Hey Dumbass: Tax-Cuts Don't Have To Be Paid For

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea i guess it is all about "DAT BOOOOOOOSH!!" for the Hopey Changey sheep. Good thing that chit is so stale & boring at this point. See ya on Election Day.

 

[asterism]

Tax cuts, need to be very focused to give the best return on investment, in times of a recession....and in times of running great deficits, with national debt obligations already very high....they shouldn't be willy nilly, produce no return, and just make our deficits and national debt worse, imo.

Like i said,their insane spending dwarfs any possible "Evil Tax Cuts" of the past. The two don't even compare. Besides,Hopey Changey has supported and has proposed Tax Cuts in the past. Gee I wonder why he has suddenly changed his position? Could it be because Elections are right around the corner? Hmm?

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Are you claiming that the deficit is going go go down for FY 2010?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tax cuts, need to be very focused to give the best return on investment, in times of a recession....and in times of running great deficits, with national debt obligations already very high....they shouldn't be willy nilly, produce no return, and just make our deficits and national debt worse, imo.

Like i said,their insane spending dwarfs any possible "Evil Tax Cuts" of the past. The two don't even compare. Besides,Hopey Changey has supported and has proposed Tax Cuts in the past. Gee I wonder why he has suddenly changed his position? Could it be because Elections are right around the corner? Hmm?

You surely do an awful-lotta talkin'....while providing zero-numbers (or, any points-o'-reference) to demonstrate your mathematical-acumen.

Does ANYone (actually) believe your bullshit???? ​

 

[Care4all]

Like i said,their insane spending dwarfs any possible "Evil Tax Cuts" of the past. The two don't even compare. Besides,Hopey Changey has supported and has proposed Tax Cuts in the past. Gee I wonder why he has suddenly changed his position? Could it be because Elections are right around the corner? Hmm?

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Are you claiming that the deficit is going go go down for FY 2010?

yes, by $70 billion verses 2009's budget deficit, Per the CBO's estimate....I posted the link to that yesterday....I can see if I can find it again or you can rifle through this thread looking for it?

Here it is, I book marked it....

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates
that the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed
$1.3 trillion—$71 billion below last year’s total and
$27 billion lower than the amount that CBO projected
in March 2010, when it issued its previous estimate.1

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/2010_08_19_SummaryforWeb.pdf

 

[Care4all]

$71 billion is 71,000 million dollars....not something to shake a leg at, but STILL not nearly what we need.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Dude....meltdown must be a constant state for you. Reading your posts is like reading the posts of a 3 year old.

Relax, Muddy!!

Admit you're OUTTA AMMO, and run-along........

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false.

We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.

Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

KILL-SHOT!!!!!


_

_ ​

"When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of 'modesty' for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it." --John Locke

In other words if you have to rely on the authority of others to make your point, you have shown that the flaw in your own logic is that you don't have any.

Whew!!!!!!!

You're certainly no English Major, ARE you??!!

You're explanation is exactly the OPPOSITE of what that quote purports!!!!

I'm a bigger fan o'......

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana

In-other-words.....if we fail to learn from the economics of Reagan/Bush I, we're doomed to end-up with an Idiot-Son/Bush II.

What we should have learned, is......if Clintonomics pulled us outta ONE Bush economic-debacle, it only makes SENSE to REPEAT Clintonomics....to pull us outta Bush economic-debacle II!!!!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Jesus....what a bunch of crapola. Deficits fell because the GOP took over in 94' and got rid of Welfare and Clinton cut the military.

Why couldn't the GOP balance the budget when they controlled the presidency and both houses then? Because they clearly didn't do that...

Something to do with utter stupidity. They decided to institute a shared power structure and the Dems took full advantage of it. Also....they never had a filibuster proof majority.

Oh and the simple fact that the Dems used two wars, several natural disasters, and a shitload of media leaks to force the Bush Administration into spending billions just to keep from looking like he didn't care about the troops and black people in general.

Aw, jeez......always with the Stormfront-spin, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why couldn't the GOP balance the budget when they controlled the presidency and both houses then? Because they clearly didn't do that...

Something to do with utter stupidity. They decided to institute a shared power structure and the Dems took full advantage of it. Also....they never had a filibuster proof majority.

Oh and the simple fact that the Dems used two wars, several natural disasters, and a shitload of media leaks to force the Bush Administration into spending billions just to keep from looking like he didn't care about the troops and black people in general.

lol, you can't be serious.

Just one example: remember when Kerry got hammered for the infamous 87 billion, that he for before he was against?

Remember why he was for it and then against it?

Because he and other Democrats wanted to PAY for it. Bush however who was against it before he was for it, threatened to VETO the 87 billion if it was paid for.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush preferred to BORROW the buck$, for War-spending....rather than spend any o' the surplus (what Kerry preferred)!!

No doubt a result o' Lil' Dumbya's vast military-background (not-to-mention "Uncle" DICK's).....he GROSSLY-MISJUDGED what long-term War-expenses might BE....if he (even) CARED, at all.​

 

[amrchaos]

Uhmm--not what is intended.

The idea is to form room in the budget for tax cuts. But according to conservative economic theory, cutting taxes increases revenue for the federal government and therefore no need to form any room under the budget because Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Unfortunately, tax cuts will eventually cut back on the revenue provided to the federal government because at a 0% tax rate, the tax revenue for government is 0. So, why don't you rightwingers stop playing patty cake with the tax rate and set it to the idea rate??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's false. Republicans voted unanimously against Clinton's 93 budget, and deficits fell from that point on. PAYGO was also contributory. Congress had to conform to PAYGO until Bush and the Republicans let it expire in 2001, so they could go on their budget-busting spree.

Jesus....what a bunch of crapola. Deficits fell because the GOP took over in 94' and got rid of Welfare and Clinton cut the military.

So your contention is that cutting defense is an effective way to balance the budget?

Ok. See how many of your rightwing pals you can get on board with you. Not to mention the establishment GOP.

I can't believe Gates'll be puttin'-up with a bunch o' Chickenhawk-bullshit!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No it's happening UNDER BUSH'S TAX CUTS. Remember, the magic ones that guaranteed prosperity!!! lol

Uncertainty is the cause of the poor economy.....not the Bush Tax Cuts. The fact that they're about to expire is whats scaring the hell out of everyone.....not to mention the simple fact that we have a radical in the White House that lies about everything. He and the Democrats cannot be trusted.

That is retarded. The economy tanked in 2007 over a year before Obama was elected. You need to grow up, mentally.

....Not-to-mention the fact.....​

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false.

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The current number of Americans living in poverty is at its highest level in the 50yrs of record keeping. This has happened under your Hopey Changey's watch. You can go ahead and try to blame others but it is what it is. Trickle Up Poverty is happening. You Hopey Changey Socialists/Progressives are the cause of this. Hopefully there will be a "Correction Election" in November. You guys gots to go. Nuff said.

No it's happening UNDER BUSH'S TAX CUTS. Remember, the magic ones that guaranteed prosperity!!! lol

Uncertainty is the cause of the poor economy.....not the Bush Tax Cuts. The fact that they're about to expire is whats scaring the hell out of everyone....

Yeah.....how're the 1%ers/high-roller$ gonna possibly make it, without their SUPER-MEGA-TAX-CUT$ (that were SUPPOSED to create JOBS)??!!!!




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDdWJcpJj0]YouTube - Maddow: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich[/ame]​

 

[asterism]

obama's first fiscal budget, the 2010 budget will reduce deficit spending by $70 billion, compared to president bush's last fiscal budget for 2009.... though $70 billion less of a deficit is not nearly enough...they are heading in the right direction...

Are you claiming that the deficit is going go go down for FY 2010?

yes, by $70 billion verses 2009's budget deficit, Per the CBO's estimate....I posted the link to that yesterday....I can see if I can find it again or you can rifle through this thread looking for it?

Here it is, I book marked it....

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates
that the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed
$1.3 trillion—$71 billion below last year’s total and
$27 billion lower than the amount that CBO projected
in March 2010, when it issued its previous estimate.1

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/2010_08_19_SummaryforWeb.pdf

I guess we'll have to see if the CBO's prediction comes true. You realize that the budget is not the rule on spending right? It's the appropriations, the same appropriations that kept the first 7 months of FY 2009 at 2008 levels and then allowed Obama to set his own priorities starting in March of 2009.

 

[asterism]

Relax, Muddy!!

Admit you're OUTTA AMMO, and run-along........

"When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of 'modesty' for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it." --John Locke

In other words if you have to rely on the authority of others to make your point, you have shown that the flaw in your own logic is that you don't have any.

Whew!!!!!!!

You're certainly no English Major, ARE you??!!

You're explanation is exactly the OPPOSITE of what that quote purports!!!!

I'm a bigger fan o'......

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana

In-other-words.....if we fail to learn from the economics of Reagan/Bush I, we're doomed to end-up with an Idiot-Son/Bush II.

What we should have learned, is......if Clintonomics pulled us outta ONE Bush economic-debacle, it only makes SENSE to REPEAT Clintonomics....to pull us outta Bush economic-debacle II!!!!!!!

​

I get it, praise Clinton because you dislike Bush even though neither are in office anymore.

 

[asterism]

Uhmm--not what is intended.

The idea is to form room in the budget for tax cuts. But according to conservative economic theory, cutting taxes increases revenue for the federal government and therefore no need to form any room under the budget because Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Unfortunately, tax cuts will eventually cut back on the revenue provided to the federal government because at a 0% tax rate, the tax revenue for government is 0. So, why don't you rightwingers stop playing patty cake with the tax rate and set it to the idea rate??

What rate do you think that is? I think it's 15%.

 

[Toro]

I guess we'll have to see if the CBO's prediction comes true. You realize that the budget is not the rule on spending right? It's the appropriations, the same appropriations that kept the first 7 months of FY 2009 at 2008 levels and then allowed Obama to set his own priorities starting in March of 2009.

Can you please link this? Thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yea, let's see how long the country lasts without government.

no one is talking about "no" government.
The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.
Only non-taxpayers, those on the dole believe the argument is "anti" government.

 

[JBeukema]

The idea is limited government.. Such as what is stated in the US Constitution.

Which version? the one with no Air Force?

The one with no FDA?

The one before abolition?