Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2011, 04:22 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,180,653 times
Reputation: 3632

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenSJC View Post
If you notice, revenue went down from 2001 to 2002.

What happened in 2001? (rhetorical question)

As for the rest of the stats...population growth + immigration+inflation.

NEXT!
I have covered that on about a dozen posts. Income from those making over $250k dropped by 26% between 00-02. The tax cuts were only a small percentage at that point, income fluctuation caused the drop. Look at CA, their revenue dropped in 01 and 02 by a massive amount, so much so they removed their governor, yet he had nothing to do with it. The problem is reliance on a volatile revenue source, high end earners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2011, 04:52 PM
 
58,659 posts, read 26,945,161 times
Reputation: 14143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Alright, time for more facts and less TALKING POINTS. For all those who claim Bush cut taxes to make the rich richer and this has hurt the economy, please take a look at the chart below in millions. This is the total annual tax revenue by year in millions. As you can see Bush achieved the HIGHEST TAX REVENUE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY 2005 through 2008 after having an average above Clinton prior even with the 2001 recession.

Hmmmmmm, these FACTS don't seem to fit the left wingnut talking points about how the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue and added to the national debt.

It seems like we have PLENTY of tax revenue, so the only other issue is spending too much. Hmmmm....SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM!!!!

2001 1,991,142
2002 1,853,149
2003 1,782,321
2004 1,880,126
2005 2,153,625
2006 2,406,876
2007 2,568,001
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,724



Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
And I post this every time some uninformed poster rants about how bad the 8 years under Bush were:

"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008

More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.

The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation

* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.

* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 09:59 PM
 
1,378 posts, read 1,386,862 times
Reputation: 1140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
I have covered that on about a dozen posts. Income from those making over $250k dropped by 26% between 00-02. The tax cuts were only a small percentage at that point, income fluctuation caused the drop. Look at CA, their revenue dropped in 01 and 02 by a massive amount, so much so they removed their governor, yet he had nothing to do with it. The problem is reliance on a volatile revenue source, high end earners.
So that's an excuse to lower taxes on the wealthy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 10:09 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,180,653 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenSJC View Post
So that's an excuse to lower taxes on the wealthy?
Where did I say to lower taxes on anyone?

I just pointed out that income taxes are an inefficient source of revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,496 posts, read 26,536,953 times
Reputation: 8966
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
It just feeds into the left/right good/bad spectrum which I reject. Both sides suck. Percentage wise Bush did not increase much, Reagan, Clinton, all had bigger percentage gains.

It is our system that needs major change, just a jump between authoritarians.
Agree. the histrionics from Congress last week cemented this view....OP "talking points from the left" are not what is a problem now....

Bush isnt in office- its irrelevant. I dont see ANY candidate in 2012 opting for Wall St reform or doing anything that INDEPENDENT voters are for. Independent voters do vote, and they are NOT Tea Party nor are they distracted by all the media bs with Bachmann, Perry, whatever red herring they put out there.

People are sick of the divisive garbage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,719,593 times
Reputation: 5689
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
Agree. the histrionics from Congress last week cemented this view....OP "talking points from the left" are not what is a problem now....

Bush isnt in office- its irrelevant. I dont see ANY candidate in 2012 opting for Wall St reform or doing anything that INDEPENDENT voters are for. Independent voters do vote, and they are NOT Tea Party nor are they distracted by all the media bs with Bachmann, Perry, whatever red herring they put out there.

People are sick of the divisive garbage.
Amen!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top