I need the libs to explain to me......

[gocolts 300]

Why don't you enlighten us on how the tax cuts spurred on increased tax revenues recently?

 

The left always tells us that most of the "Rich" are greedy.

 

 

Ever get a job from a poor man??

 

The point being,the more (of his own money ) a rich man gets to keep,the more he spends on yachts and other lavish things,thus keeping people working and paying taxes.

 

Plus,the "Rich people" are supposedly so greedy,they always want more money.Thus,they invest more of their own money to try and make it grow,creating more jobs.

 

oh yeah,under President Bush, net federal revenues went from $1.99 trillion in 2001 to $2.15 trillion in 2005, an 8 percent increase.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why don't you enlighten us on how the tax cuts spurred on increased tax revenues recently?

 

Ok. You asked for it and now you got it. Since you only requested recent tax revenues I will stick to those. The same can be demonstrated following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.

 

"the facts since 2003 have shown that the economic growth spurred by the President's tax policies have significantly swelled government coffers. In January 2004, for example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2004 revenue would be $1.817 trillion. Actual revenue came in $63 billion higher – half a percent of GDP. In January 2005, CBO projected 2005 revenue would be $2.057 billion; actual revenue came in $96 billion higher – 0.7 percent of GDP."

 

How about that.....the non-partisan CBO projected rising revenues each year after the tax cuts and they underestimated the actual rise by $159 Billion for that time period.

 

Oh, and a few more facts about our economy you won't see on ABC, NBC, and See BS:

 

But the past 30 months have demonstrated just how powerful those reforms were… and how mistaken our critics were. The evidence that that was the right policy prescription for America stream in every day:

 

• 4.5 million new jobs created;

• unemployment running lower than the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s;

• GDP growth averaging over 4.0% annually;

• household wealth at an all-time high;

• federal revenues increasing;

• U.S. equity markets rising steadily;

• Dividends paid to shareholders – millions of whom are senior citizens and middle class – are up.

 

 

ETA: Enough about that.....has SheepleInSTL figured out what Niger had to offer to Iraq yet?

[What is the deal? 1]

Ok. You asked for it and now you got it. Since you only requested recent tax revenues I will stick to those. The same can be demonstrated following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.

 

"the facts since 2003 have shown that the economic growth spurred by the President's tax policies have significantly swelled government coffers. In January 2004, for example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2004 revenue would be $1.817 trillion. Actual revenue came in $63 billion higher – half a percent of GDP. In January 2005, CBO projected 2005 revenue would be $2.057 billion; actual revenue came in $96 billion higher – 0.7 percent of GDP."

 

How about that.....the non-partisan CBO projected rising revenues each year after the tax cuts and they underestimated the actual rise by $159 Billion for that time period.

 

Oh, and a few more facts about our economy you won't see on ABC, NBC, and See BS:

 

But the past 30 months have demonstrated just how powerful those reforms were… and how mistaken our critics were. The evidence that that was the right policy prescription for America stream in every day:

 

• 4.5 million new jobs created;

• unemployment running lower than the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s;

• GDP growth averaging over 4.0% annually;

• household wealth at an all-time high;

• federal revenues increasing;

• U.S. equity markets rising steadily;

• Dividends paid to shareholders – millions of whom are senior citizens and middle class – are up.

ETA: Enough about that.....has SheepleInSTL figured out what Niger had to offer to Iraq yet?

damnit RP, you didn't leave me anything to say...

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ok. You asked for it and now you got it. Since you only requested recent tax revenues I will stick to those. The same can be demonstrated following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.

 

"the facts since 2003 have shown that the economic growth spurred by the President's tax policies have significantly swelled government coffers. In January 2004, for example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2004 revenue would be $1.817 trillion. Actual revenue came in $63 billion higher – half a percent of GDP. In January 2005, CBO projected 2005 revenue would be $2.057 billion; actual revenue came in $96 billion higher – 0.7 percent of GDP."

 

How about that.....the non-partisan CBO projected rising revenues each year after the tax cuts and they underestimated the actual rise by $159 Billion for that time period.

 

Oh, and a few more facts about our economy you won't see on ABC, NBC, and See BS:

 

But the past 30 months have demonstrated just how powerful those reforms were… and how mistaken our critics were. The evidence that that was the right policy prescription for America stream in every day:

 

• 4.5 million new jobs created;

• unemployment running lower than the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s;

• GDP growth averaging over 4.0% annually;

• household wealth at an all-time high;

• federal revenues increasing;

• U.S. equity markets rising steadily;

• Dividends paid to shareholders – millions of whom are senior citizens and middle class – are up.

ETA: Enough about that.....has SheepleInSTL figured out what Niger had to offer to Iraq yet?

 

I even left you a hint that there are other factors for the increase in revenues. I will give you another chance considering that the bulk of the increase in revenues comes from things other than the tax cut. Tax revenues are going to increase just about every year just because of inflation. There are going to be some permanent things that will increase revenues and there are going to be some one-time events that will increase revenues. If you dig a little deeper into the numbers, you will see more of the latter and less of the former.

 

My big problem is with the thing that you failed to mention, which is the increase in overall spending of 7% which is still more than the increase in revenues. Don't focus on the "discretionary spending", but focus on actual spending (including defense and Homeland Security).

[What is the deal? 1]

I even left you a hint that there are other factors for the increase in revenues. I will give you another chance considering that the bulk of the increase in revenues comes from things other than the tax cut. Tax revenues are going to increase just about every year just because of inflation. There are going to be some permanent things that will increase revenues and there are going to be some one-time events that will increase revenues. If you dig a little deeper into the numbers, you will see more of the latter and less of the former.

 

My big problem is with the thing that you failed to mention, which is the increase in overall spending of 7% which is still more than the increase in revenues. Don't focus on the "discretionary spending", but focus on actual spending (including defense and Homeland Security).

another chance? I think RP's evidence provides plenty of support. The fact is that we do not know what would have happened had we not had the tax cut. We know it worked out pretty well economically.

 

In addition the stimulatant of the economy by allowing people to spend more money (and creating new jobs) there are many more inherrent benefits. When you have higher taxes, you have people that aren't willing to work as hard or as much because it is not worth it when you have to pay that money to someone else. Also, with lower taxes you have people who are less willing to committ fraud since they are not risking as much, so you get increased revenues.

 

RP provided factual evidence to refute your advisement. Why don't you tell me why tax revenues do not increase when you decrease taxes because so far in this thread the evidence is to the contrary. You keep mentioning inflation, but hasn't been inflation been very very low the past 7 years?

 

In addition, this discussion was never about spending. No one is arguing that we haven't had to spend more than we have. Let's keep our eye on the rabbit.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

another chance? I think RP's evidence provides plenty of support. The fact is that we do not know what would have happened had we not had the tax cut. We know it worked out pretty well economically.

 

In addition the stimulatant of the economy by allowing people to spend more money (and creating new jobs) there are many more inherrent benefits. When you have higher taxes, you have people that aren't willing to work as hard or as much because it is not worth it when you have to pay that money to someone else. Also, with lower taxes you have people who are less willing to committ fraud since they are not risking as much, so you get increased revenues.

 

RP provided factual evidence to refute your advisement. Why don't you tell me why tax revenues do not increase when you decrease taxes because so far in this thread the evidence is to the contrary. You keep mentioning inflation, but hasn't been inflation been very very low the past 7 years?

 

In addition, this discussion was never about spending. No one is arguing that we haven't had to spend more than we have. Let's keep our eye on the rabbit.

 

As I already stated, there were some short term factors that indicate that the increase in revenues is not as you suggest.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business...agewanted=print

 

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

 

That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst.

 

But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. "Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit," wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, "are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution."

 

For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.

 

In addition, while a lot of the increase in tax revenue flows from the improving economy and higher incomes, part of the jump stemmed from a special factor: the expiration of a temporary tax break that allowed companies to write off their investment in new equipment much more rapidly than normal.

 

That tax break reduced revenue by about $61 billion in 2004, but it merely postponed taxes that companies would have to pay once their equipment was fully depreciated.

 

Other financial hurdles may be down the road. Mr. Bush's intention to extend his tax cuts indefinitely, and to add new ones, would drain more than $1.4 trillion from government coffers over the next 10 years.

 

As far as keeping our eyes on the rabbit, I believe that any fiscal policy that is based only on one side of the economic equation (revenues and expenses) is stupid. Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in expenses is a short term political play with long-term ramifications that are negative.

[parrot 789]

another chance? I think RP's evidence provides plenty of support. The fact is that we do not know what would have happened had we not had the tax cut. We know it worked out pretty well economically.

No it hasn't. It's buried us in debt we will be decades digging out of.

 

In addition the stimulatant of the economy by allowing people to spend more money (and creating new jobs) there are many more inherrent benefits. When you have higher taxes, you have people that aren't willing to work as hard or as much because it is not worth it when you have to pay that money to someone else. Also, with lower taxes you have people who are less willing to committ fraud since they are not risking as much, so you get increased revenues.

Pure conjecture. You can just as easily hypothesize that people work harder when taxes are higher because they need more take home to get by. Point two, maybe more valid, but again, pure conjecture.

 

RP provided factual evidence to refute your advisement. Why don't you tell me why tax revenues do not increase when you decrease taxes because so far in this thread the evidence is to the contrary. You keep mentioning inflation, but hasn't been inflation been very very low the past 7 years?

Tax revenues can increase with tax cuts if other conditions are ripe, but to act like this is just an automatic cause and effect if really simplistic.

In addition, this discussion was never about spending. No one is arguing that we haven't had to spend more than we have. Let's keep our eye on the rabbit.

It's pretty disingenuous to think you can debate fiscal policy without having the topic of spending on the table, but... I'll argue that we haven't had to spend more than we have, we've chosen to spend more than we have.

 

The spending explosion has gone well beyond just funding the war. This congess and president have increased spending 33% overall. 33% fricking percent, and it's up in almost every individual category imaginable, from obscene corporate welfare like the farm bill to unfunded entitlements like the Medicare drug bill to ridiculously expensive and unnecessary pork projects. The Republicans got control of both houses of congress and a rubber stamp in the oval office and have been treating the national coffers like their personal spending accounts ever since. And to be fair, they throw enough pork the Democrats way to keep them mostly quiet. It's a great friggin system we got.

 

You really have to be a true believer to try and pat this bunch on the back for their handling of the economy.

[What is the deal? 1]

No it hasn't. It's buried us in debt we will be decades digging out of.

Pure conjecture. You can just as easily hypothesize that people work harder when taxes are higher because they need more take home to get by. Point two, maybe more valid, but again, pure conjecture.

 

Tax revenues can increase with tax cuts if other conditions are ripe, but to act like this is just an automatic cause and effect if really simplistic.

It's pretty disingenuous to think you can debate fiscal policy without having the topic of spending on the table, but... I'll argue that we haven't had to spend more than we have, we've chosen to spend more than we have.

 

The spending explosion has gone well beyond just funding the war. This congess and president have increased spending 33% overall. 33% fricking percent, and it's up in almost every individual category imaginable, from obscene corporate welfare like the farm bill to unfunded entitlements like the Medicare drug bill to ridiculously expensive and unnecessary pork projects. The Republicans got control of both houses of congress and a rubber stamp in the oval office and have been treating the national coffers like their personal spending accounts ever since. And to be fair, they throw enough pork the Democrats way to keep them mostly quiet. It's a great friggin system we got.

 

You really have to be a true believer to try and pat this bunch on the back for their handling of the economy.

 

 

The tax cuts have assisted us in gaining increased tax revenues by turning the economy around and the evidence that RP provided supports that conclusion. Revenues as in the intake of cash flows. That is what this discussion is about not expenses. Please provide some evidence that tax cuts are not good for the economy despite the obvious evidence above. We know how it has helped us improve since 2001 and we know what Reagan's tax cuts did to stimulate the economy in the 90's. If the people of the United States did not have additional money to spend the economy would not be where it is at today. Which is in a pretty damn good situation.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

lol

 

The only thing the libs can come up with to argue with the fact tax cuts increase revenues is:"But the gubmint spends too much". No focking sh!t. Every year since the late '60's the feds have spent more than they took in.

 

Fact are facts. All 3 times in recent history there were substantial tax cuts the revenues coming into the treasury soared.

 

End of story.

 

BTW: Has SheepleInSTL come up with a viable commodity, other than Uranium, the Iraqi Nuclear head was looking for in Uranium rich Niger yet?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Every year since the late '60's the feds have spent more than they took in.

 

Then how did we end up with a surplus prior to GWB coming into office?

 

It seems to me that the FY's of 1998-2001, there was a surplus.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tf...=20&Topic3id=23

 

You get your facts completely wrong and continue to ignore that you cannot draw a causal inference that the tax cut caused increased tax revenue.

 

As far as what the Iraqi's might have been doing in Niger, I believe that there were at least 5 natural resources (Uranium not included) that might have been on the mind of the Iraqi's when they went to Niger. You continue to ignore that one as well.

 

No surprise there.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Then how did we end up with a surplus prior to GWB coming into office?

 

Why am I not surprised a lib who falls hook, line, and sinker for the BS that ABC, NBC, and See BS feeds him nightly buys into a govt accounting trick regarding the budget.

 

 

If we had real "surplusses" please explain to me why the nation debt went up each and every year Clinton was in office.

 

Figures from the U.S. Treasury:

 

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Why am I not surprised a lib who falls hook, line, and sinker for the BS that ABC, NBC, and See BS feeds him nightly buys into a govt accounting trick regarding the budget.

If we had real "surplusses" please explain to me why the nation debt went up each and every year Clinton was in office.

 

Figures from the U.S. Treasury:

 

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

 

Interest

 

It is the same way that companies can show positive cash flow and still be losing money. Look up an accounting term called, "EBITDA" and you will see what I mean.

[What is the deal? 1]

Then how did we end up with a surplus prior to GWB coming into office?

Growth was projected at a record pace, so companies were hiring like crazy. We had more tax payers with solid jobs, but it was all fake. Bubble Economy and it was only a matter of time before it burst.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Growth was projected at a record pace, so companies were hiring like crazy. We had more tax payers with solid jobs, but it was all fake. Bubble Economy and it was only a matter of time before it burst.

And what makes you believe that the indicators today show something more solid or "real"? Is it because GWB tells you so?

 

I am not that easy to convince since I am one of the people who benefits most by what GWB is doing, but even I don't believe in it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Interest

 

 

Sorry, no cigar.

 

Interest is part of the debt every year. Try paying your mortgage company only the principle and tell them "But I have a surplus of cash" and see how long it takes them to kick your ass out.

 

And you still ignore the accounting gimmick the govt plays on you by offsetting the defecit with the Social Security Surplus. Without the ability to use that fraud our defecit would be billions more.

[torridjoe 0]

And what makes you believe that the indicators today show something more solid or "real"? Is it because GWB tells you so?

 

I am not that easy to convince since I am one of the people who benefits most by what GWB is doing, but even I don't believe in it.

 

Check back with Bush when he's ready to put ANY of the Iraq money on budget. Right now it's all pure deficit spending, totally unaccounted for whenever they discuss the annual budget numbers.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And what makes you believe that the indicators today show something more solid or "real"?

 

Because the indicators are based on companies who actually have assets and income, not dot.com paper tigers.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Sorry, no cigar.

 

Interest is part of the debt every year. Try paying your mortgage company only the principle and tell them "But I have a surplus of cash" and see how long it takes them to kick your ass out.

 

And you still ignore the accounting gimmick the govt plays on you by offsetting the deficet with the Social Security Surplus. Without the ability to use that fraud our defecit would be billions more.

 

Read above. Trust me, I know accounting.

 

A surplus is when your receipts are greater than your outlays. In business, there are some items (interest, depreciation, taxes, amortization) that go below that line which affect overall profitability, but are nonetheless in a completely different bracket. Read a 10-Q sometime.

 

Defecit spending is when you spend more than you bring in for a given period of time. It has absolutely nothing to do with what your prior debts are. Consistent deficit spending creates holes that are very difficult to crawl out of.

 

You are speaking out both sides of your mouth. In one sentence, you say:

 

Every year since the late '60's the feds have spent more than they took in.

 

then, when proven wrong, you back track and bring up the Federal deficit, which is a completely different category. If you want to look at the Federal defecit, you have to go back before the late 60's according to your info.

 

Can't have it both ways, RP.

[What is the deal? 1]

Because the indicators are based on companies who actually have assets and income, not dot.com paper tigers.

that sums it up, the additional scrutiny that companies face from the SEC is also another reason why #'s are safer now.

[torridjoe 0]

Sorry, no cigar.

 

Interest is part of the debt every year. Try paying your mortgage company only the principle and tell them "But I have a surplus of cash" and see how long it takes them to kick your ass out.

 

And you still ignore the accounting gimmick the govt plays on you by offsetting the deficet with the Social Security Surplus. Without the ability to use that fraud our defecit would be billions more.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

For two years, the US ran an on-budget surplus. That means that the budget was balanced in our favor even AFTER accounting for the SS surplus (usually called an off-budget surplus). With that extra money, over 200 billion dollars was paid to the national debt. Unfortunately, because of the interest on the debt, the total debt still went up...just by 200 billion less than it would have without an on-budget surplus.

 

Clinton is the ONLY President to pay down the debt since WWII, that I'm aware of. Not only has Bush not even come close, he's also SPENT the off-budget surplus that was supposed to be going to SS. All presidents have done it since 1983, including Clinton. But Bush did it for WAY more money than anyone ever had before. And then he had the extreme balls to say that SS was going bankrupt. He should know, HE was the one helping to bankrupt it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wow!

 

It's easy to say you brought in more money than you spent when you steal the Social Security surplus. Take that out of the equation and let me know what ya get, Mr. Accountant.

 

 

 

Clinton is the ONLY President to pay down the debt since WWII, that I'm aware of.

 

 

And yet, the National Debt went up every year Clinton was in office. Liberal accounting at it's finest.

 

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Wow!

 

It's easy to say you brought in more money than you spent when you steal the Social Security surplus. Take that out of the equation and let me know what ya get, Mr. Accountant.

 

And yet, the National Debt went up every year Clinton was in office. Liberal accounting at it's finest.

 

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

 

Still don't get it do you? Read up on the difference between National Debt and Deficit Spending. They are totally different. If you have debt, you have to pay interest on it. If that interest is greater than your surplus for a period of time, your debt goes up.

 

Since you love whitehouse.gov so much, I suggest that you look here for a refresher course.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If you have debt, you have to pay interest on it. If that interest is greater than your surplus for a period of time, your debt goes up.

 

How do you have a surplus without covering your interest? It's all part of the budget. You would like for us to ignore interest, and the fact the govt steals the SS Surplus, so you can claim a budget surplus.

 

No thanks, I ain't buying it.

 

OK, Mr. Accountant. On a 30 year mortgage of $250,000 at 6% interest, how long will it take me to pay it off if I don't pay part of the interest each month? I'll answer for ya: never, because it is BS. Just like your ficticious Clinton "Surplus"

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How do you have a surplus without covering your interest? It's all part of the budget. You would like for us to ignore interest, and the fact the govt steals the SS Surplus, so you can claim a budget surplus.

 

No thanks, I ain't buying it.

 

OK, Mr. Accountant. On a 30 year mortgage of $250,000 at 6% interest, how long will it take me to pay it off if I don't pay part of the interest each month? I'll answer for ya: never, because it is BS. Just like your ficticious Clinton "Surplus"

So you did not even read the link that I provided. Hell, it was from GWB's White House for goodness sake.

 

Let me give you an example that is probably more up your alley.

 

You are doing your normal job (flipping burgers). You get paid $8/hr (I figure you went to BKU) and you work 40 hours a week. For simplicity, let's say that your take home is $800 a month. Let's also say that you have a credit card debt that is comensurate with what we are talking about with the Federal deficit here. Let's say that is $4M. This month, you have saved real hard and you managed to spend only $700 of your money. With that surplus this month, you decide that you are going to pay your credit card company that extra $100. So instead of owing them $4M, you only owe them $3,999,900. Oh, but wait, there is interest on that $4M that you are going to have to pay. So instead of owing them $3,999,900 you really owe them $4,001,842 (or thereabouts).

 

Now, next month, you actually spend more than your $800 and some of that money (let's say $1,000) is on that credit card again. So next month, you owe them even more money than before. But what the hell do you care, it is not like those people are going to try and collect it. You are the United States of America.

 

Got it?

[parrot 789]

lol

 

The only thing the libs can come up with to argue with the fact tax cuts increase revenues is:"But the gubmint spends too much". No focking sh!t. Every year since the late '60's the feds have spent more than they took in.

Lol is right, at you trying to follow what has taken place in this thread.

 

Yes, tax cuts can spur revenues. If that's the concession you're looking for, there you go. But focusing solely on revenues while ignoring the other aspects of Bush's trainwreck of a fiscal policy is a pretty meaningless debate.

[What is the deal? 1]

Lol is right, at you trying to follow what has taken place in this thread.

 

Yes, tax cuts can spur revenues. If that's the concession you're looking for, there you go. But focusing solely on revenues while ignoring the other aspects of Bush's trainwreck of a fiscal policy is a pretty meaningless debate.

just so were on the same page. Your saying lower taxes actually help Tax Revenue?

[parrot 789]

just so were on the same page. Your saying lower taxes actually help Tax Revenue?

Yes, at times they can. I've already said this several times.

 

I think lower taxes may be a contributing factor right now, I know my company has spent a lot of money on assets the last couple years to take advantage of the Sec 179 increase. So that kind of spending on a wide scale can definitely help spur things. However I don't think tax cuts are the sole reason for the recent revenue uptick by any means, the upswing in the business cycle and the deficit spending have aided the revenue numbers greatly.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yes, at times they can. I've already said this several times.

 

I think lower taxes may be a contributing factor right now, I know my company has spent a lot of money on assets the last couple years to take advantage of the Sec 179 increase. So that kind of spending on a wide scale can definitely help spur things. However I don't think tax cuts are the sole reason for the recent revenue uptick by any means, the upswing in the business cycle and the deficit spending have aided the revenue numbers greatly.

 

 

I agree as well. Tax cuts can help stimulate the economy short term with resulting increases in tax revenue. However, there is no causal inference that can be made that these tax cuts resulted in a significant increase in tax revenues. This is because there were many other factors (also short term solutions) that were meant to increase revenues as well.

 

The fact that these tax cuts came at the same time that we were looking to spend considerably more puts us in a long term hole that we are going to have to address soon. When that happens, there are going to be HUGE problems.

[Ravens 03 0]

 

I agree as well. Tax cuts can help stimulate the economy short term with resulting increases in tax revenue. However, there is no causal inference that can be made that these tax cuts resulted in a significant increase in tax revenues. This is because there were many other factors (also short term solutions) that were meant to increase revenues as well.

 

The fact that these tax cuts came at the same time that we were looking to spend considerably more puts us in a long term hole that we are going to have to address soon. When that happens, there are going to be HUGE problems.

 

 

Ever hear of CUTTING SPENDING?

 

Especially on worthless programs.

[parrot 789]

Ever hear of CUTTING SPENDING?

 

Especially on worthless programs.

Great idea, someone should clue in Bush and the GOP congress - who have increased overall federal spending 33% since they assumed total power - to this novel concept.

 

The sad truth is they haven't just spent like drunken sailors for now, they've also locked us into some massive long term spending that is going to cause huge problems for this country down the road, and will be almost impossible to cut.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ever hear of CUTTING SPENDING?

 

Especially on worthless programs.

 

That is all I have been saying. Cut taxes, cut spending. The smaller the gubment, the better.

[parrot 789]

That is all I have been saying. Cut taxes, cut spending. The smaller the gubment, the better.

Focking libs, always wanting smaller gubment.

[What is the deal? 1]

as long as the libs understand that we do not need to increase taxes to get more tax revenue, I am cool with that. This is not just a short term thing, more taxes create a hole in the economy where on the other side that money can be taxed over and over if given to the people..

[parrot 789]

the libs

[edjr 5,624]

On 4/19/2006 at 7:38 PM, Recliner Pilot said:

lol

 

The only thing the libs can come up with to argue with the fact tax cuts increase revenues is:"But the gubmint spends too much". No focking sh!t. Every year since the late '60's the feds have spent more than they took in.

 

Fact are facts. All 3 times in recent history there were substantial tax cuts the revenues coming into the treasury soared.

 

End of story.

 

BTW: Has SheepleInSTL come up with a viable commodity, other than Uranium, the Iraqi Nuclear head was looking for in Uranium rich Niger yet?

Definitely NOT HT