Trump's tax cut economics a worthless exercise, GOP Congressman admits

Yeah that was totally not a poltiical move on the eve of what they knew was going to be a loss for them in Congress.

1 Like

The first few sentences. Read them and weep.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), a lead architect of the GOP tax bill, suggested Tuesday the tax cuts may not fully pay for themselves, contradicting a promise Republicans made repeatedly while pushing the law in late 2017.

Pressed about what portion of the tax cuts were fully paid for, Brady said it was “hard to know."

“We will know in year 8, 9 or 10 what revenues it brought in to the government over time. So it’s way too early to tell,” said Brady at the Peterson Foundation’s annual Fiscal Summit in Washington D.C.

The federal government’s deficit typically shrinks during strong economic times, but the deficit is up nearly 40 percent so far this fiscal year, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office report released Friday.

So where exactly did Brady say the tax cuts were a worthless exercise? :confused:

That is the title of the thread isn’t it? Either he made that statement or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then you simply made it up.

Admitting they wouldn’t pay for themselves says … they’re a worthless exercise. Stop with the word games.

So you admit you simply made up the thread title and that Brady admitted no such thing. That’s what I thought.

Read my last post again. Maybe a few times.

But they’re your word games. Don’t tell others not to play word games when your whole premise is a word game.

1 Like

Same old story. Just wait, they’ll pay for themselves!

Just wait!

And wait………………and wait…………………and wait………………

But they never do.

What word game? Republicans said the results from the cuts would be immediate. A decade is not that.

If you want to dispute the claim feel free to do so. The OP should not be a simple cut and past of a title of an article.

When the dems win in 2020 they should not only get rid of trumps tax cuts but for anyone making 1m a year raise taxes to cover the revenue shortfall same with corporate taxes. Also a 25% cut in the defense budget

2 Likes

My argument is that you simply made up your thread title. Brady never said anything resembling what you say he did.

In actuality his comments were nuanced and measured. Your OP is simply a regurgitation of well worn LW talking points, having nothing at all to do with Brady’s actual comments.

Anyone can see for themselves that Brady never admitted “Trump’s tax cut economics a worthless exercise” . Its right there in the WAPO article. Nowhere do you see that admission from Brady.

LOL. He said the tax cuts would not stop the deficit – the initial Republican intention which now makes them – DING! DING! - a worthless exercise. Another important point from the article.

Spending is up $255 billion for the first eight months of the fiscal year, the CBO said, while revenues are up only $49 billion. Corporate tax receipts are down after Republicans enacted the largest reduction in business taxes in U.S. history. Individual income taxes are basically flat this year (they are growing less than the rate of inflation). Most of the revenue increase is coming from President Trump’s tariffs and more payroll taxes, which were not cut in the tax bill.
“Revenue fell, it didn’t rise, after the tax cuts,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

It was all a sham. The numbers prove it.

Low info posts. I avoid them. They will avoid talking about the tax cuts in question but instead will win the debate on whether or not the OP was a fair representation of someone’s comments about the cuts. Low-info.

3 Likes

Low INFO? More like tabloid posting with headlines that do not reflect the content.

:roll_of_toilet_paper:

Yes low info. Talk about the headline or the tax cut. You could even talk about the headline and talk about the tax cuts,. Low infos focus on the headline because they have to wait 10 years apparently to talk about the tax cuts.

1 Like

No interest. There have already been countless debates touting the merits of supply side economic theory vs. Keynesion economic theory. It has been beat to death.

In that regard, the OP and thread title seemed to imply that Supply sider Brady was abandoning his Supply Side beliefs in favor of Keynesian economics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just felt the need to set the record straight. Beyond that I have no interest in revisiting the Supply Side vs. Keynesian debate.

The tax cuts aren’t worthless to me.

I got to keep my doctor :man_shrugging:t5:

2 Likes