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 11-17-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Gee, I wonder who will be tasked with paying it all back?? Will it be the bottom 45% who ZERO income taxes, or will it be those of us in the middle class or just millionaires? Obviously it will just be the top 1% who will pay it back
Since the top 1% got most of the benefits of the Bush tax-cuts, it's only fair that they pay the most.

As for those that paid zero income taxes, those are the people who make little income. You can't squeeze water from a stone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Wrong again, per the CBO the 2003 tax cuts generated more money both in real dollars, and as a % of GDP. Your excuse blaming population growth and inflation, wouldnt explain why tax revenues would grow as a % of gdp as well. Care to try again?

The Bush tax cuts to grow revenues and the economy wasnt passed until 2003, why would you talk about 2000 unless you were trying to be dishonest?
Oh please. There were two Bush tax-cuts. One in 2001 and another in 2003.

Try for once to get your facts right:

From Wiki:
Quote:
The Bush tax cuts refers to changes to the United States tax code passed during the presidency of George W. Bush that generally lowered tax rates and revised the code specifying taxation in the United States. These were the:

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)
Incidentally, the CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "

They were right. These tax-cuts reduced revenue and everyone knew it at the time. Trying to claim that they raised revenue is just part of the right-wing fantasy mindset.

Last edited by MTAtech; 11-17-2011 at 09:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Tax revenue to the federal government, as a percentage of the nation's GDP, has been fairly steady at about 16%-18% regardless of what our federal tax code has been. so don't tell me that the Boooosh tax cuts breached some mythical barrier for federal tax rates, and that is why revenue dropped.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Then you explain why, in a time when stock prices were rising (e.g. capital gains); everyone was making money selling houses to each other (more capital gains), unemployment was 5%, etc., federal tax revenue as a p% of GDP fell?

As I stated in the previous post, the CBO and others were estimating a huge drop in revenue. So it's no surprise that it actually happened. I can understand the anxiety of having to face the facts that one of the leading myths of the right-wing (that cutting taxes increases revenue) is false, but facts are facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: southwestern USA
1,791 posts, read 1,675,951 times
Reputation: 2347
A $15 trillion debt is nothing to be proud of----it will eventually come back to hurt this country as borrowing money will become more difficult if efforts to pare the debt arent made.

We have going at this now for months and months and months-----its getting to be a quagmire----a horrible joke.

There is no longer any need to appoint a super committee---they seem to be having trouble ordering lunch -----by the time that committee agrees on anything we will be into the 22nd century.

Our legislative process has become a dinosaur---maybe it too should become extinct. We need selfless legislators rather than selfish legislators. We need men and women who want to pave the way for a decent future for all our citizens.

I recognize that we all have to tighten our belts----that includes the middle class, upper middle, the wealthy, and the super novas.

There have to modifications to entitlements----cuts in military spending----deep cuts in foreign aid---cutting out millions of dollars of pork barrel programs our legislator love to receive-------and yes indeed we need to increase our revenue streams. This means we have to eliminate hypocritcal tax loopholes and reform a deadly unjust and horrific tax code.

Yes indeed to everybody----dems, repubs, libs, conservs, and teas. We all have to bit the bullet and feel some pain.

To our dems and libs----entitlement progams need changes and modificatios---sorry. To our Repubs and teas, we need to cut loopholes and reform the tax code. If some loopholes are closed on our super novas, please stop referring that to be a tax increase----it insults our intelligence.

Yikes-------wake up our leaders---or pretenders----the time has come to jettison the self serving and pomposity-----Americans are getting sick of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:42 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,663,322 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
It doesn't take rocket science to realize the national debt will be going up for decades to come...

It's hilarious the OP falls back on the "blame Bush" mentality.

Why the OP isn't blaming American citizens for wanting free government handouts and political cronyism in both parties is beyond me...
Unless you do something to correct the situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:51 AM
 
15,772 posts, read 8,604,935 times
Reputation: 6233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recovering Democrat View Post
And Bush spent more and spent it faster than Clinton. That's a fact too.

Your facts are irrelevant, but they are "facts."
I sure wish George Bush had Newt Gingrich in charge of the purse strings!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:00 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,796,370 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
It is you, sir, who is being dishonest. Total amount of taxes on the rich rose because income on the rich skyrocketed, so naturally they pay more taxes.

Don't believe it? From the CBO data, via a recent report, here are the income shares of the top 1 percent and the rest of the top quintile:


The CBO concluded:


There has been no rise in the share of the 81-99 group, while the top 1%'s income group rose 25%, since 1979.

To conclude that taxes raised increased due to tax-cuts, and use the share of taxes paid by the rich as evidence, while ignoring that the rich's income has soared, is an obvious trick. It would be astounding if the richest share did not rise, since that's the only group in which income did rise.

Thus, in the last few pages I discredited two zombie memes, namely, 1) lowering taxes brings in more revenue; 2) the rich are oppressed.

The fact that income inequality has risen dramatically since the nation has enacted tax policies that favor the rich has brought on a slew of deniers. But it's becoming more and more difficult to deny the obvious:
Thank you for proving exactly that you dont have a clue. We are discussing who pays the most taxes, and what percentage of that comes from the rich, and you divert the discussion to inequality of wealth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:03 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,796,370 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Oh please. There were two Bush tax-cuts. One in 2001 and another in 2003.

Try for once to get your facts right:

From Wiki:


Incidentally, the CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:
From your own link the 2001 wasnt to grow the economy Will you ever get anything correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "

They were right. These tax-cuts reduced revenue and everyone knew it at the time. Trying to claim that they raised revenue is just part of the right-wing fantasy mindset.
They were wrong, and the CBO acknowledged this to be try. Why dont you dsicss the CBO reports?
Federal Tax Revenues from 2003 to 2006

Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1).

You get proven wrong over and over again and because you cant dispute whats bein said, you have to change the subject and thes tandards every single time!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,330 posts, read 19,070,163 times
Reputation: 18436
Republicans and Conservatives, silent while Bush was running up the debt, are suddenly concerned about it because its level is a negative talking point while President Obama is in office.

Fact. Conservatives turn surpluses into record deficits and don't complain about the deficits they build.

Fact. Democrats turn deficits into surpluses when they can act without Republican interference and regressive obstructionist tactics.

Fact. Only extremely large-headed, lipless morons think that incorporating only spending cuts without raising taxes (at least on the rich) is the way to benefit a Bush-ravaged economy and lower the deficit. Republicans in Congress are clueless as this shows and so are their supporters.

Fact. Spending is necessary to undue the enormous damage done by Bush and the Republicans to every facet of this economy, so it makes sense that the deficit can and should go up even more while this repair completes.

Fact. The deficit is not the problem, Republicans are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:36 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,796,370 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
Republicans and Conservatives, silent while Bush was running up the debt, are suddenly concerned about it because its level is a negative talking point while President Obama is in office.

Fact. Conservatives turn surpluses into record deficits and don't complain about the deficits they build.

Fact. Democrats turn deficits into surpluses when they can act without Republican interference and regressive obstructionist tactics.

Fact. Only extremely large-headed, lipless morons think that incorporating only spending cuts without raising taxes (at least on the rich) is the way to benefit a Bush-ravaged economy and lower the deficit. Republicans in Congress are clueless as this shows and so are their supporters.

Fact. Spending is necessary to undue the enormous damage done by Bush and the Republicans to every facet of this economy, so it makes sense that the deficit can and should go even more while this repair completes.

Fact. The deficit is not the problem, Republicans are.
nothing but left wing hogwash because Democrats have NEVER had a surplus. The last pretend surplus took place under a GOP Congress, and its CONGRESS that passes budgets, not presidents. And the President at the time, Clinton, was moaning and groaning about how damaging to the economy the tax CUTS were going to be.

Spare me the lipless morons talk until you re-read the constitution and stop babbling on and on with hate.

All you did was EXCUSE Democratic deficits and ignored reality while posting HATE.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top