Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ivanka Trump: Daddy's Tax Bill 'Ultimately Eliminates' The National Debt" video.

  1. Congress controls the purse. Democrats controlled congress at the time. Under Clinton we had reform with a republican congress. What happened to the deficit then?
    1
  2. Yep, so dumb that one member became president and they have been successful in business.
    1
  3. Over time if we stick with it for years it will. Not during Trump's time, but over decades it can. You have economic growth and thus a larger pool to tax from. This is another "Kyle failed economics" video.
    1
  4. Jo Molly Brown, this will increase growth as now businesses will invest. It goes beyond tax cuts. This is a part of a large economic reform at the federal level. " Its like facts are kryptonite to these people..." Actually I base my ideas on facts and logic. When has massive federal government spending led to large economic growth outside of war?
    1
  5. Aaron, where? What analysis? And how are they bipartisan?
    1
  6. Aaron, that is one. In this case we are talking about projection. People are projecting what might happen. Pointing to the Tax Policy Center is not "every" analysis.
    1
  7. Aaron, you said "every" where the TPC is one. I challenged you and all you brought up was one that Kyle brought up which says to me whatever I say will not satisfy you and you are also bias and refuse to consider other thoughts on the isse. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/us/politics/tax-bill-deficits.html There is an article that talks about how growth will offset the cuts. Again, this is projection which happens a lot in economics just like Obamacare was projected to lower healthcare costs but didn't. The TPC is looking at current economic growth as you really cannot predict how the economy will grow from here on out. At this point we can either keep the course we are at and see our debt increase, or we can try these cuts and see if the economy grows enough to offset that cuts leading to more revenue.
    1
  8. Aaron, you said this "The ones Kyle keeps mentioning? Have you heard of the Tax Policy Center?" So I assume you meant Kyle. Now did he say TPC? I cannot say for sure and Kyle just goes off on tangents. But I never heard him give any sources and you have given one. "Your source shows that the analysis used while disagreeing on the amount of growth all agree that the growth will not offset the cost " It doesn't. It is an article, not an analysis. It brings up the point that growth can offset the cuts. Higher taxes does not always mean higher revenue. That is the whole point here. In order to really cut the deficit without harming society we need to create economic growth. Even if the deficit does grow to start with if the economy grows over time it will eventually cut into the deficit. Why? Because you are taking from a larger pie. What is larger? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? We have to get to that 1000 first. And at times you have to take steps back. For example, you may go into debt while earning a degree. You are in the whole. You regressed. But after you get a degree you get a high paying job and pay that debt off and are now earning more. "These projections consider a variety of possibilities and while varying a lot and containing a lot of room for error do use a lot of good methodology for giving us a better picture" Explain to me that "methodology". I will admit that I have not read the TPC analysis as I do not have time. I am too busy with my projects at my job. That is why I approach this issue the way I am. That even if we do have a deficit if we have economic growth that is a success. Because under democrats, who are criticizing this bill, we have had large deficit with little economic growth. " When you say "Over time if we stick with it for years it will" why should I listen to you and not listen to these projections?" Because I think you do not know what these projections even mean? Also, they are over 10 years. If after 10 years the economy has grown so big that we are now having a surplus? How would you feel? That is why I am saying "over time". If we take a few steps back in our federal debt but our economy booms I will consider that to be a success. There is more to the economy than just tax rates and national debt. "Gasp are you refusing to consider other thoughts on the issue?" I have considered other thoughts on the issue. I just disagree and/or looked at it deeper. To me the fact that the democrats and someone as radical and economically illiterate as Bernie Sanders keeps bringing this issue up means that it is a non-issue. Again, even if we have more debt over the next few years but the economy booms that is a success. Over time the economy will be large to where these tax rates will lead to the deficit going down. As with the college debt analogy. You go to college, get in debt, get a high paying job and be able to buy a home, save up for retirement, and pay off your loan because you decided to regress a little bit. Or you do not go to college and work a low wage job the rest of your life. You are focusing on one negative aspect of this bill and not considering other factors while doing it. .
    1
  9. ". Are you trying to tell me that the growth from tax cut stimulus will permanently and consistently increases the rate of increased growth?" No. But right now we just had over the past 10 years less than 3% GDP growth per year. If this tax bill leads to a higher growth rate, as in around 5%, than we will have a bigger pot to tax from. "I know what projection means. It doesn't invalidate their results. " It makes them flawed though. Like predicting who will win the Superbowl in 2019. You can have some ideas, but you cannot do it accurately due to many variables that will happen. " There is a lot of potential error but when you do a projection with the intention of being accurate prediction you include every factor you expect to change and you analyse data and trends to back that up." Sure, but this is the biggest tax cut in decades. Also, there is more than taxes involved. There are regulations, federal spending, state taxes, private and personal investments, etc. These things are hard to predict. If the republicans win in 2018 and 2020 things could change drastically, same if the democrats took over in 2020. If that were to happen everything in this tax bill will be null as it will be changed. "My challenge is specifically towards you saying that these tax cuts ultimately will eventually remove the dept or deficit when I can't even find a single analysis that says it will even make up for its own impact on the deficit." If you are talking about the debt completely I will say no as that will take decades. $20 trillion is larger than our overall GDP. So no, this will not eliminate the debt, at least not for decades. And that is only if we keep with this plan which we won't, democrats will take over and change the situation. As for the deficit, I feel it will but in a few years. We will continue to see a deficit but only for a few years. But some of that depends on which party wins in 2018 and 2020. Also, there are other factors as well. N. Korea starting a war can be one. And if they start one how will it be handled. Again, it is all projection. This tax bill is really new and written in a few months. The TPC analysis is based on what has been release to the public and that has only been around a few weeks. There is too much to factor in here. To me, if most things go right this bill will reduce the deficit over time to where near the end of Trump's presidency in 2024 we will have a surplus. "This is the definition of refusing to consider other thoughts on the issue and a classic ad hominem." I consider their points, but right now the democratic party is extreme. I will post two videos showing why. I supported many democrats in the past but these days I feel they are extreme.
    1
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU Watch that video. There you see both Clinton and Cain running through the numbers. While I disagree with Clinton in the end, I respected that he used numbers and understood how businesses function and the challenges they face. Now watch this video at the 35 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2266s Listen to Bernie's remark. He has no desire to learn about her business model, or how a business operates to begin with. He has no care about her revenue, expenses, payroll expense, the number of temporary employees, full time staff, etc. He had no care about the numbers. All he cared about was that she runs a business and she must follow the law. He does not care about the challenges she faces as a business owner. There is a clear difference between Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton. Clinton at least gave Cain some advice and had numbers. Sanders didn't. All he had was a hypothetical situation of some other company to which she pointed out, or attempted to before she was interrupted, that in her industry profit margins are thin for almost every company. Bernie does not understand that. Considering how Bernie was a major front runner for the democratic party that shows how radical they have become.
    1
  11. So no, it isn't about me refusing to consider other thoughts. It is realizing how extreme the other side has become and when they make comments I cannot take them seriously anymore. And it isn't an ad hominem as I just justified my position.
    1
  12. Aaron, I will keep this short as I have a lot of work to do. Those projections by the TPC were done in a short amount of time. They are trying to project something over the next 10 years in a short amount of time. You cannot do that with accuracy. That is why I find the projections to be flawed. As for the democrats, they are radicals and I justified my stance. So it is not an ad hominem. Since Trump has been elected they have been against everything he has pushed for. They have been against his cabinet picks, he tax bill, and almost all of them have been against his SC pick. A few even voted to impeach him. They are radicals and the fact makes me question what they say, especially from Bernie Sanders.
    1