How will Democrats treat taxes during a Trump presidency?

Democrats are trying to block almost all of Trump's agenda, but we haven't seen anything until we see how hard they go after tax reform and tax cuts.  Democrats cannot allow the public to see how the economy will expand rapidly if people and businesses are allowed to keep more of the money they earn. 

We will hear talking points regurgitated over and over again that include how the deficit will explode, how the tax cuts will starve the poor and middle class and help the rich, how it is trickle-down economics (as if that were a bad thing), how the cuts won't help the economy, etc.  On Bush's tax cuts in particular, they will say they caused the deficit to increase, that they did not help the economy and jobs, they made the rich richer, and the rich don't pay their fair share. 

Many Democrats who have been in office throughout almost the entire $20-trillion buildup in debt and as Obamacare costs have massively increased are now deficit hawks – but only because the people and businesses are allowed to keep more of their money. 

Something the public won't actually see are numbers related to Bush tax cuts, because those numbers aren't convenient.  Here are some actual numbers:

In FY2000, the government collected around $1.2 trillion in income tax revenues.  Bush inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market, and by FY 2003, income tax revenues had dropped to around $900 billion.  Bush passed the substantial across-the-board tax cuts in May 2003; by FY 2007, the economy took off, and income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 trillion in FY2007.  The deficit had also risen from FY2000 to FY2003 to over $300 billion but declined to $161 billion by FY2007, and that included spending on both wars and Medicare Part D.  The government thrived and the economy thrived after the tax cuts.  The multiplier effect of the tax cuts was astonishing, yet Democrats and the CBO do not recognize dynamic scoring on tax cuts.

It should be noted that Democrats took over Congress for the FY2008, FY2009 and FY2010 budgets.

As everyone got tax cuts, the rich actually paid a higher share of taxes than ever.  They pay a much higher share in taxes than their share of income.  The richest 1% of taxpayers pay around 40% of income taxes while earning around 20% of income.  If double their share of income isn't fair, what is?

If reporters or the public would like to see actual numbers on taxes and expenses of the government for any year, here is a great source.

If anyone would like to see how jobs were stagnant before the 2003 tax cuts and took off after, here you go.

My guess is that most reporters won't actually do the research and report the facts because they have an agenda to push, and facts get in the way.

Democrats, including most reporters, basically believe that the money belongs to the government, and only because of their benevolence are the people and businesses allowed to keep some of the money they earned.  Democrats are big believers in trickle-down economics – they just don't call it that.  They believe that the government should take a bigger and bigger share from the public, run it through the bureaucracy, keeping a significant and growing amount for itself, and then trickle out the remainder to the public, saying that creates jobs.  Somehow, if the public is allowed to keep more of the money up front to spend, save, and invest as the public pleases, that doesn't work.

Most Democrats believe what Hillary said:

We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.

Democrats call themselves progressive, but there is absolutely nothing progressive about believing we always need a bigger government, more regulations, and higher taxes.  Making more people dependent on government is regressive, not progressive.  There are several states where if you combine federal and state taxes, the government takes over 50% of what you earn.  There is nothing fair or progressive about that.  The government invested and risked nothing, yet it believes that it is entitled to more of our money.  Government officials always come up with new taxes.  They pretend it is for health, but it is always used to support bigger government. 

Trump is very progressive, as he  is trying to give the power, freedom, and the purse back to the people.  Politicians, bureaucrats, and reporters are fighting him every step of the way to protect the power they have amassed for themselves.

Democrats are trying to block almost all of Trump's agenda, but we haven't seen anything until we see how hard they go after tax reform and tax cuts.  Democrats cannot allow the public to see how the economy will expand rapidly if people and businesses are allowed to keep more of the money they earn. 

We will hear talking points regurgitated over and over again that include how the deficit will explode, how the tax cuts will starve the poor and middle class and help the rich, how it is trickle-down economics (as if that were a bad thing), how the cuts won't help the economy, etc.  On Bush's tax cuts in particular, they will say they caused the deficit to increase, that they did not help the economy and jobs, they made the rich richer, and the rich don't pay their fair share. 

Many Democrats who have been in office throughout almost the entire $20-trillion buildup in debt and as Obamacare costs have massively increased are now deficit hawks – but only because the people and businesses are allowed to keep more of their money. 

Something the public won't actually see are numbers related to Bush tax cuts, because those numbers aren't convenient.  Here are some actual numbers:

In FY2000, the government collected around $1.2 trillion in income tax revenues.  Bush inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market, and by FY 2003, income tax revenues had dropped to around $900 billion.  Bush passed the substantial across-the-board tax cuts in May 2003; by FY 2007, the economy took off, and income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 trillion in FY2007.  The deficit had also risen from FY2000 to FY2003 to over $300 billion but declined to $161 billion by FY2007, and that included spending on both wars and Medicare Part D.  The government thrived and the economy thrived after the tax cuts.  The multiplier effect of the tax cuts was astonishing, yet Democrats and the CBO do not recognize dynamic scoring on tax cuts.

It should be noted that Democrats took over Congress for the FY2008, FY2009 and FY2010 budgets.

As everyone got tax cuts, the rich actually paid a higher share of taxes than ever.  They pay a much higher share in taxes than their share of income.  The richest 1% of taxpayers pay around 40% of income taxes while earning around 20% of income.  If double their share of income isn't fair, what is?

If reporters or the public would like to see actual numbers on taxes and expenses of the government for any year, here is a great source.

If anyone would like to see how jobs were stagnant before the 2003 tax cuts and took off after, here you go.

My guess is that most reporters won't actually do the research and report the facts because they have an agenda to push, and facts get in the way.

Democrats, including most reporters, basically believe that the money belongs to the government, and only because of their benevolence are the people and businesses allowed to keep some of the money they earned.  Democrats are big believers in trickle-down economics – they just don't call it that.  They believe that the government should take a bigger and bigger share from the public, run it through the bureaucracy, keeping a significant and growing amount for itself, and then trickle out the remainder to the public, saying that creates jobs.  Somehow, if the public is allowed to keep more of the money up front to spend, save, and invest as the public pleases, that doesn't work.

Most Democrats believe what Hillary said:

We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.

Democrats call themselves progressive, but there is absolutely nothing progressive about believing we always need a bigger government, more regulations, and higher taxes.  Making more people dependent on government is regressive, not progressive.  There are several states where if you combine federal and state taxes, the government takes over 50% of what you earn.  There is nothing fair or progressive about that.  The government invested and risked nothing, yet it believes that it is entitled to more of our money.  Government officials always come up with new taxes.  They pretend it is for health, but it is always used to support bigger government. 

Trump is very progressive, as he  is trying to give the power, freedom, and the purse back to the people.  Politicians, bureaucrats, and reporters are fighting him every step of the way to protect the power they have amassed for themselves.

RECENT VIDEOS