The Right Side of the News

Well, if you want to get really technical:Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

(a) Statement. Statement means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

​

(b) Declarant. Declarant means the person who made the statement.

​

(c) Hearsay. Hearsay means a statement that:

​

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

​

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

---

testimony | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.

---

Seems to me that covers it pretty well.The most common definition in legal dictionaries is:

quote:

---

Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

---

Which seems to me to be begging misinterpretation by ...

Concerning Social Security, it doesn't matter what claims anyone makes about Social Security contributing to the deficit. They are false. By law - let me repeat that in a way you seem to think contributes to understanding - BY LAW, Social Security cannot contribute to the federal deficit.Medicare and Medicaid can contribute to the federal deficit because they depend partially on federal revenue, but only partially. Don't keep forgetting that "Medicare" line on paystubs.--Percy

If the money literally contributes to the federal deficit how can there be a law saying it doesn't? That is making zero sense. Everything we spend money on contributes to the deficit which then contributes to the National Debt.If the money is actually tallied as part of the deficit then it's part of the deficit. It's money we end up owing China or Japan, law or no law. I put up an expert like Justin Bogie because he studies this stuff and I don't, and he said all those programs are adding to the deficit every year, which means that any total deficit attributed to any President but is made up of these mandatory expenditures plus what the President spent, it's a mandatory expenditure that automatically gets added in so the total imputed to the President is misleading.

He lies Faith.

There is such a law. Social Security is a closed system black box as far as the rest of the government is concerned. The payroll tax goes only into the Social Security trust fund, payouts come only out of that trust fund.Republicans have been trying to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security since their inceptions. If you don't have enough money to support your retirement or your medical needs, the Republican solution is for you to die. Starvation is the preferred method.Every time Republicans balloon the deficit and debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending, they blame it on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as an excuse to cut them. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No More Mister Nice Blog: TAKE THE MITCH McCONNELL ... (opinion piece).

quote:

---

One of Mitch McConnell's favorite activities is to rub the faces of Democrats in their own powerlessness. He's on course to do again: His fellow Senate Republicans have agreed not to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial; after that, the acquittal of President Trump is a mere formality.

​

But it seems to have dawned on McConnell that every non-deplorable in America realizes that the trial was rigged. That doesn't mean that he and the other GOP senators will reconsider witnesses or a party-line acquittal vote. What it means is that they're going to gin up a few delaying tactics, in the hope that when acquittal finally comes, five whole days from now, Americans will be thinking about the Super Bowl (Sunday), the Iowa caucuses (Monday), and/or the State of the Union address (Tuesday), and not what went on in McConnell's kangaroo court.

---

It is obviously not true that SS is separate from other funds, those that add to the deficit, or Justin Bogie would have excluded it from the deficit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Have you ever noticed that every time you make a statement about law you're wrong?Text of H.R. 5835 (101st): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us

quote:

---

SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

​

(a) EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--

​

(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President,

​

(2) the congressional budget, or

​

(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

​

(b) EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET- Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals required by this subsection or in any other surplus or deficit totals required by this title.

---

Assuming your buddies must be right is a extraordinarily poor assumption.He lied. Or he's stunningly ignorant of the subject. Either way not a trustworthy source. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Despite what that law says, it appears that the SS outlay is in fact included in the figuring of the edeficit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

the Congressional Research Service found that over the last 65 years the level of income tax rates and capital gains rates was not a predictor of economic growth. On the other hand when the data collected by the Congressional Research Service is looked at for only the last 25 years, there is a strong correlation between low tax rates and economic growth, it’s just that it’s a negative correlation. With a lag, lower tax rates resulted in lower growth.

---

How I Know Higher Taxes Would Be Good For The EconomyArticle from 2010

quote:

---

In fact, during the 1950s and early 1960s, when America experienced its most impressive stretch of sustained growth, marginal tax rates on the rich were the highest they’ve ever been 91 percent for the top bracket. Meanwhile, during the last decade, when top tax rates were at one of their lowest points in recent history, the US economy experienced its slowest annual growth rate since the Great Depression. Domestic economic growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent per year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). Even during the period between 1971 and 1980 the decade with the second-worst showing for growth annual growth averaged 3.21 percent...
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, extension of high income tax cuts would do little to help the overwhelming majority of small businesses. Businessweek reported that the Congressional Research Service analysis found that Small businesses with actual workers would pay only about 12 percent of the higher taxes. Furthermore, small business employment rose by an annual average of 2.3 percent or 756,000 jobs during the 1990’s when top tax rates were at the levels they’ll return to if the cuts expire. By contrast, between 2001 and 2006 after the Bush cuts took effect small business employment rose at only 1 percent annually or 367,000 jobs

---

Here is more evidence for the position I take.

quote:

---

A just-released report by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) -- a DC think tank providing analysis on peace and economic, racial, and climate justice -- provides evidence that tax cuts for corporations do not necessarily correlate with an increase in jobs. Additionally, increased CEO compensation does not routinely result in increased employment. These are important findings, because the number one rationale that politicians use to justify corporate tax cuts is that the increased business revenue will lead to decreased unemployment.

---

Corporate Tax Cuts Don't Mean More Jobs
https://ips-dc.org/...EE17-final-embargoed-for-August-30.pdf
History shows that low taxes do not incentivize corporate investment. If you have data showing otherwise, I am more than willing to review.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box.

Forgot this one.

quote:

---

As the trendline through the scatter indicates, the relationship actually goes the wrong waycountries with higher corporate tax rates over this period had larger capital stocks by 2014. This positive relationship is not particularly significant, either statistically or economically, but that’s largely the point: tax cuts are an extremely weak lever with which to attempt to move capital investment.
Some might argue that looking at the average rate over a 14 year period might hide the fact that some countries went from high rates at the beginning of the period to low rates in the end. In this case, the large change in rates could likely have affected capital investment, but this would be obscured by our long-run averages. This is fair enoughthough it highlights once again the CEA report’s inappropriate use of averages over a short-run period. But Figure B below shows the change in corporate tax rates versus the growth rate of capital inputs into production (a measure of capital investment used in productivity analysis).
Again, the correlation here goes the wrong way for sustaining claims that slashing corporate rates would increase capital investment; countries that saw larger reductions in the statutory rate saw slower growth of capital inputs.
The international evidence presented above just re-confirms what we already know: no binding constraint on American economic growth exists today that would be helped at all by cutting corporate income taxes. Instead, such cuts would simply boost incomes for owners of corporationsa group that is already overwhelmingly among the richest households in America. Promises of gains to investment, productivity and wage growth that will force these tax cuts to trickle down to typical American households are completely empty.

---

International evidence shows that low corporate tax rates are not strongly associated with stronger investment | Economic Policy Institute

Canada sees the same.

quote:

---

A new CCPA study examines historical data on business investment and cash flow from 1961 through 2010, and, using econometric techniques, finds no evidence in the historical data that lower taxes have directly stimulated more investment.
Business fixed capital spending has declined notably as a share of GDP and as a share of corporate cash flow since the early 1980sdespite repeated tax cuts that have reduced the combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate from 50% to just 29.5% in 2010.
According to the study, by economist Jim Stanford, the Conservatives’ proposed 3-point reduction in corporate tax rates would cost the public purse $6 billion per year, yet only stimulate about $600 million of new business investment annually.
If the federal government spent $6 billion on public infrastructure instead of corporate tax cuts, the total increase in investment would be more than ten times as great as the increase in private investment from tax cuts alone. This includes the new public investment itself ($6 billion), as well as an additional $520 million in private business investment that would be stimulated through the positive spin-off effects of the resulting economic growth.

---

Corporate tax cuts don't stimulate investment | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Show us Faith. You make outlandish stupid claims, so show us you are right.

He lies Faith. He knows that his audience is trained not to check reality but just believe when he TESTIFIES.

Justin Bogie is a Senior Analyst with the Heritage Foundation. That's my evidence. Calling people llars when they dfon't aree with you is very childish.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.