Three different presidents in two parties proposed across-the-board tax cuts and in all three cases, tax revenue increased substantially. Therefore, plenty of precedent suggests Trump, being the last of the three presidents in a former administration, will see the same accomplishment with far more evidence than a tired CBO theory, which has been thrice proven wrong. Broken record against gold records. Get it, yet? I have personal memory of Kennedy's accomplishment, let alone Reagan and Trump. Many of you, I'll wager, have no memory of Reagan and believe Shoofly. That's on you. Remember Shoofly also predicted the demise of the Supreme Court on the steps of that building as if he owned the place. Wrong, again. Twice more. How manat fails are going to allow to Shoofly before you admit he's as worthless as a pregnant man..
Shoofly fails. Again.
Posts
Total:
2
The problem:
Brandolini's law (or the bullshit asymmetry principle) is an Internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The adage states:The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
The AI generated solution -
This passage is a highly opinionated argument advocating for tax cuts, referencing three presidents (Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump) while dismissing opposing views (particularly those attributed to "Shoofly," likely a derogatory reference to the Congressional Budget Office or another economic analyst). Below is a fact-check and bias analysis:### **Fact-Checking Key Claims**1. **"Three different presidents in two parties proposed across-the-board tax cuts and in all three cases, tax revenue increased substantially."**- **JFK (1964 cuts under LBJ):** Post-tax-cut revenue **did rise**, but largely due to economic growth, not solely the cuts. The top marginal rate was **70% before cuts**, so reductions had a different context than today.- **Reagan (1981 & 1986):** Revenue initially **fell** after the 1981 cuts, contributing to deficits. It later recovered due to economic expansion and base-broadening in the 1986 reform.- **Trump (2017):** Revenue **initially dropped** post-TCJA before recovering, but **deficits grew** due to spending and economic conditions (pre-pandemic).- **Verdict:** **Partially true but misleading.** Revenue increases were not immediate, and other factors (economic cycles, inflation, fiscal policy) played major roles.2. **"CBO theory... thrice proven wrong."**- The CBO (and other analysts) often **underestimate dynamic effects** but are generally cautious in scoring tax cuts. Their models prioritize static analysis, which critics argue is incomplete.- **Verdict:** **Debatable.** The CBO has revised estimates, but "proven wrong" is an oversimplification.3. **"Shoofly predicted the demise of the Supreme Court..."**- Unclear reference, possibly a mocking nickname for a pundit or institution. If referring to the CBO, this is **false**—the CBO doesn’t make political predictions about the Supreme Court.- **Verdict:** **Unsubstantiated/irrelevant.**### **Bias Analysis**- **Tone:** Dismissive, sarcastic ("Broken record against gold records"), and ad hominem ("worthless as a pregnant man").- **Cherry-Picking:** Ignores cases where tax cuts **did not** boost revenue (Bush 2001, Kansas under Brownback).- **False Dilemma:** Implies tax cuts **always** work and critics are always wrong.- **Appeal to Authority:** "I have personal memory of Kennedy's accomplishment" substitutes anecdote for data.- **Straw Man:** Attributes exaggerated failures to "Shoofly" without evidence.### **Conclusion**The argument **overstates the certainty** of tax cuts increasing revenue, **ignores counterexamples**, and relies on **rhetoric over evidence**. While tax cuts **can** stimulate growth, their impact on revenue depends on broader economic conditions—not a guaranteed outcome. The CBO’s role is analytical, not partisan, and dismissing it entirely is unsound.