How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount?

[zeke]

Strawman. That's all you got eh?

Don't want to talk about what a failure your man Bush's ideas were about tax cuts. Just want to talk about those "other" Presidents. Why is that?

Is it because you have no economic success from the Bush tax cuts to point to and say; see, lowering those rates increased both jobs and income to the guvmint.

I understand. Bush and Cheneys ideas hurt us all. And Mittens and his Bush ideas on steriods will completely bankrupt us. But who the fuk cares eh. At least a Rethug would be doing the bankrupting.
And thats all you care about.

 

[SniperFire]

Strawman. That's all you got eh?

Don't want to talk about what a failure your man Bush's ideas were about tax cuts. Just want to talk about those "other" Presidents. Why is that?

Is it because you have no economic success from the Bush tax cuts to point to and say; see, lowering those rates increased both jobs and income to the guvmint.

I understand. Bush and Cheneys ideas hurt us all. And Mittens and his Bush ideas on steriods will completely bankrupt us. But who the fuk cares eh. At least a Rethug would be doing the bankrupting.
And thats all you care about.

That is more than was needed to destroy your pathetic post.

LOL

 

[zeke]

Is it because you have no economic success from the Bush tax cuts to point to and say; see, lowering those rates increased both jobs and income to the guvmint.

zeke


Go ahead snipper. Point out the economic success of the tax cuts from the Bush years. Take all the time you need.

And where is the "strawman" in that question? Seems like if you want to continue what the past President started, you might have some major success to point at and justify why doing more of the same would be good.

But I guess not. All you have is the word "strawman". Wow, your logic is really impressive.

 

[SniperFire]

Is it because you have no economic success from the Bush tax cuts to point to and say; see, lowering those rates increased both jobs and income to the guvmint.

zeke


Go ahead snipper. Point out the economic success of the tax cuts from the Bush years. Take all the time you need.

And where is the "strawman" in that question? Seems like if you want to continue what the past President started, you might have some major success to point at and justify why doing more of the same would be good.

But I guess not. All you have is the word "strawman". Wow, your logic is really impressive.

My pleasure!


The Pre-Pelosi Era will be remembered as the good old days.

Prior to her taking charge, we had virtual full employment, a record 52 months or job growth, record DOW, record tax receipts to the Federal treasury, record GDP, and EVERYONE paying a lower tax rate to the Fed than they did under Clinton, even though the rich paid a record amount and a record share of that amount AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

ahhh. the good ol' days.


LOL

 

[auditor0007]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

The selling point is that as the economy grows, newly created income will be taxed at a lower rate thereby allowing people to keep more of their income. The problem is that by cutting the rates so much at the top end, it ends up being a redistribution of wealth from the lower income earners to the wealthy as most of the cuts in deductions and tax credits will effect those who earn the least.

The other problem is that what will likely actually happen is that the tax rates will get cut, but there will not be a big enough offset in the rescinding of deductions and credits and that will just result in even less revenue going to the government which will cause the debt to explode even further.

 

[SniperFire]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

The selling point is that as the economy grows, newly created income will be taxed at a lower rate thereby allowing people to keep more of their income. The problem is that by cutting the rates so much at the top end, it ends up being a redistribution of wealth from the lower income earners to the wealthy as most of the cuts in deductions and tax credits will effect those who earn the least.

The other problem is that what will likely actually happen is that the tax rates will get cut, but there will not be a big enough offset in the rescinding of deductions and credits and that will just result in even less revenue going to the government which will cause the debt to explode even further.

Libtard logic revealed.

If it was 'redistribution', the lower income workers would have had to be owners of the wealth you are talking about to begin with.

Unless you are talking about how taxes are then consumed, which is even worse for your argument as no nation on earth depends more on their wealthy to pay the freight than the good ol USA.


Fail.

 

[naturegirl]

Trickle down government doesn't work, allowing the government to have more control will not create jobs, increase wealth or help the middle class.

 

[zeke]

Is it because you have no economic success from the Bush tax cuts to point to and say; see, lowering those rates increased both jobs and income to the guvmint.

zeke


Go ahead snipper. Point out the economic success of the tax cuts from the Bush years. Take all the time you need.

And where is the "strawman" in that question? Seems like if you want to continue what the past President started, you might have some major success to point at and justify why doing more of the same would be good.

But I guess not. All you have is the word "strawman". Wow, your logic is really impressive.

My pleasure!


The Pre-Pelosi Era will be remembered as the good old days.

Prior to her taking charge, we had virtual full employment, a record 52 months or job growth, record DOW, record tax receipts to the Federal treasury, record GDP, and EVERYONE paying a lower tax rate to the Fed than they did under Clinton, even though the rich paid a record amount and a record share of that amount AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

ahhh. the good ol' days.


LOL

NONONO. Lets talk about later in the Presidency of Bush. You know after the Rethugs in Congress pushed through the second round of tax cuts.

Tell me all about the job creation numbers and the fed. tax revenues after we had the Bush tax cuts in place. How many jobs were being created at the end of the Bush term.
(you know, after all those wonderful tax cuts had been in place for a few years)

Just how strong was the Bush economy AFTER the tax cuts had been in effect. (you might not remember Bush coming on TV to tell us the economy of the world was failing.

And it is funny to hear you give Bush credit for an economy that a Dem left him. You remember, the economy that Bush got that had a surplus. But I know. You will say there wasn't a surplus or some such shit. But there was.

And how many years have the lower Bush rates been in effect? And how much did Obama lower middle class rates?

I guess you consider our current econoic situation a good one? You know, with all those jobs that the creators put in place. After their big tax cuts. If those tax cuts are what gave us this economy, why would we want more of the same?

 

[SniperFire]

zeke


Go ahead snipper. Point out the economic success of the tax cuts from the Bush years. Take all the time you need.

And where is the "strawman" in that question? Seems like if you want to continue what the past President started, you might have some major success to point at and justify why doing more of the same would be good.

But I guess not. All you have is the word "strawman". Wow, your logic is really impressive.

My pleasure!


The Pre-Pelosi Era will be remembered as the good old days.

Prior to her taking charge, we had virtual full employment, a record 52 months or job growth, record DOW, record tax receipts to the Federal treasury, record GDP, and EVERYONE paying a lower tax rate to the Fed than they did under Clinton, even though the rich paid a record amount and a record share of that amount AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

ahhh. the good ol' days.


LOL

NONONO. Lets talk about later in the Presidency of Bush. You know after the Rethugs in Congress pushed through the second round of tax cuts.

Tell me all about the job creation numbers and the fed. tax revenues after we had the Bush tax cuts in place. How many jobs were being created at the end of the Bush term.
(you know, after all those wonderful tax cuts had been in place for a few years)

Just how strong was the Bush economy AFTER the tax cuts had been in effect. (you might not remember Bush coming on TV to tell us the economy of the world was failing.

And it is funny to hear you give Bush credit for an economy that a Dem left him. You remember, the economy that Bush got that had a surplus. But I know. You will say there wasn't a surplus or some such shit. But there was.

And how many years have the lower Bush rates been in effect? And how much did Obama lower middle class rates?

I guess you consider our current econoic situation a good one? You know, with all those jobs that the creators put in place. After their big tax cuts. If those tax cuts are what gave us this economy, why would we want more of the same?

LOL


Move the goalposts much, bitch?

The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Era is a well documented disaster.

 

[kaz]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

It's called "tax simplification" and it definitely is good for the economy because it causes people to use their economic assets more efficiently. Do you care about the top, gross number on your paycheck before any deductions are taken out or do you care about the bottom net amount you can spend? Well, investors are the same way, when taxes vary based on how the money is invested, taxes rather than economic efficiency drive choices, which harms the economy because our government is causing the under utilization of assets.

 

[auditor0007]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

The selling point is that as the economy grows, newly created income will be taxed at a lower rate thereby allowing people to keep more of their income. The problem is that by cutting the rates so much at the top end, it ends up being a redistribution of wealth from the lower income earners to the wealthy as most of the cuts in deductions and tax credits will effect those who earn the least.

The other problem is that what will likely actually happen is that the tax rates will get cut, but there will not be a big enough offset in the rescinding of deductions and credits and that will just result in even less revenue going to the government which will cause the debt to explode even further.

Libtard logic revealed.

If it was 'redistribution', the lower income workers would have had to be owners of the wealth you are talking about to begin with.

Unless you are talking about how taxes are then consumed, which is even worse for your argument as no nation on earth depends more on their wealthy to pay the freight than the good ol USA.


Fail.

More disinformation from the brain dead right. The US has one of the lowest top tax rates in the world, and it is even more so when including the capital gains rate. Of course there are countries with lower rates. Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Sudan are just a few of them. Of course, I really wouldn't want to live in any of those places, but by all means, if you do, feel free to move to one of them so you can take advantage of their low tax rates.

 

[SniperFire]

The selling point is that as the economy grows, newly created income will be taxed at a lower rate thereby allowing people to keep more of their income. The problem is that by cutting the rates so much at the top end, it ends up being a redistribution of wealth from the lower income earners to the wealthy as most of the cuts in deductions and tax credits will effect those who earn the least.

The other problem is that what will likely actually happen is that the tax rates will get cut, but there will not be a big enough offset in the rescinding of deductions and credits and that will just result in even less revenue going to the government which will cause the debt to explode even further.

Libtard logic revealed.

If it was 'redistribution', the lower income workers would have had to be owners of the wealth you are talking about to begin with.

Unless you are talking about how taxes are then consumed, which is even worse for your argument as no nation on earth depends more on their wealthy to pay the freight than the good ol USA.


Fail.

More disinformation from the brain dead right. The US has one of the lowest top tax rates in the world, and it is even more so when including the capital gains rate. Of course there are countries with lower rates. Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Sudan are just a few of them. Of course, I really wouldn't want to live in any of those places, but by all means, if you do, feel free to move to one of them so you can take advantage of their low tax rates.

What part was disinformation?

Be specific, and be prepared to have your ass handed to you, as per usual.


LOL

 

[auditor0007]

My pleasure!


The Pre-Pelosi Era will be remembered as the good old days.

Prior to her taking charge, we had virtual full employment, a record 52 months or job growth, record DOW, record tax receipts to the Federal treasury, record GDP, and EVERYONE paying a lower tax rate to the Fed than they did under Clinton, even though the rich paid a record amount and a record share of that amount AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

ahhh. the good ol' days.


LOL

NONONO. Lets talk about later in the Presidency of Bush. You know after the Rethugs in Congress pushed through the second round of tax cuts.

Tell me all about the job creation numbers and the fed. tax revenues after we had the Bush tax cuts in place. How many jobs were being created at the end of the Bush term.
(you know, after all those wonderful tax cuts had been in place for a few years)

Just how strong was the Bush economy AFTER the tax cuts had been in effect. (you might not remember Bush coming on TV to tell us the economy of the world was failing.

And it is funny to hear you give Bush credit for an economy that a Dem left him. You remember, the economy that Bush got that had a surplus. But I know. You will say there wasn't a surplus or some such shit. But there was.

And how many years have the lower Bush rates been in effect? And how much did Obama lower middle class rates?

I guess you consider our current econoic situation a good one? You know, with all those jobs that the creators put in place. After their big tax cuts. If those tax cuts are what gave us this economy, why would we want more of the same?

LOL


Move the goalposts much, bitch?

The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Era is a well documented disaster.

But it's nothing in comparison to the Bush era that created the entire mess to begin with. I can play the partisan hack too.

 

[kaz]

I can play the partisan hack too.

That's not really the question at this point, the question is are you able to NOT play the partisan hack?

 

[auditor0007]

I can play the partisan hack too.

That's not really the question at this point, the question is are you able to NOT play the partisan hack?

Considering I was a Republican for over 25 years, I would hardly call myself a partisan hack, unlike most people here.

 

[kaz]

I can play the partisan hack too.

That's not really the question at this point, the question is are you able to NOT play the partisan hack?

Considering I was a Republican for over 25 years, I would hardly call myself a partisan hack, unlike most people here.

And I was a Leprechaun for 25 years. Yes, you're a Republican who left the party because they weren't Democrats. OMG, cutting taxes is a wealth transfer to the rich ... who now pay all the taxes in this country ... from the poor ... who don't pay taxes, Obama save me! You realize this story has been told many times before...

 

[SniperFire]

That's not really the question at this point, the question is are you able to NOT play the partisan hack?

Considering I was a Republican for over 25 years, I would hardly call myself a partisan hack, unlike most people here.

And I was a Leprechaun for 25 years. Yes, you're a Republican who left the party because they weren't Democrats. OMG, cutting taxes is a wealth transfer to the rich ... who now pay all the taxes in this country ... from the poor ... who don't pay taxes, Obama save me! You realize this story has been told many times before...

He is pure Leftard, but just hates to admit it.

We see a lot of that around here.

LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

Romney says he's cutting middle class taxes by 20%. That's a 20% loss of tax revenue from the middle class.

He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, therefore he has to make up that middle class revenue loss somehow.

How? Where?

Good point.....he envisions economic growth of 3%+ which will help and better paying jobs, which will also make a huge stride....

But the thing Im most proud of you NY....you just reallized that most of the money is in the middle class......purely based on population and that taxing the rich doesnt mount to shit..So raising taxes on the rich doesnt net much and can kill revenue if it kills......growth......the problem is the rich and upper middle class folks create the jobs..welcome aboard!!!!!!!

Like it did in the nineties?

Bush had growth of 3% plus and that didn't pay for his tax cuts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan nearly doubled Federal Tax receipts.:


1980 Revenues = $517,112 B
1988 Revenues = $909,238 B

= Nearly doubled Federal Tax Receipts


Romney is going to attempt to duplicate the strategy.

Wish him luck!

Let me post the real numbers:

1980 - 1197.6 billion

1988 - 1421.1 billion

2 times 1197.6 is not 1421.1

Stop lying. You're starting to look like an asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's how Bush's 2 big tax cuts increased revenues over the course of his presidency

2000 - 2,310 billion

2008 - 2,288.1 billion


LOLOL, that's the kind of revenue 'increases' tax cuts get you.