War and Tax cuts...Mutually exclusive?

[Huckleburry]

Well are they....

 

[sagegirl]

Well are they....

Its not just war and tax cuts....its a package......can you continue the war at the current cost of 35 million every 4 hours, (and rising), support a tax cut, privatize social security, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit by half......not likely.
The only way to do this is drop some options (already happening) like tax reform, social security reform is unlikely, and forget about a balanced budget.
If the budget does not include the 80 or so billion that is going to be required very soon for the war, and this 80 billion is asked for in a "supplemental" a short time after the budget is proposed, it is a sham of a budget, totally without any credibility. Back to deficit spending.
We just keep increasing the debt limit, obligating us to payouts far into the future and in ways that we may not think of as advantageous later on. Nothing is for certain and we are limiting our options for the future by the actions that we take that lock us in.
I really dislike it when the shit hits the fan and the excuse is, (from those we put in positions to take responsibility and to know) how could anybody have ever imagined....blah blah blah. It's as obvious as it can be and those who refuse to see it will always have an excuse for being blind, whether it be patriotism, religion, or fear.

 

[freeandfun1]

Its not just war and tax cuts....its a package......can you continue the war at the current cost of 35 million every 4 hours, (and rising), support a tax cut, privatize social security, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit by half......not likely.
The only way to do this is drop some options (already happening) like tax reform, social security reform is unlikely, and forget about a balanced budget.
If the budget does not include the 80 or so billion that is going to be required very soon for the war, and this 80 billion is asked for in a "supplemental" a short time after the budget is proposed, it is a sham of a budget, totally without any credibility. Back to deficit spending.
We just keep increasing the debt limit, obligating us to payouts far into the future and in ways that we may not think of as advantageous later on. Nothing is for certain and we are limiting our options for the future by the actions that we take that lock us in.
I really dislike it when the shit hits the fan and the excuse is, (from those we put in positions to take responsibility and to know) how could anybody have ever imagined....blah blah blah. It's as obvious as it can be and those who refuse to see it will always have an excuse for being blind, whether it be patriotism, religion, or fear.

You are making a historically unsupportable assumption. You are assuming that a cut in taxes results in a cut in tax revenues. ALL throughout our history, every time the federal government has cut taxes, tax revenues have INCREASED.

 

[sagegirl]

You are making a historically unsupportable assumption. You are assuming that a cut in taxes results in a cut in tax revenues. ALL throughout our history, every time the federal government has cut taxes, tax revenues have INCREASED.

While this may be true, which I honestly dont claim to know either way, there is still the problem of overspending. You may get a 3% pay raise but if you spend more by 6% you are overspending. I would like to know how much tax revenue has increased, and what portion of that is due to the tax cuts . Can you backup your statement with any credible sources.. I'm sure compared to increases in spending it is a small amount. Bush was over budget by 10% first year, 10% second year, 3% third year, and I guess hes trying to only go .8 % this year. Even the die hard republicans, that defend the idea of deficit spending, couldn't handle that kind of lack of control.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While this may be true, which I honestly dont claim to know either way, there is still the problem of overspending. You may get a 3% pay raise but if you spend more by 6% you are overspending. I would like to know how much tax revenue has increased, and what portion of that is due to the tax cuts . Can you backup your statement with any credible sources.. I'm sure compared to increases in spending it is a small amount. Bush was over budget by 10% first year, 10% second year, 3% third year, and I guess hes trying to only go .8 % this year. Even the die hard republicans, that defend the idea of deficit spending, couldn't handle that kind of lack of control.

At least you admit your claims on knowledge are tenuous at best.

 

[freeandfun1]

While this may be true, which I honestly dont claim to know either way, there is still the problem of overspending. You may get a 3% pay raise but if you spend more by 6% you are overspending. I would like to know how much tax revenue has increased, and what portion of that is due to the tax cuts . Can you backup your statement with any credible sources.. I'm sure compared to increases in spending it is a small amount. Bush was over budget by 10% first year, 10% second year, 3% third year, and I guess hes trying to only go .8 % this year. Even the die hard republicans, that defend the idea of deficit spending, couldn't handle that kind of lack of control.

I never said that Bush isn't overspending. You and Huck are implying that tax cuts are what are causing the deficit when it is not tax cuts, but overspending that is the problem.

 

[freeandfun1]

Can you backup your statement with any credible sources..

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry155.html

 

[sagegirl]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry155.html

I read the articles......somewhat favorable to taxcuts, but the heritage site quotes are for 1983 to 1993 and adjusted to 1996 dollars ?????? makes it look a little slanted. The suntimes correctly admitted that tax cuts do not in themsleves result in deficits but overspending is the problem....like I said a 3%raise and a 6% increase in spending results in a deficit.
I saw the new budget proposal and it is for 3.9% increase in spending and DOES NOT include the costs of the war in afghanistan and iraq....how realistic is that? I personally prefer to tax and spend rather that spend and owe.

 

[Polystyrate]

Nah, keep spending. Fuck it, lets start using gold bullets with little pictures of jesus hand carved in each one. That will teach those dirty muslims how a real religion kills with style. After all its our kids not us who are going to end up with the bill!

 

[Annie]

Nah, keep spending. Fuck it, lets start using gold bullets with little pictures of jesus hand carved in each one. That will teach those dirty muslims how a real religion kills with style. After all its our kids not us who are going to end up with the bill!

Big L, going back nearly a month! Can't find anything else? Loser! :alco:

 

[onedomino]

Nah, keep spending. Fuck it, lets start using gold bullets with little pictures of jesus hand carved in each one. That will teach those dirty muslims how a real religion kills with style. After all its our kids not us who are going to end up with the bill!

This is one of the most offensive remarks that I have read on USMB. Pack him up in polystyrate and mail him to where they have a huge supply of meds.
-

 

[Polystyrate]

Overzealous sarcasm is wasted on you uptight bastards!

 

[Said1]

Overzealous sarcasm is wasted on you uptight bastards!

That depends on you're definition of "overzealous sarcasm" shittard.

 

[elephant]

Hey sagegirl instead of bending over and taking it like this right-wing board expects you to, as soon as one poster says, "you are assuming blah blah taxes revenues increase blah blah." You may consider a slightly tougher strategy - call their bluff. The numbers are available for your perusal.

You may be pleasantly suprised.

 

[freeandfun1]

Hey sagegirl instead of bending over and taking it like this right-wing board expects you to, as soon as one poster says, "you are assuming blah blah taxes revenues increase blah blah." You may consider a slightly tougher strategy - call their bluff. The numbers are available for your perusal.

You may be pleasantly suprised.

If you can back it up, do it. She couldn't when presented with the evidence. Apparently, you can't either, or you would.

 

[elephant]

If you can back it up, do it. She couldn't when presented with the evidence. Apparently, you can't either, or you would.

I do not like doing sagegirl's work for her. This was a fairly simple exercise if she had cared at all about her argument.

I KNOW that even though I am citing the IRS and CBO everyone will say I am wrong because that is how this message board works, but here goes:

According to the CBO published effective tax rates for 1979-2001 and the tax revenue information available from the IRS, lowering the effective tax rate DOES NOT increase tax revenues.

If one were inclined to do some basic econometrics it would be easy show this. You could test this using OLS with a detrending time variable or using a VAR model. I did just for fun.

Here is an example fo the data - from 1993 to 2000 the ETR increased by 1.1% in about .1% increments annually and each year the total revenue (adjusted to real dollars) went up by about 8%.

So it even just looking at the data it is quite clear that even very small changes, .1%, increase tax revenue by quiet a bit, 8%.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I would be happy to help.

 

[manu1959]

Well are they....

no........ we are stealing the oil to pay for the war and giving tax cuts to the rich...did you miss a meeting?

 

[freeandfun1]

I do not like doing sagegirl's work for her. This was a fairly simple exercise if she had cared at all about her argument.

I KNOW that even though I am citing the IRS and CBO everyone will say I am wrong because that is how this message board works, but here goes:

According to the CBO published effective tax rates for 1979-2001 and the tax revenue information available from the IRS, lowering the effective tax rate DOES NOT increase tax revenues.

If one were inclined to do some basic econometrics it would be easy show this. You could test this using OLS with a detrending time variable or using a VAR model. I did just for fun.

Here is an example fo the data - from 1993 to 2000 the ETR increased by 1.1% in about .1% increments annually and each year the total revenue (adjusted to real dollars) went up by about 8%.

So it even just looking at the data it is quite clear that even very small changes, .1%, increase tax revenue by quiet a bit, 8%.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I would be happy to help.

so your info contradicts the info I provided but your info is right because you are a lib and I am wrong because.... well, because you say so. Okay.

you need to stop drinking so much kool-aide.

I like how you say "I KNOW that even though I am citing the IRS and CBO everyone will say I am wrong because that is how this message board works...". You are doing exactly what you are accusing, therefore, I guess we DO know how YOU work. You so funny!

I don't need any education from you. I have provided the info that supports my claim. You have provided no links to anything supporting your claim. I guess it is so just because you said so.

Buh bye!

 

[elephant]

so your info contradicts the info I provided but your info is right because you are a lib and I am wrong because.... well, because you say so. Okay.

you need to stop drinking so much kool-aide.

I like how you say "I KNOW that even though I am citing the IRS and CBO everyone will say I am wrong because that is how this message board works...". You are doing exactly what you are accusing, therefore, I guess we DO know how YOU work. You so funny!

I don't need any education from you. I have provided the info that supports my claim. You have provided no links to anything supporting your claim. I guess it is so just because you said so.

Buh bye!

Here are the links:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db07co.xls

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&sequence=0#table1A

I am unclear how I am the one drinking kool-aide, when I went and got the data and decided for myself what was happening and you are just believing what others tell you.

You could have found this data very easily yourself.

 

[Huckleburry]

Hey gang.... I have been abroad for the last month and internet access was non existent hence my brief hiatus from the board.
I have not studied econometrics and so I am in no position to comment on the below data and the Heritage institute is a conservative think tank and so I am not too willing to take their opinion pieces on faith.
Perhaps I should rephrase my question.
Is it patriotic to lower taxes while in the middle of a taxing war? The country is being asked to go through some very difficult times and this requires belt sacrifice. If this is the case then why are the wealthiest Americans also receiving tax cuts? As a point of contrast the tax rate for the same group was about 92 percent during the Second World War. It seems a bit odd that the group that is asking Americans to sacrifice their lives and livelihoods are also asking that their tax burden be reduced.