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.
Oh how democrats changed their tune. It was Democrats who bashed Bush-I with those "read my lips" ads for saying he wanted to raise taxes. Raising taxes when coming out of a recession to pay for stimulus spending in a recession is what Bush-I & Bill Clinton did & should be done according to Keynesian Economics. Taxes or interest rates were not raised enough which caused the dot com bubble that burst sending us into another recession. Then 9/11 happened so lower taxes & deficit spending were required. Low taxes & interest are still required until we recover from the housing bubble in 2013.
If democrats really wanted to raise taxes, they would have done so by now just like they did health-care. These stupid raise taxes ploy is nothing but political grandstanding for the idiot rabid Democrat voters who repeat their idiocy.
I am a true believer - you just don't grok regarding what.
Hardly surprising considering.
Ideology doesn't change the economic fact that if you don't spend too much, you don't have any problems with debt.Baloney.
Debt problems come as a product of spending beyond one's means....Period.
And a leftist would say that deficit problems come from not taxing enough. That statement, like yours, is a political opinion irrelevant to finance.
If you cut taxes and don't cut spending, the tax cuts caused the deficit. If you raise spending and don't raise taxes, then the spending caused the deficit.
A right-winger always says there is too much spending. A leftist always says there is not enough spending. Its ideology and its all the same.
The deficit has exploded far and away outside the puny Bush tax cuts, which added up to <1% of total GDP over their effective time frame.
CON$ will never admit the truth. They just make up crap.First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.While I don't agree with just tax cuts to stimulate the economy the facts have shown an increase in govt revenues from 2003 to 2006 (Bush tax cuts enacted). This refutes the left's claim that revenues decrease.
"Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)"
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)
Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3
Source - Internal Revenue Service.
Kennedy tax cuts
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue
Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.
A little bit of economic literacy and understanding of history wouldn't hurt you.
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
Over what time frame and by whose math?
BTW, you are aware that Ross Perot had noted numerous times during the 1992 campaign, that the debt was going to start an explosive upward climb after 2002, aren't you?
After the economic boom started mid 1992. During the 1992 Presidential campaign Ross Perot proposed raising taxes. His complaints about Washington's chronic overspending struck a chord with the public. A few months before the election, he was leading both incumbent George H.W. Bush and challenger Bill Clinton in the polls. All 3 candidates were for raising taxes.
There is a time for raising taxes & a time for cutting taxes. Currently this recession requires low taxes. In 2013 we will need to raise taxes and cut spending.
Yeah....WITHOUT OFFSETS.
Once again, we can see that the real problem is profligate spending.
When did I say anything about the Fed?
Fact remains that spending is the problem.
Another fact remains that the debt cannot ever be paid off.
Over what time frame and by whose math?
How much did federal spending increase over the same time period?
BTW, you are aware that Ross Perot had noted numerous times during the 1992 campaign, that the debt was going to start an explosive upward climb after 2002, aren't you?
CON$ will never admit the truth. They just make up crap.First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)
Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3
Source - Internal Revenue Service.
Kennedy tax cuts
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue
Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.
A little bit of economic literacy and understanding of history wouldn't hurt you.
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
GDP did NOT drop, therefore the loss of revenue was 100% due to St Ronnie's tax cut and the increase in revenue that followed the Reagan Recession was due to Reagan's record increase in taxes.
US Gross Domestic Product GDP History
Fiscal Years 1950 to 2010
Year
GDP-US
$ billion
1979
2562.2
1980
2788.1
1981
3126.8
1982
3253.2
1983
3534.6
1984
3930.9
1985
4217.5
1986
4460.1
1987
4736.4
1988
5100.4
Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.
First term
1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982
3. Social Security Amendments of 1983
4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
Second term
6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
7. Tax Reform Act of 1986
8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?src=busln
Amen.
But don't listen to me, I merely predicted nearly everything that would happen to our economy since 2007.
Listen to yourself, your politicos and your economists who were almost all wrong, wrong wrong!
And BTW, if you embrace the tax cuts you forfeit your rights to complain about the deficit!
Capiche?
While I don't agree with just tax cuts to stimulate the economy the facts have shown an increase in govt revenues from 2003 to 2006 (Bush tax cuts enacted). This refutes the left's claim that revenues decrease.
"Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)"
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)
Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3
Source - Internal Revenue Service.
Kennedy tax cuts
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue
Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.
Your HALF "facts" came from freerepublic who cited the CBO, so the CBO should be an equally good source if I use it also, so I don't want to see you saying the CBO is a bunch of Libs.CON$ will never admit the truth. They just make up crap.A little bit of economic literacy and understanding of history wouldn't hurt you.
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
GDP did NOT drop, therefore the loss of revenue was 100% due to St Ronnie's tax cut and the increase in revenue that followed the Reagan Recession was due to Reagan's record increase in taxes.
US Gross Domestic Product GDP History
Fiscal Years 1950 to 2010
Year
GDP-US
$ billion
1979
2562.2
1980
2788.1
1981
3126.8
1982
3253.2
1983
3534.6
1984
3930.9
1985
4217.5
1986
4460.1
1987
4736.4
1988
5100.4
Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.
First term
1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982
3. Social Security Amendments of 1983
4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
Second term
6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
7. Tax Reform Act of 1986
8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
I see that neither one of you refuted any of the data during the dates I gave as fact. Where in the world did Reagan come in to my post. I linked to date fro 03 to 07. You gave no links to any of the garbage data you stated. Being blinded by partisan hatred is no excuse to make up numbers. My facts came directly from the govt you seem to hold in such high regard.
Only because Perot's growth numbers were lower than what actually occurred, and the feds used accounting gimmicks that would've landed people operating out in The World under serious investigation, if not behind bars.Over what time frame and by whose math?
How much did federal spending increase over the same time period?
BTW, you are aware that Ross Perot had noted numerous times during the 1992 campaign, that the debt was going to start an explosive upward climb after 2002, aren't you?
There have been several estimates of the cost of the Bush tax cuts. The base level is about $2 trillion. The $1.5 trillion came from an interview I read with a guy from the Cato Institute. The time frame is over 10 years, the duration of the cuts.
Perot's 1992 graphs were incorrect. The budget was in surplus in 2000. But very few 10 year forecasts are right.
First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.While I don't agree with just tax cuts to stimulate the economy the facts have shown an increase in govt revenues from 2003 to 2006 (Bush tax cuts enacted). This refutes the left's claim that revenues decrease.
"Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)"
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)
Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3
Source - Internal Revenue Service.
Kennedy tax cuts
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue
Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.
Your HALF "facts" came from freerepublic who cited the CBO, so the CBO should be an equally good source if I use it also, so I don't want to see you saying the CBO is a bunch of Libs.CON$ will never admit the truth. They just make up crap.
GDP did NOT drop, therefore the loss of revenue was 100% due to St Ronnie's tax cut and the increase in revenue that followed the Reagan Recession was due to Reagan's record increase in taxes.
US Gross Domestic Product GDP History
Fiscal Years 1950 to 2010
Year
GDP-US
$ billion
1979
2562.2
1980
2788.1
1981
3126.8
1982
3253.2
1983
3534.6
1984
3930.9
1985
4217.5
1986
4460.1
1987
4736.4
1988
5100.4
Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.
First term
1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982
3. Social Security Amendments of 1983
4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
Second term
6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
7. Tax Reform Act of 1986
8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
I see that neither one of you refuted any of the data during the dates I gave as fact. Where in the world did Reagan come in to my post. I linked to date fro 03 to 07. You gave no links to any of the garbage data you stated. Being blinded by partisan hatred is no excuse to make up numbers. My facts came directly from the govt you seem to hold in such high regard.
First of all, I did refute your "data" and Reagan came in when your fellow CON$ervative tried to salvage your argument with some typical made up crap.
And secondly, CON$ervative sources typically never give the whole truth. Your freepers left out what the CBO said about the increase in revenue up to 2007 and what would happen after 2007 and why. It happens to confirm exactly what I said in rebuttal to your HALF "facts."
No matter how many times I have shown the techniques the CON$ervative GOP think tanks use to deceive the gullible, you CON$ still swallow without question their cooked half truths every time.
Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. Thats the conclusion of the federal governments official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administrations own Treasury Department.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administrations Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the Presidents budget.
After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that the best estimates of taxpayers response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.
The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasurys most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves and would thus lose money.
While a capital gains tax cut can lead investors to rush to cash in their capital gains when the lower rate first takes effect, it does not raise revenue over the long run.
Especially when a capital gains cut is temporary, like the 2003 tax cut that Gibson cited, investors have a strong incentive to sell stocks and other assets in order to realize their capital gains before the capital gains tax rate increases. This can cause a short-term increase in capital gains tax revenues, as happened after the 2003 tax cut.
Capital gains revenues also increased after 2003 because the stock market went up. But the stock market increase was not a result of the 2003 tax cut, as a study by Federal Reserve economists found. European stocks, which did not benefit from the U.S. capital gains tax cut, performed as well as stocks in the U.S. market in the period following the tax cut.
To raise revenue over the long run, capital gains tax cuts would need to have extraordinary huge, positive effects on saving, investment, and economic growth that virtually no respected expert or institution believes they have. In fact, experts are not even sure that the long-term economic effects of these capital gains tax cuts are positive rather then negative.
One reason is that preferential tax rates for capital gains encourage tax sheltering, by creating incentives for taxpayers to take often-convoluted steps to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains. This is economically unproductive and wastes resources. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Centers director Leonard Burman, one of the nations leading tax experts, has explained, shelter investments are invariably lousy, unproductive ventures that would never exist but for tax benefits. Burman has concluded that, capital gains tax cuts are as likely to depress the economy as to stimulate it.