Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.

Unless we're talking about a flat consumption tax that replaces income tax.

I think we should have:

1. 9% business flat tax
2. 9% personal income tax
3. 9% national sales tax

If someone had thought of this before, this would get us back on track.

---

The key mistake made by trump is in foolishly "owning" this economy. When this baby crashes hard he will own that too. October 2020 sounds about right.

---

I have to say this. The president of the united States has been in office for under 2 full calendar years. The overwhelming majority of the Debt was created in the previous 200 plus years of the country with the overwhelming majority coming in the first 16 years of this century, with 10 Trillion... WITH A T in the last 8 years of the Obama administration alone. The idea that you blame one tax bill for a countries entire political addiction to spending other people's money is asinine.

Capitalism is more expensive than Socialism. This is frankly just childish. The federal budget is mainly composed of programs that exist outside the original intent of the framers to protect the citizens and enforce property rights. You run up trillions and trillions of dollars of dollars of debt on social programs and then you pass one corporate tax reform package and it's capitalisms fault? Lol. We've had tax rates in this country as high as 91% in some cases, the debt went up. We cut the marginal tax rate to 25%, revenues to the federal government doubled over 8 years and the debt still went up. It's like trying to loose weight. If you run a mile you burn a few hundred calories. If you then eat three slices of chocolate cake, then you just erased any good that you've done. The problem is the cake, not that you didn't run hard enough and Washington LOVES CAKE!

We were getting our rear ends handed to us in global competitiveness. If we can't attract capital in the global economy then we're DONE.

We had a spirited discussion about Tax cuts effecting short term revenues, longterm there is no discussion. Anyone, any site, or any poster who quotes a tax cut package as spending amortized over 10 years (1.5 trillion supposedly) has NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!

---

I have to say this.  The president of the united States has been in office for under 2 full calendar years.  The overwhelming majority of the Debt was created in the previous 200 plus years of the country with the overwhelming majority coming in the first 16 years of this century, with 10 Trillion... WITH A T in the last 8 years of the Obama administration alone.  The idea that you blame one tax bill for a countries entire political addiction to spending other people's money is asinine.  

Capitalism is more expensive than Socialism.  This is frankly just childish.  The federal budget is mainly composed of programs that exist outside the original intent of the framers to protect the citizens and enforce property rights.  You run up trillions and trillions of dollars of dollars of debt on social programs and then you pass one corporate tax reform package and it's capitalisms fault?   Lol.  We've had tax rates in this country as high as 91% in some cases, the debt went up.  We cut the marginal tax rate to 25%, revenues to the federal government doubled over 8 years and the debt still went up.  It's like trying to loose weight.  If you run a mile you burn a few hundred calories.  If you then eat three slices of chocolate cake, then you just erased any good that you've done.  The problem is the cake, not that you didn't run hard enough and Washington LOVES CAKE!

We were getting our rear ends handed to us in global competitiveness.  If we can't attract capital in the global economy then we're DONE.  

We had a spirited discussion about Tax cuts effecting short term revenues, longterm there is no discussion.  Anyone, any site, or any poster who quotes a tax cut package as spending amortized over 10 years (1.5 trillion supposedly) has NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!

No one can really predict what will happen 10 years out.
The tax policy Trump enacted may not last 10 years. 
even if it does, it may be hard to find the one fraction of our debt that could be blamed on that one bill 10 years in the future.
But we might agree that this bill has reduced revenues and therefore increase debt in the short-term, that is one year or maybe 2 years.
And we could definitely agree that this tax bill caused a short-term spike in investment.
And I think we could also agree that in the absence of quantitative easing, greater investments in real estate and capital goods lead to increases in market interest rates. 
and we could agree that it was possible to lower the top corporate tax rate while closing other loopholes and having less of a macroeconomic impact then the tax bill that was actually enacted.
And once we agreed to most of these things I'm really having trouble seeing how either of us could find evidence to support the idea that this tax bill at this time, without any cuts to MIC spending, was a good idea.
Asking Lockheed/Northrup to double their order of aircraft carriers/submarines/F35s might makes sense when employment is low. cutting taxes to stimulate the economy might make sense when employment is low. Doing either thing when the economy is already stimulated and employment is high, I can't see how anyone can attribute good results to that.  
The least forgivable lies are the ones we tell ourselves.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Long term global competitiveness, not just short term economic stimulus.

And I still didn't address the doubling of revenues in the 80s.

---

Career politicians won't touch it. They sell their souls (and the country's future) promising handouts that are unsustainable spending, pure and simple.

Then once they are rich and long gone, the next generations are the ones left with the bill (and will have to do without the stuff in order to pay for it.)

Our federal government spending gluttony is simply unsustainable.

(strange... g l u t is auto filtered)

---

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

A child of four could understand that.

Revenues are at record highs.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Career politicians won't touch it.  They sell their souls (and the country's future) promising handouts that are unsustainable spending, pure and simple.

Then once they are rich and long gone, the next generations are the ones left with the bill (and will have to do without the stuff in order to pay for it.)

Our federal government spending gluttony is simply unsustainable.

(strange... g l u t  is auto filtered)

---

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

A child of four could understand that.

Revenues are at record highs.

What is inflation? Is a dollar always worth a dollar throughout time?
What are demographics? Do people stay the same age forever?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Unless we're talking about a flat consumption tax that replaces income tax.

I think we should have:

1. 9% business flat tax
2. 9% personal income tax
3. 9% national sales tax

If someone had thought of this before, this would get us back on track.

I'd do it a little higher and a little differently. 15% flat corporate income tax, flat 15% tax on all sales, no exemptions or reductions, no staggered brackets. States would have the opportunity to add up to 5% to each category. Of course, the center of my thinking involves a Constitutional amendment to eliminate personal income tax, which was little more than a government cash grab in the first place.

---