Proof Bush TAX Cuts INCREASED Revenues!

[SniperFire]

You will have to up your game, 'Carboneer.'

It is getting rather boring playing whack a mole with your stupid conjectures.

But if you want to man up instead of running and deflecting, let's continue our discussion on that $4.8 trillion Pelosi small-business tax cut that you defended no less than four times yesterday.

LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Revenues in 2011 were lower than they were in 2001.

How could that be if revenues have gone up every year?

Here is Sessions exact quote:

'SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: That’s not accurate, Bob-- Bill. The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in. The revenue is down now because of the low economy.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_071011.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody


Destroying your memes with simple truth and fact is simply child's play.

LOL

Up your game, troll.

The low economy?

So tax cuts get credit for revenues in an up economy, but they don't get the blame for lost revenues in a down economy?

That's a pretty convenient heads I win tails you lose scam.

Well, one last time.

(watch the deflection)

Was Factcheck lying about what Sessions said, or not?

 

[healthmyths]

FactCheck.org : Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts

When you take a couple of words from a quote and surround them by a couple sentences of rhetoric, you are obvious perping a lie.

Imagine that.

Sessions was of course talking about what happened after both tax cuts were in place.

But this deception is an excellent example of why 'Factcheck.org' is just a fraud and just an arm of the communists.

FYI.. FactCheck.org is OWNED by Poynter Institute that OWNS the St. Petersburg Times an extremely LEFT wing, liberal touting paper also known as "Pravda WEST"!

 

[Truthseeker420]

Here is Sessions exact quote:

'SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: That’s not accurate, Bob-- Bill. The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in. The revenue is down now because of the low economy.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_071011.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody


Destroying your memes with simple truth and fact is simply child's play.

LOL

Up your game, troll.

The low economy?

So tax cuts get credit for revenues in an up economy, but they don't get the blame for lost revenues in a down economy?

That's a pretty convenient heads I win tails you lose scam.

Well, one last time.

(watch the deflection)

Was Factcheck lying about what Sessions said, or not?

No

 

[SniperFire]

The low economy?

So tax cuts get credit for revenues in an up economy, but they don't get the blame for lost revenues in a down economy?

That's a pretty convenient heads I win tails you lose scam.

Well, one last time.

(watch the deflection)

Was Factcheck lying about what Sessions said, or not?

No

LOL

 

[ogibillm]

I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.

Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.

If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.

can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.

 

[SniperFire]

I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.

Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.

If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.

can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.

Well give us an example when it was tried by an Administration and failed.

I will give you the complete list of those who did it, and you tell us where it failed to soonafter help generate record Federal Tax Receipt and record GDP.:

Harding

JFK

Reagan

Bush


Now, if you can't answer, why not remain on the sidelines when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Well, one last time.

(watch the deflection)

Was Factcheck lying about what Sessions said, or not?

No

LOL

They gave a link to the transcript.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You will have to up your game, 'Carboneer.'

It is getting rather boring playing whack a mole with your stupid conjectures.

But if you want to man up instead of running and deflecting, let's continue our discussion on that $4.8 trillion Pelosi small-business tax cut that you defended no less than four times yesterday.

LOL

I corrected that number. You need to go back and look.

 

[ogibillm]

I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.

Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.

If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.

can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.

Well give us an example when it was tried by an Administration and failed.

I will give you the complete list of those who did it, and you tell us where it failed to soonafter help generate record Federal Tax Receipt and record GDP.:

Harding

JFK

Reagan

Bush


Now, if you can't answer, why not remain on the sidelines when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

i'm pretty sure i just demonstrated to you that it mathematically doesn't work out.

but let's put it in real terms.

if i cut tax rates from 90% to 45% i've increased the take home of every person by 550%. That could result in enough growth in the economy to increase revenue. But let's say i started at 9% and cut to 4.5%. I cut the tax rate in half, but people's take home would only increase by $4.50 per $100 earned. Do you see that increase doubling the gdp?

 

[SniperFire]

You will have to up your game, 'Carboneer.'

It is getting rather boring playing whack a mole with your stupid conjectures.

But if you want to man up instead of running and deflecting, let's continue our discussion on that $4.8 trillion Pelosi small-business tax cut that you defended no less than four times yesterday.

LOL

I corrected that number. You need to go back and look.

You argued it foolishly all afternoon, just like you argue all of your dishonest talking points when I shove them right back up your ass.

But alas, you are overmatched and it is getting rather pedestrian.


LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax revenues increased 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000

The deficit fell 1994, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 2000.

All of that after the Clinton tax increase.

If I apply the same exacts standards of argumentation that the OP and others are using in this thread,

who can refute that the above proves that tax increases

1. increase revenues, and,

2. decrease the deficit.

Anyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You will have to up your game, 'Carboneer.'

It is getting rather boring playing whack a mole with your stupid conjectures.

But if you want to man up instead of running and deflecting, let's continue our discussion on that $4.8 trillion Pelosi small-business tax cut that you defended no less than four times yesterday.

LOL

I corrected that number. You need to go back and look.

You argued it foolishly all afternoon, just like you argue all of your dishonest talking points when I shove them right back up your ass.

But alas, you are overmatched and it is getting rather pedestrian.


LOL

What year are living in that you still think that big talk intimidates anyone on a political message board?

 

[healthmyths]

If you cut taxes, that's money you don't have to spend. If you spend anyway, you create a deficit.

Except, Federal tax receipts hit record highs after said tax cuts.

You simply suck at this.


LOL

For only 2 years out of the last 9 since the second tax cut.

Bush's 2004 deficit was a post WWII record also.

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

I count since 2001 4 lower and 4 higher with the average for 8 years 0.1% growth in revenues so where did you get 2 years with revenue increases?

also Bush Deficits 2004 was a RECORD Post WWII? YES They WERE!!! AND they were going down as you can see below..
IN spite of dot.com/911/worst hurricanes IN spite of 850,000 job losses! And that's not good enough for you?

• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8 billion deficit) Do you know that Homeland Security came into existence $600 billion over next years!!
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6 billion deficit)
• 2004 1.880 2.252 (412.7 billion deficit)
• 2005 2.153 2.472 (318.3 billion deficit)
• 2006 2.406 2.655 (248.2 billion deficit)
• 2007 2.568 2.728 (160.7 billion deficit)
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6 billion deficit)

 

[Polk]

Good luck getting a Leftist to acknowledge that Federal tax revenues, GDP growth and employment accelerated after each and everytime a POTUS employed the technique.

Revenues increase coming out of recession whether you cut taxes or not.

What increased because of Bush's tax cuts were the deficits.

Only spending what one does not have can create deficits.

Didn't they teach you how to run a checkbook in high school?

That's a stupid argument. It's like quitting your job, then claiming your house's cash flow problems come from having a mortgage. It may technically be true, but the real problem was that you stopped working.

 

[Polk]

FactCheck.org : Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts

When you take a couple of words from a quote and surround them by a couple sentences of rhetoric, you are obvious perping a lie.

Imagine that.

Sessions was of course talking about what happened after both tax cuts were in place.

Revenues in 2011 were lower than they were in 2001.

How could that be if revenues have gone up every year?

It's almost as if GDP growth has a far large impact on revenue than small tweeks in marginal tax rates...

 

[JFK_USA]

The Congressional Research Service proved that tax cuts to the rich do not spur economic growth. So yeah, I will take them over you any day.

 

[Polk]

Only spending what one does not have can create a deficit.

If you cut taxes, that's money you don't have to spend. If you spend anyway, you create a deficit.

Except, Federal tax receipts hit record highs after said tax cuts.

You simply suck at this.


LOL

Under normal economic circumstances, holding tax rates flat results in record high revenues every year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except, Federal tax receipts hit record highs after said tax cuts.

You simply suck at this.


LOL

For only 2 years out of the last 9 since the second tax cut.

Bush's 2004 deficit was a post WWII record also.

I've added the percent loss/growth

• Year Revenues adjusted 2005
• 2000 $ 2,310
• 2001 2,215 - $95 -4.1% (Dot.com bust,recession, 9/11 nearly 800,000 jobs lost)
• 2002 2,026 -$189 -8.5%
• 2003 1,901 -$125 -6.2% tax cuts start taking affect..
• 2004 1,949 $ 48 2.5%
• 2005 2,153 $204 10.5%
• 2006 2,324 $171 7.9%
• 2007 2,414 $ 90 3.9%
• 2008 2,288 -$126 - 5.2%

I count since 2001 4 lower and 4 higher with the average for 8 years 0.1% growth in revenues so where did you get 2 years with revenue increases?

also Bush Deficits 2004 was a RECORD Post WWII? YES They WERE!!! AND they were going down as you can see below..
IN spite of dot.com/911/worst hurricanes IN spite of 850,000 job losses! And that's not good enough for you?

• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8 billion deficit) Do you know that Homeland Security came into existence $600 billion over next years!!
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6 billion deficit)
• 2004 1.880 2.252 (412.7 billion deficit)
• 2005 2.153 2.472 (318.3 billion deficit)
• 2006 2.406 2.655 (248.2 billion deficit)
• 2007 2.568 2.728 (160.7 billion deficit)
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6 billion deficit)

Why was Bush cutting taxes in the face of KNOWN spending increases that were going to come from 2 wars and the Medicare bill?

 

[Polk]

I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.

Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.

If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.

can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.

Well give us an example when it was tried by an Administration and failed.

I will give you the complete list of those who did it, and you tell us where it failed to soonafter help generate record Federal Tax Receipt and record GDP.:

Harding

JFK

Reagan

Bush


Now, if you can't answer, why not remain on the sidelines when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

Revenue fell after the passage of the "Kennedy" (was actually during the Johnson administration) tax cut by 9% in the first year after enactment, by an average of 13% in the first four years after Roth-Kemp, and by 3.5% apiece for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. Those are the figures looking at the revenue impact of the changes, not just plucking the baselines like you're doing.