Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Revenues were higher after all the tax cuts were implemented than they were before them. That would lead a thinking person to wonder if increasing taxes might result in a drop in revenue.
100% false.
In 2003, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2004, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2005, revenue was $0.1T higher than Clinton's last year but as a share of GDP was lower than any year Clinton was in office.
In fact, since 2003, tax revenue, as share of GDP, has only twice been higher than Clinton's worst year, and has never come close to his average or his record high.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
All the Republicans voted against the middle class.
For Racist Republicans, yes. For non-racist Republicans? No. But are you kind of seeing why it's REALLLY easy to assume every racist IS a Republican?
Pay attention, soggy. This is exactly my point, summed up in its dipshittery perfectly by conservaderrrps, our resident dipshit.
Oh, I see. You want to play the "ironic" racism card? How come I don't buy that?
Do you believe what you wrote?
That's because the idea of cutting checks to black people that do next to nothing was not really considered until one of those chocolate faces was elected president. It's all about race.
Was this really necessary?
Yes it was. Just because moonbeam could only hint at the racism that motivates people like you does not mean that other, stronger personalities should stay silent about your bigotry.
This post, and the "Thanks" underneath it proves how blind you guys are to how partisan our Congress has become without a strong leader to grab them by their collective ears.
They're getting no-fucking-where, people.
See what I mean? These are not liberals, they are LOLberals. Turds. Socialist/fascists. Etc.
Do you have ANYTHING in your bag besides ad hominem? And before you "pot-kettle" me for it, you'll notice, you dimwitted fuckstick, that I rarely berate and belittle without some accompanying detail and legitimate basis of argument.
Oh, TakeASuckOnTheGlassDick, you're such a treat.
Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.
You're welcome.
no it won't
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Soggy, I am sure that you have been through this " you are a racist" bullshit from the ws parasites more than once. And I am sure you know what a parody is. So, before I call you an effeminate, bloviating dipshit lesbian in the image of conservaderrrps, I will let you rethink your opinion of what motivates my remarks. Pussy.Was this really necessary?
Yes it was. Just because moonbeam could only hint at the racism that motivates people like you does not mean that other, stronger personalities should stay silent about your bigotry.
WTF? Are you high? This was my only post you ignoramus. From my one comment calling you on your "chocolate face" remark you surmise I am a racist?
You're a fucking moron.
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Revenues were higher after all the tax cuts were implemented than they were before them. That would lead a thinking person to wonder if increasing taxes might result in a drop in revenue.
100% false.
In 2003, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2004, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2005, revenue was $0.1T higher than Clinton's last year but as a share of GDP was lower than any year Clinton was in office.
In fact, since 2003, tax revenue, as share of GDP, has only twice been higher than Clinton's worst year, and has never come close to his average or his record high.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
no it won't
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Well that's just incorrect.
A few facts:
- From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
- The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
- In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.
Hell, even the New York Times reported that tax revenues in the mid-2000's produced a "surprise windfall". To quote: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporate and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and cost of hurricane relief".
Further, IRS date through 2006 show a more than $120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 (CBO figures).
So I guess my question is "What in the hell are you talking about?"
Revenues were higher after all the tax cuts were implemented than they were before them. That would lead a thinking person to wonder if increasing taxes might result in a drop in revenue.
100% false.
In 2003, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2004, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2005, revenue was $0.1T higher than Clinton's last year but as a share of GDP was lower than any year Clinton was in office.
In fact, since 2003, tax revenue, as share of GDP, has only twice been higher than Clinton's worst year, and has never come close to his average or his record high.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
I just love your sig line image of Mittens, how true, we ask for a job from him and they send us through the wringer to find out everything about you, and he refuses to do the same, how true it is with the 1%.
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Revenues were higher after all the tax cuts were implemented than they were before them. That would lead a thinking person to wonder if increasing taxes might result in a drop in revenue.
100% false.
In 2003, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2004, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2005, revenue was $0.1T higher than Clinton's last year but as a share of GDP was lower than any year Clinton was in office.
In fact, since 2003, tax revenue, as share of GDP, has only twice been higher than Clinton's worst year, and has never come close to his average or his record high.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
100% false.
In 2003, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2004, revenue was lower than Clinton's last year.
In 2005, revenue was $0.1T higher than Clinton's last year but as a share of GDP was lower than any year Clinton was in office.
In fact, since 2003, tax revenue, as share of GDP, has only twice been higher than Clinton's worst year, and has never come close to his average or his record high.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
I just love your sig line image of Mittens, how true, we ask for a job from him and they send us through the wringer to find out everything about you, and he refuses to do the same, how true it is with the 1%.
You must thank your lucky stars every day that you were blessed with good looks.
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Well that's just incorrect.
A few facts:
- From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
- The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
- In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.
Hell, even the New York Times reported that tax revenues in the mid-2000's produced a "surprise windfall". To quote: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporate and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and cost of hurricane relief".
Further, IRS date through 2006 show a more than $120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 (CBO figures).
So I guess my question is "What in the hell are you talking about?"
I'm talking about 2001-2003.
I'm talking about the three years you ignored.
I'm talking about inflation adjusted revenue and revenue as a percentage of GDP.
I'm talking about a topic that I backed up with a link to my facts.
So clearly, we are talking about two different things.
p.s.
I'm talking about the Green and Yellow lines.
no it won't
Yes, it will.
Bush cut taxes three times over three years and in all three years revenue dropped. This proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore any increase in tax rates will result in increased revenue.
Well that's just incorrect.
A few facts:
- From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
- The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
- In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.
Hell, even the New York Times reported that tax revenues in the mid-2000's produced a "surprise windfall". To quote: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporate and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and cost of hurricane relief".
Further, IRS date through 2006 show a more than $120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 (CBO figures).
So I guess my question is "What in the hell are you talking about?"
I just love your sig line image of Mittens, how true, we ask for a job from him and they send us through the wringer to find out everything about you, and he refuses to do the same, how true it is with the 1%.
You must thank your lucky stars every day that you were blessed with good looks.
Don't you have anyother lead in line to pop your joke?
Well that's just incorrect.
A few facts:
- From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
- The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
- In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.
Hell, even the New York Times reported that tax revenues in the mid-2000's produced a "surprise windfall". To quote: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporate and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and cost of hurricane relief".
Further, IRS date through 2006 show a more than $120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the Bush tax cuts of 2003 (CBO figures).
So I guess my question is "What in the hell are you talking about?"
I'm talking about 2001-2003.
I'm talking about the three years you ignored.
I'm talking about inflation adjusted revenue and revenue as a percentage of GDP.
I'm talking about a topic that I backed up with a link to my facts.
So clearly, we are talking about two different things.
p.s.
I'm talking about the Green and Yellow lines.
Then you're being highly disingenuous. Bush's tax cuts didn't kick in until 2003. The first (EGTRRA) was in 2001, the second (JGTRRA) was in 2003.
I'm talking about 2001-2003.
I'm talking about the three years you ignored.
I'm talking about inflation adjusted revenue and revenue as a percentage of GDP.
I'm talking about a topic that I backed up with a link to my facts.
So clearly, we are talking about two different things.
p.s.
I'm talking about the Green and Yellow lines.
Then you're being highly disingenuous. Bush's tax cuts didn't kick in until 2003. The first (EGTRRA) was in 2001, the second (JGTRRA) was in 2003.
His first cut was in 2001, yes, that's why I start from 2001.
Why do you not count 2001-2003? Was Bush not President? Did he not cut tax rates?
