Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

[TakeAStepBack]

But by all means, dazzle us with your dizzyingly dullardish ways.

 

[Koios]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

First off, the 2001 Act didn't kick in until 2006 on income tax percent rates. And modified the capital gains (qualified gains) for the 15% income bracket from 10% to 8%.

The tank in revenue was due to the NASDAQ bubble burst recession.

The 2003 Act raised the income amount per bracket. And again, lowered capital gains tax.

Second off, I was not disputing its minutia. I merely pointed out that the cuts (1 and 2) fucked revenue in the ass.

Try to stay with me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's impossible. You;re not making sense and Im not stoned.

 

[Oddball]

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Wahadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

But spending pissed away on the Iraq war couldn't possibly decimate revenue or you would have mentioned it!

CON$ never tell the whole truth, and reveal what is most important by what they leave out!
Thank you.

Spending was pissed away on scads of domestic shit and you goddamned well know it, you phoney baloney.

 

[Oddball]

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

Empty rhetoric?

You post fucking text walls of empty rhetoric, s0n.

Physician, heal thyself.

Sorry you're confused. Empty rhetoric is responses void of substance, usually inclusive of some retarded characterization of some kind.

For examples, go to your User CP and browse the list of your posts. It'll give you an idea.

I need no more than to browse your dreary DNC boilerplate-laden dreck, tovarich.

You wouldn't know an independent analytical thought if it crawled up your ass and started eating your colon.

 

[Too Tall]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Bush's tax cut was in 2003 was it not?

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006

Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a
result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf

 

[Koios]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Bush's tax cut was in 2003 was it not?

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006

Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a
result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf

The second one was.

 

[Too Tall]

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Bush's tax cut was in 2003 was it not?

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006

Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a
result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf

The second one was.

I know, but a 35% growth in federal revenue over the four years after Bush's two tax cuts certainly makes this statement

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut,

Total bullshit.

 

[Trajan]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

And when the economy improves the GOP will take credit for it because they let the Dems raise taxes and pass a new stimulus. They did the same thing with Clinton, no Republicans voted for Clinton's tax bill and they predicted job losses as far as the eye can see, and when 25 million new jobs were created the GOP took full credit for every one of them.

the economy won't improve because of a tax rate that yields 83Bn year one and will almost certainly go down there after.

and this new 'stimulus',(which on one hand amounts to giving folks unemployment insurance for over 4 years which is also problematic) I am glad you have admitted that there is no cuts on the table. That issue will take a bit longer but that cliff is going to be a damn sight deeper than anything that will happen if the rates don;t change

The rates are a smoke screen, I am getting to the point where I agree, give them to him.

 

[Koios]

Bush's tax cut was in 2003 was it not?

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006



http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf

The second one was.

I know, but a 35% growth in federal revenue over the four years after Bush's two tax cuts certainly makes this statement

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut,

Total bullshit.

Check revenue / outlays history.

Total not-bullshit

 

[WillowTree]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

you can't even be consistent in how you mis spell consistent.

 

[Sallow]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

First off, the 2001 Act didn't kick in until 2003 on income tax percent rates. And modified the capital gains (qualified gains) for the 15% income bracket from 10% to 8%.

The tank in revenue was due to the NASDAQ bubble burst recession.

The 2003 Act raised the income amount per bracket. And again, lowered capital gains tax.

EDITED: For error.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Explain yourself if you can. Are you saying that the NASDAQ bubble did not hurt revenue?
Is that what you're saying?

Prove it.

 

[Sallow]

Explain yourself if you can. Are you saying that the NASDAQ bubble did not hurt revenue?
Is that what you're saying?

Prove it.

Revenue for who?

It didn't hurt the government.

The whole thing was basically over before Bush was in office.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenue for both the private sector and in turn, the government.
It's called a downturn.

 

[Koios]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

you can't even be consistent in how you mis spell consistent.

Atta boy, TASB; be a typo checker and misspell "mis spell"

Astonishing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That wasn't me, you flaming turd sandwich.

 

[rdean]

I know this is a terrible shock to Republicans. But there is a political party that actually wants to help America and wants the country to succeed. Not secede.

 

[Oddball]

I know this is a terrible shock to Republicans. But there is a political party that actually wants to help America and wants the country to succeed. Not secede.

Unfortunately, that party isn't the Democrat Party.

 

[rdean]

I know this is a terrible shock to Republicans. But there is a political party that actually wants to help America and wants the country to succeed. Not secede.

Unfortunately, that party isn't the Democrat Party.

Really? It's Democrats who want to "secede"?

Lede: To secede or not to secede

The Secession Issue: 2012: Less than a week after a majority of Americans voted President Barack Obama as its returning president, some Americans, disappointed that President Obama won re-election increased efforts to demand their states secede. The movement is strongest in Texas and other states that voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. An estimated 107,000 Texans have allegedly joined the Texas petition at “We the People.” Writer Tyler Dunn indicates: “Texas leads the charge with more than 64,000 signatures. Twenty-two other states, including Florida have also filed petitions, including Arizona. Texas was the seventh state to secede and the last to secede before the firing at Fort Sumter signaled the start of the Civil War. Texans believed in the 1850s that slavery was vital to the Texas economy and to its future growth (See: The Handbook of Texas).