Progressivism is essentially more concerned with power than with budgets. So, in order for "Conservatives" to get policies approved, there has to be a Progressive "balance" which means more must be spent than collected. Ironically, government debt leads to top down government power.
I'm not even sure you believed this as you wrote it. The proof is in the pudding.

That is how politics works in a democracy,
not just one person gets to choose, remember Congress is elected by the voters also. Things don't just materialize in politics without a lot of work.

That is why this country was deliberately, with a lot of work, founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. It was to limit the power of government over the people's inalienable rights. And assuring that by limiting government's power to spend only on those enumerated powers constitutionally given to it. The Congress that opposed Reagan succeeded in passing, with a lot of work, social policies that "materialized" outside its enumerated powers, thereby assuring that the deficit and national debt would grow.

In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

They didn't magically "materialize" simply because Congress did not provide the promised spending cuts.

I'm not even sure you believed this as you wrote it. The proof is in the pudding.

I like my pudding. It's good pudding. I don't expect you to like it. I don't even expect you to explain why it's not good pudding.

They didn't magically "materialize" simply because Congress did not provide the promised spending cuts.

Who promised?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like my pudding. It's good pudding. I don't expect you to like it. I don't even expect you to explain why it's not good pudding.
I wasn't talking about your pudding, rather the people's pudding.

Who promised?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, it wasn't a promise, it was a ransom. In order to get his defense buildup and tax cuts, Reagan had to agree with the Democrat Congress's domestic spending requests.

I wasn't talking about your pudding, rather the people's pudding.

You may not consider me to be part of "the people," but can you describe this "pudding" that every person, or all "the people" is proved to be their choice? That is, WTH are you talking about?

remember Congress is elected by the voters



I'll try to keep that in mind :bl: