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.
If he ever shows that he is a failure, I would call him that. But obviously he won't do anything that results in failure, so the thread point is .... pointless.
That is factually just incorrect. Revenue remained lower for 2.5 years after the Bush tax cuts. Worse the debt grows faster when tax cuts aren't "paid for" by off setting spending cuts and that causes the debt to increase faster than revenue growth. That's why even conservatives like the Fed chairman have repeatedly said in public that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Look at all revenue, not just federal revenue. When people have more money in their pockets, they spend it locally, and their cities, counties and state revenues go up faster then federal. When the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented total revenue for state & federal went up.
As you can see, during the Clinton years revenue went up slowly, by $200-$300 a year. Under Bush is was increasing at a much faster rate, by $200-$500 each year.
That is factually just incorrect. Revenue remained lower for 2.5 years after the Bush tax cuts. Worse the debt grows faster when tax cuts aren't "paid for" by off setting spending cuts and that causes the debt to increase faster than revenue growth. That's why even conservatives like the Fed chairman have repeatedly said in public that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Thats not true at all. Revenues did increase after the tax cuts were passed, and as a percentage of GDP, remained relatively the same as historic levels.
What happened was when the revenues increased, the INCREASED SPENDING. which is what created the deficits.
The debt is largely the fault of Republicans in Congress who refused to moderately raise the tax rates on those earning more than $250K per year.
I'm sure you are only talking about raising their taxes by 3-4%, and that would have raised a pitiful $12 billion a year, and your claim that this would have reduced our $15 trillion debt fails completely.
Lets go liberal, bat **** crazy and raise income taxes on the top 1% by ten percent. Even if we did that it would bring in under $40 billion. In 2009 the top 1% paid in $344 billion in income taxes. The catch is, that if we did increase their income taxes by 10% there would be fewer people in that $250k bracket each year.
Fine. The budget wasn't balanced, but it was a hell of lot closer to being balanced before we started 2 unfunded wars.
Quote:
Wrong again. Bush cut taxes and the revenues grew. Yes, he increased spending, I've never once defended that taking place either
Of course revenues grew, but they grew less than they would have if there wasn't a tax cut. Every respected organization tracking this has agreed that the Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. And even more, the growth from NOT pushing tax cuts would still not be enough to pay for 2 wars.
Quote:
If revenues grew after he cut taxes, why would you expect them to rise after you raise them? Again, how can you grow the economy by taxing it?
Find me one respected source that says the Bush Tax cuts paid for themselves. You won't b/c the amount of "stimulus" created was less than the gov't would have collected from the taxes.
Quote:
War spending accounts for about 1/10th of our deficit. Only a fool would focus on the small part and ignore the rest, but here ya are..
War spending AND tax cuts are the reason for our massive deficit. Repeal the Bush tax cuts & end the war in Afghanistan, and within a decade our situation looks like it did when Clinton left office.
Quote:
Lie.. I dont ever support deficits, but to pretend that revenues ddnt grow after taxes were cut is just plain ignorant.
Who said revenue didn't grow? The question you should be asking is "did the cuts pay for themselves" (ie did the gov't collect more money from a stimulated economy than it would have w/ it's old tax rates) and the answer is a resounding NO.
The thing that people seem to miss is that government spending increased at the same time that revenues increased. In fact, government spending rose more than revenues did. Add into that the fraud and waste produced by the government and it was along term recipe for failure. Despite the divide that the current admin wants to create within the people, we can see that the problems have arisen from government spending and abuses.
Logically, since this is the case, why would you vote for someone whose record is all about increasing the debt and spending of the government and providing for his cronies at the same time? That would be Obama. It was also Bush 2, who spent more, especially when caving to the Democratic congress.
Liberals, how can you vote for someone who has a track record of not doing what is best for the economy? How can you vote for Democrats who WANT to do things that are bad for the country?
It's simple. Both parties are big spenders and have been since the Reagan years. So it's a choice between what you would rather spend the money on and which party's non-fiscal policies you prefer. Of course when you throw an extra war on top of things you ratchet the spending up way beyond the normal spending by either party.
I assume you are basing this assertion on the "fuzzy" arithmetic used to hide certain spending. But that's a moot point to me since every Congress and administration does that. So that doesn't change that the budget was effectively balanced at the end of the 90s.
The size of government has grown from I believe $1.7T a year to $3.5T a year in the last 10 years. How else do you define size? deficits under Bush were 1/3-1/5th the current size, and you stand here and whine, and point at Bush. Liberal stupidity continues.
A recent history lesson for "forgetful" right-wingers:
The economy was at a melting point during the last year of the Bush administration and the first year of the Obama administration. Almost all of the mainstream politicians in both parties were in favor of massive stimulus packages. In fact both Bush and Obama got two such measures passed. It was an emergency and while some have argued for no federal action or an vastly increased regulatory environment of the financial sectors, both positions were considered radical. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been considered, just pointing out that had it been the Gore and then McCain administrations the results would likely have been the same.
I'm sure you are only talking about raising their taxes by 3-4%, and that would have raised a pitiful $12 billion a year, and your claim that this would have reduced our $15 trillion debt fails completely.
Lets go liberal, bat **** crazy and raise income taxes on the top 1% by ten percent. Even if we did that it would bring in under $40 billion. In 2009 the top 1% paid in $344 billion in income taxes. The catch is, that if we did increase their income taxes by 10% there would be fewer people in that $250k bracket each year.
I solved the deficit. Never touched the entitlements of middle class wage earners, never cut Federal programs. Basically just raised taxes on the wealthy and cut our insane spending on defense.
Here are my choices. Don't believe any thing a right winger tells you about solving the budget. They're are brainwashed.
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.
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.
hardliners are so blind. LOL
Liberals- when would you admit that Obama is a failure
