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:
8
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.
-->
@fauxlaw
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 recently got an advertisement on my work email (don't remember who these people were), claiming to have proof that CBO was biased and had been blatantly wrong before. I wish I'd clicked on that to see if they had a decent argument. By now it's buried deep enough that I have no interest in trying to retrieve it.
So do you have any helpful citations that would back up what you're saying?
-->
@Swagnarok
The CBO has to guess how much money the government will get from taxes, and to do that, it assumes a mostly static GDP or a static growth of GDP. But the CBO can not really predict how the economy will change around the globe or how new tax laws or leadership initiatives affect GDP growth or decline. Instead, it mostly uses simple guesses based on past trends. Because of this, their predictions about government revenue were historically off both ways, underestimating revenue during tax cuts and over estimating tax revenue during tax hikes. cbo was looking out for gvt interests first and thats the worst kind of bias
-->
@ultramaximus2
The problem [not investigated by A.I., but rather, by my own analysis]
A.I. begins "artificial" and that, alone, ought to educate an educated brain, which is not artificial. Clear?
In all three presidential cases to which my #1 referred, resulted in increased tax revenue; the only claim made in my #1. A.I. manages only to obfuscate with a wall of text that ultimately admits to that conclusion. No one promised a clock by which to gage the the results of lowering taxes, and virtually any economist worth more than Biden's sandbox, will agree: do not expect immediate results. That's all I'm saying.
6 lines of text, including this conclusion. A.I.: you're a bloody long tongue of no consequence. Sing to the choir of un-thinkers who believe your every word.
-->
@Swagnarok
Since I lived in all three presidencies I cited, and now the fourth, and observed results [on the three - thus my confidence in the fourth], my personal testimony is one source. My most clear evidence: I started buying gold at my father's suggestion in the late 70s when it was $400/oz, and silver at $12/oz.
Beyond that, y'all can read the same history I do. I didn't have anyone give me citations; I found them myself. Not the NYT, WSJ, Cartoon News Network, or MessNBC. My father also taught me I'm better off doing my own research rather than be led by the nose; even by him. My father was a good adviser. I pass it along.
-->
@fauxlaw
Intelligence is intelligence.
Just depends upon how intelligence is applied.
Artificial simply implies non-human.
Alternative would be a better descriptive.
Trouble is, human intelligence comes weighted with emotion, misinformation and deliberate divisiveness.
One would hope that real AI will be more logical and pragmatic.
"One would hope that real AI will be more logical and pragmatic." How could it be? Its core algorithms are written by deliberate, emotional, divisive, misleading people. It already been proven to be corrupted by bias. Politics and religion being the most corrupted by bias. Any bias at all will corrupt the whole system. AI will just be another deliberate, emotional, divisive, misleading person figuratively speaking. It will be plagued and corrupted with PC and wokeness, it already is.