Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteHmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.
Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.
Since the tax cut here in the US, tax receipts are setting records here too.
Makes as much sense as me saying: Since I got a 250k/yr job I've been doing well, but that $1,000/day cocaine habit is busting my balls.
Don't brag anything until it amounts to anything. Losing 200B per year instead of 400B is still a 200B loss, not a 200B victory.
Lucky... 0
QuoteAgreed, but you also have to look at the major reasons tooQuoteBut you can't just look at revenue alone. You also have to look at debt and expenses. When you take that into consideration, picture isn't as rosey.
What ae they?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.
You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.
I like his history argument. History, Reagan tripling the debt in 8 years, GHW Bush adding a mere 1T in 4 years and now GHW Bush will virtually double it in 8 years. Where's this history? Are we going back to teh civil fucking wartime?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.
You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.Quote
and you are good at twisting facts to make out of context points. Does that make us even?
Whee's your history?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteHmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.
Now, that's what I call progressive.QuoteSeems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well.
Here, I'll finish it for you:
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well...... on the backs of the underclass.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteHmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.
Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.
The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months?
Exactly, Bush's acomplishments are measured in weeks and months, any chimp can win 1 lap, try winning a race. Clinton had sustained economic success over several years, so don't go cast Bush as any kind of winner until he can do this for sometime and he will never undo the damage he's done over the 1st 6 years.
I love the way you rewrite history. Clinton did not have shit. And the facts show his admin was hiding the beginnings of a small resesion due to his tax hikes. He did not balance any budget as it was a reb controled congress's budget that did that. (they sure as hell have lost that idea today however
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
) As for Bush's long term, we are in one of the longest growth periods. Do your research before you put out the talking points cause I don't have to look in the mirror to enjoy myself with posts like these
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteAgreed, but you also have to look at the major reasons tooQuoteBut you can't just look at revenue alone. You also have to look at debt and expenses. When you take that into consideration, picture isn't as rosey.
What ae they?
Oh come on. Do you forget on purpose??
Clintons ression, 911, Katrina and despite these the economy continues to grow, inflation stays low (not Bushs credit) more amerians own houses than ever before (granted more are loosing them too but that it thier own and the lending instututions fault)
As for the debt, I don't like it either however, you (again) spin it out of context. As kallend pointed out in similar situations you have to look at more than just the raw numbers. Would you happen to know how that might apply here??
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.
Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.
The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months?
Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it?
Again, way off point
I think not.
....I am not surprised...
Washington Post, October 17, 2006
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.
The revenue "surge" over the last 2 years still hasn't paid for the shortfall in 2001-2004. The growth rate in tax revenues during the 1990s was considerably higher than the growth rate in revenues since Bush took office.
You post that I use always and every time and then you put this up???? what a farse. I will go with Milton Friedman on tax cuts, among other things
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Oh, and I would expect a totally different slant on this (From you quoted Washington Com-Post) had a Dem been in office at the time of the article
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Gawain 0
QuoteQuote
I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.
You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.
In actuality, that trend shows the trailing nature certain indicators have in the wake of the recession. Though, I will say that my previous post was incorrect. Tax receipts are not setting records, but they are meeting or exceeding forecasts. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html
Edit to add: Tax receipts are exceeding the total amounts accounted for during 7 of the 8 years President Clinton was in office. However, that could also account size of the economy as well, trailing indicators of the last 18 months or so from President G.H.W. Bush's term through President Clinton.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Royd 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once Uncle Sam decides that he wants a bigger part of my money, I simply shut down. In other words, when the govt decides that I've made enough money at $30 per hour, and now I should only bring home $20 per hour, I tell them to go screw themselves.
How much more money would they get from me troughout the year if they didn't get greedy?
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how it works with me since I am debt free and self employed.QuoteCutting taxes and increasing spending progressive? Nah, we've always spent more than we've taken in since the ealy 1800's with teh exception of a few breaks, same ole thing. Progressive would be to cut spending and raise taxes, pay down the debt and watch the dollar grow, that's progressive.
Once Uncle Sam decides that he wants a bigger part of my money, I simply shut down. In other words, when the govt decides that I've made enough money at $30 per hour, and now I should only bring home $20 per hour, I tell them to go screw themselves.
How much more money would they get from me troughout the year if they didn't get greedy?
I feel LUCKY just to be able to get space to post in this thread!
Royd 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you consider yourself to be the underclass, or just the champion of the underclass?QuoteHere, I'll finish it for you:
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well...... on the backs of the underclass.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI love the way you rewrite history. Clinton did not have shit.
So then this happened by accident?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
I still would ike to see your evidence that Clinton didn't fix the economy from a wreck and then GW Bush didn't fuck it up. Please back your arg with data, not rhetoric.
QuoteAnd the facts show his admin was hiding the beginnings of a small resesion due to his tax hikes.
What facts? He inherited 7%+ unemployment and a debt at 250B per year, some say he left a surplus, but I don't want to argue that, he balanced the budget over a long-term, not for 2 months.
QuoteHe did not balance any budget as it was a reb controled congress's budget that did that. (they sure as hell have lost that idea today however
Therefore it must not have been them with Clinton. Granted a few faces have changed, but it was largely the same group of Repubs under Clinton as with Bush, they just knew that Bush had no idea what a veto pen was, so they ra amuck. Clinton vetoed their budgets until they got it right as I recall.
QuoteAs for Bush's long term, we are in one of the longest growth periods.
Spell it out, cite your data. When was the other long growth spurts? How is this one better? What is the end result? If it is going to be that great and sustained, is it going to fix the 3.2 trillion is debt increase that is still zooming at what, the rate of 200B per year I would guess? He's mre of a chronic overspender than a credit card happy young chick. Can you understand the concept of the bottom line? If the gov is taking in more money than ever, not saying they are, but if they are and we are spending twice what we take in, that is not progress; can you understand that simple concept?
QuoteAs for Bush's long term, we are in one of the longest growth periods.
WILL YOO FUCKING CITE SOMETHING THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT? After that, explain how the debt is still hammering us hard if we are taking in so much money. Isn't the net result the most important thing?
QuoteDo your research before you put out the talking points cause I don't have to look in the mirror to enjoy myself with posts like these
I'm sure you enjoy yourself several times a day. But I don't wanna talk about that. I have researched teh big picture and we are slamming into debt at large rates, how is it that we are doing so well?
Lucky... 0
QuoteClintons ression, 911, Katrina and despite these the economy continues to grow, inflation stays low (not Bushs credit) more amerians own houses than ever before (granted more are loosing them too but that it thier own and the lending instututions fault)
Clinton's recession - WTF are you talking about? Post what indicators, etc. Just citing he had a recesion doesn;t make it fact, explain it.
911 - that explains some of the dip in jobs, but the war has cost at least 1/2 trillion and we all know things are worse over there. Bush's reaction was pathetic.
Katrina - uh, what did he do there, send in the gaurd after 1000's died and then bought them trailers that were never used? Katrina didn't cos that much and he barely acknowledged it.
No, the economy is starting to grow. Don't act as if it ws growing at some great rate all along.
Inflation is low? Hmmmm, houses cost twice what they did 6 years ago and gas is double what it was, actually spiked at triple for a bit. Sorry, just can't see your argument. BK's were at an all timehigh until Congress/Bush passed the new law making it harder. Yes, it's everyone else's fault that Bush hammered the economy with his policies and tax breaks, requiring the fed reserve to lower rates to 45-year lows, resulting in housing principals doubling as people could quaify for it. Now they are foreclosing and BKing and it isn't Bush's doing? RIGHT!!!!
QuoteAs for the debt, I don't like it either however, you (again) spin it out of context.
This is how we got there:
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
Not enough tax income and huge spending by the 3 stooges.
This is the big picture:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
WHat am I taking out of context? Come on, man-up and agree what the data shows, the Repubs are tax-cutters-n-spenders.
QuoteAs kallend pointed out in similar situations you have to look at more than just the raw numbers. Would you happen to know how that might apply here??
Raw numbers, no, this graph shows the result:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Raw numbers are what you're arguing, you claim there is so much growth, well growth is one aspect of the overall picture, just as spending is and tax receipt, etc. I have delivered the overall picture, you are giving me one dimension and not even spelling it out with data.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.
You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.
In actuality, that trend shows the trailing nature certain indicators have in the wake of the recession. Though, I will say that my previous post was incorrect. Tax receipts are not setting records, but they are meeting or exceeding forecasts. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html
Edit to add: Tax receipts are exceeding the total amounts accounted for during 7 of the 8 years President Clinton was in office. However, that could also account size of the economy as well, trailing indicators of the last 18 months or so from President G.H.W. Bush's term through President Clinton.
Perhaps there is so much pork spending that of course there is going to be a lot more in the way of receipts. The trick is to pull receipts while stemming the debt, not overspending and saying, gee, look how fast the economy is going, I'm slamming the credit cards, everything is great.
There are no bragging points until teh debt is managed and the deficit at least a flatline.
Lucky... 0
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is how it works with me since I am debt free and self employed.QuoteCutting taxes and increasing spending progressive? Nah, we've always spent more than we've taken in since the ealy 1800's with teh exception of a few breaks, same ole thing. Progressive would be to cut spending and raise taxes, pay down the debt and watch the dollar grow, that's progressive.
Once Uncle Sam decides that he wants a bigger part of my money, I simply shut down. In other words, when the govt decides that I've made enough money at $30 per hour, and now I should only bring home $20 per hour, I tell them to go screw themselves.
How much more money would they get from me troughout the year if they didn't get greedy?
I feel LUCKY just to be able to get space to post in this thread!
If you're just going to post fragments, I can't do anything with it. Post what I was calling progressive, don't throw up a quick passage for your convenience.
As for the tired argument of raisng taxes and shutting down the economy, show how your textbook version is apllicable in real life.
Lucky... 0
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's what I call progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Do you consider yourself to be the underclass, or just the champion of the underclass?QuoteHere, I'll finish it for you:
It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well...... on the backs of the underclass.
Post the previous statement sto the progressive and I will respond. Your posting style is hard to follow.
Gawain 0
QuotePerhaps there is so much pork spending that of course there is going to be a lot more in the way of receipts. The trick is to pull receipts while stemming the debt, not overspending and saying, gee, look how fast the economy is going, I'm slamming the credit cards, everything is great.
There are no bragging points until teh debt is managed and the deficit at least a flatline.
I agree. The republicans were spending like drunken sailors while in the majority, and it bit them hard in the ass.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
kallend 2,219
QuoteQuoteQuote
I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.
You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.
In actuality, that trend shows the trailing nature certain indicators have in the wake of the recession. Though, I will say that my previous post was incorrect. Tax receipts are not setting records, but they are meeting or exceeding forecasts. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html
Edit to add: Tax receipts are exceeding the total amounts accounted for during 7 of the 8 years President Clinton was in office. However, that could also account size of the economy as well, trailing indicators of the last 18 months or so from President G.H.W. Bush's term through President Clinton.
Are you correcting for inflation when making those comparisons? The Treasury seems to think that tax cuts have not led to REAL incresase in revenues.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,219
QuoteQuoteClintons ression, 911, Katrina and despite these the economy continues to grow, inflation stays low (not Bushs credit) more amerians own houses than ever before (granted more are loosing them too but that it thier own and the lending instututions fault)
Clinton's recession - WTF are you talking about? Post what indicators, etc. Just citing he had a recesion doesn;t make it fact, explain it.
911 - that explains some of the dip in jobs, but the war has cost at least 1/2 trillion and we all know things are worse over there. Bush's reaction was pathetic.
Katrina - uh, what did he do there, send in the gaurd after 1000's died and then bought them trailers that were never used? Katrina didn't cos that much and he barely acknowledged it.
No, the economy is starting to grow. Don't act as if it ws growing at some great rate all along.
Inflation is low? Hmmmm, houses cost twice what they did 6 years ago and gas is double what it was, actually spiked at triple for a bit. Sorry, just can't see your argument. BK's were at an all timehigh until Congress/Bush passed the new law making it harder. Yes, it's everyone else's fault that Bush hammered the economy with his policies and tax breaks, requiring the fed reserve to lower rates to 45-year lows, resulting in housing principals doubling as people could quaify for it. Now they are foreclosing and BKing and it isn't Bush's doing? RIGHT!!!!QuoteAs for the debt, I don't like it either however, you (again) spin it out of context.
This is how we got there:
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
Not enough tax income and huge spending by the 3 stooges.
This is the big picture:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
WHat am I taking out of context? Come on, man-up and agree what the data shows, the Repubs are tax-cutters-n-spenders.QuoteAs kallend pointed out in similar situations you have to look at more than just the raw numbers. Would you happen to know how that might apply here??
Raw numbers, no, this graph shows the result:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Raw numbers are what you're arguing, you claim there is so much growth, well growth is one aspect of the overall picture, just as spending is and tax receipt, etc. I have delivered the overall picture, you are giving me one dimension and not even spelling it out with data.
Don't bother rushmc with facts.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
FUCKING WHERE? WHEN?
REAGAN - Cut taxes, unemployment slammed to over 9%, debt went from 1T to 3T when he left office. Sure there was a little spurt from all that spending, but GWH Bush paid for that and was finally required to raie taxes.... read my lips...remember? I would assess some of Clinton's success on GWH Bush's tax increases and huge military cuts, but these were toolate as opposed to early in his term.
GHW BUSH - Carried on Reagan's idiotic economy, late in the game cut the military and raised taxes. Little to little too late.
GW BUSH - Tax cuts for the rich, taxpayer giveaway that cost billions, ecessive spending like Reagan.
Where's your fucking historical so-called proof? Shall we talk Clinton? 1993 Omnibus spending Bill raised taxes on the rich and he cut the military, essentially what GHW Bush had started late in his term, this figured success in connection with the stock market, NASDAQ, tech boom.
Illustrate you historical proof by example.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites