They are opinions not facts. That’s why it’s fake. Opinions can be biased. I want the facts not the opinions. I don’t care if they’re on the right or the left, opinions are not fact. So when I say that taxes boost the economy why would you give me a bunch of opinions refuting that. Until the facts are provided it will continue to be fake new. Maybe that’s not the most accurate way to describe it but it’s kinda catchy and it gets the point accross. Don’t listen to wrong opinions on the news. Why does someone like Elon musk call it fake news? Is he just another dumb trump supporter or is he a guenius rocket scientist who realizes there is a problem. I’ll go with the latter.
I honestly don't know if you're serious or just trolling. Two of the four of those were opinion pieces but they clearly cited the facts that they based their opinions on. Did you even read them? Also, all opinions are not created equal. Your opinion, given with ZERO facts to back it up, is not equal to the opinion of economists and policy researchers who have devoted their entire lives to studying these issues. I didn't just say your opinion is wrong, I gave you two respected experts saying your opinion is wrong and citing REAL FACTS to back up that assertion.
As for Elon, I have no idea why he uses the term. I know nothing about Elon Musk, other than the fact that he runs Tesla and has lofty ambitions and some out there ideas on some issues. Why would I care more about what he thinks than anyone else? Because he has money? Maybe he has valid critiques of the media, I wouldn't know. But what does that even have to do with the fact that you were just presented with a ton of FACTS and, without even explaining why you thought the authors were misinterpreting those facts, you just screamed FAKE NEWS?
Fair enough, my apologies for screaming fake news without explaining why. In these articles there are so many things wrong I didn't really want to waste my time explaining why its fake. I really don't want to keep doing this because odds are you will dispute what I say by straw manning my argument into one of a stereotypical right wing person and completely miss the points. Hopefully this works this time.
First off let me preface my argument by saying my understanding of this comes from my degree in international business at the great Ohio University and my personal interest and study of U.S. history.
Now lets get into it.
"What I was pointing out is the blatant hypocrisy of caring about one and not the other. It's brazenly political. It is everything you yourself claim you're critical of. You can't logically defend one but not the other. "
Well the way I see it that first article you put is blatantly political.
He starts off by saying
"Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment."
The argument that lowering taxes helps the economy has nothing to do with whether someone is a republican or democrat. He instantly changes the argument about the effectiveness of taxes to one that is about who's tax plans is better. We need to get away from this team format. What if there is a third idea that is better than both of theirs.
"By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment."
High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth."
Ok again what does what the republican want to do with taxes have to do with the tax system itself.
"Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump argued that “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”
That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth."
OK right here, what? This is what I mean when I say the media cherry picks data or quotes of people to straw man the argument into something it has nothing to do with. You can't just simplify the effectiveness of lowering taxes into just being about the corporate tax rate. There is way more that goes into taxes than the corporate tax rate. The tax of citizens as well as the other measures you can use such as deregulation and cutting government spending can have a huge effect into the effectiveness. Again they're leaving out a number of key points when it comes to taxes.
Next off he says
"Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.
[Why would anyone in Puerto Rico want a hurricane? Because someone will get rich.]"
The interest rate and how you apply it can effect the economy. Yet the writer just points how republicans don't think about it without having any evidence of that being true. He also does the same thing he accuses them of and blatantly lies. How does Keynesian economics have anything to do with what political side you're on. I am a conservative and I hate Keynesian economics. Still struggling to see how we have gotten to the conclusion that taxes are bad.
"Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery."
He still has yet to talk about the interworking of taxes and of what he would propose. He literally is just talking about what happened in the economy and not tying it to taxes at all.
"Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back."
Nothing to do with how you can use taxes to benefit the economy. Is just saying what republicans do is wrong. They might be wrong but that doesn't mean lowering taxes is good or bad. We have learned nothing about how taxes work and only about why the way republicans want it to work is wrong.
"Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon."
Ok the Tax reform act of 1986 has nothing to do with whether cutting taxes helps or hurts the economy. There are other factors that you have to implement and to just simplify it to this is embarrassing.
OK right here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could ignore all the other flaws and just read this!!!
"Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth."
He admits taxes can have a positive impact on growth!!!!
Then once again he changes the argument about whether taxes could help the economy to about the 1986 tax reform act being bad.
"But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell."
Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded."
Again notice we aren't talking about cutting taxes we're talking about the 1986 tax reform act. They may have cut taxes then but there are a million other factors you have to consider.
Do I even need to keep going. This is fake news. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. I will finish demolishing this article but I'm not doing the others. This is a waste of my time.
"The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s."
That has no reason to do with why I hate tax increases. I hate them because it takes the money I work for and therefor gives me less to spend on the things I want and more with the things the government wants. I at least know what I want, how do we know there isn't corruption in the people in government that we don't know about. Also if you raise taxes that gives the government more money which effectively gives them more power. I, as a conservative want the federal and state governments to have less power because the more power they have the too big and complex it gets for people to understand, which in turn makes it easier for corruption.
"Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate."
Why is he falsely attributing growth decline to taxes? Strawman!
"We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years."
Again he falsely attributes the gains in the economy to taxes. I could also argue in many ways the economy is worse off than it was in 2008 so by saying the economy grew nicely is a joke to make. The economy has nothing to do with the stock market.
"Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes."
Ok, nothing to do with how taxes work.
"Republicans’ various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren’t enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate."
Yes this might be true but there are better ways out there than the republicans. Why does he continue to make this political.......
"[Trump promised black voters equal justice. That’s all Kaepernick wants.]
Even if they had released a complete plan — not just the woefully incomplete nine-page outline released Wednesday — Republicans have failed to make a sound case that it’s time to cut taxes."
What does this have to with the issue of taxes? I agree with Kaepernick, yet he makes an issue about taxes into an issue about race?? That's abhorrent. This is fake news!!!!!! If republicans haven't made a good case then why don't we find someone else that does instead of just assuming this means the left team wins.
"Nor have they signaled that they’ll commit to a viable process. It’s worth remembering that the first version of the ’81 tax cut was introduced in 1977 and underwent thorough analysis by the CBO and other organizations, and was subject to comprehensive public hearings. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 grew out of a detailed Treasury study and took over two years to complete.
Rushing through a half-baked tax plan, in the same manner Republicans tried (and failed) to do with health-care reform, should be rejected out of hand. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has repeatedly and correctly said, successful legislating requires a return to the “regular order.” That means a detailed proposal with proper revenue estimates and distribution tables from the Joint Committee on Taxation, hearings and analysis by the nation’s best tax experts, markups and amendments in the tax-writing committees, and an open process in the House of Representatives and Senate.
There are good arguments for a proper tax reform even if it won’t raise GDP growth. It may improve economic efficiency, administration and fairness. But getting from here to there requires heavy lifting that this Republican Congress has yet to demonstrate. If they again look for a quick, easy victory, they risk a replay of the Obamacare repeal fight that wasted so much time and yielded so little."
This is more of the same as the rest of the article. I have made my criticism about what he is doing clear.
If you can't see how this article is filled with political and intellectually dishonest claims then you need to stop reading articles and learn about the specifics of the core issues instead of just reading the political slant people write about them.
You also need to realize the effect articles like these have on the political opinion of people, and how that makes them vote. The media and our country keep playing this team game and the debates have become nothing about the issue and all about attacking the other side and trying to win votes.
This was a waste of time I'm not doing the other articles. They are set up the same way. It's a joke. This is not news it is propaganda. Both the left and right have there own propaganda networks. We need to stop listening to them and find someone else.
Or hey come back again and try to insult my intelligence.