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.
And yet we have evidence to show that when tax cuts were passed, the economy turned around and the revenue to the federal government began growing INSTANTLY...
The 2001 tax cut was passed and tax revenue went down for two years after that. There is a graph in the media matters link.
Stop trying to pretend you're an economist because it is obvious you are not. You're not the know it all you think you are so maybe you should start listening to the 99% of published practicing economists who have looked at the numbers and who all have concluded that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
What BS. Factcheck is a creditable independent fact checking source which points out you're wrong and that's why you're unhappy with it.
And now you liberals know why you get laughed at all the time..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
Fact check says tax cuts don't pay for themselves, Bush the younger's economic advisers say tax cuts don't pay for themselves, Bush the elder's economic advisers say tax cuts don't pay for themselves, Reagan's economic adivsers say tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
Are you detecting a pattern here? The rest of us are... That tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
And explain to me why revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts were passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
The 2001 tax cut was passed and tax revenue went down for two years after that. There is a graph in the media matters link.
Stop trying to pretend you're an economist because it is obvious you are not. You're not the know it all you think you are so maybe you should start listening to the 99% of published practicing economists who have looked at the numbers and who all have concluded that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Um, there was a tax cut passed in 2003 as well.. Check the chart again and tell me what happened to revenues..
And you do understand that taxes affect revenue NEXT year right? You dont pass a bill in 2001, and then claim that revnues were changed in 2001.. Look at the Obama healthcare bill for an example.. When does it kick in? YEARS after we start paying for it..
The humor in all of this, is just a few months ago, the left was proclaiming Greenspan was an idiot, and the cause of the economic collapse. Now all of a sudden he's an economic genius..
If you cant contribute with the thread, ton bother posting.. Links to factcheck does nothing but show ones inability to think for themself..
But they are counted overall under Obamas budget, which makes me gasp at what the real deficit might be..
I am contributing the minimal level of research effort that apparently you can't do for yourself on google. And since you are still claiming that an increase of revenue is proof that tax cuts work (or otherwise pay for themselves) you really might want to broaden your understanding on this topic before commenting further. You've been given some bad information on this topic.
There were two tax cuts one in 2001 when Bush first came in and a second in 2003. Notice how the record is mixed and not as straight forward as you claimed? Not how once the revenue went down and the other it went up. BTW even the most optomistic estimates are that Bush's tax cuts only added about 0.5% to growth per year while debt to pay for those tax cuts went up much faster. That's even without considering debt from new spending; we're talking about debt just on existing spending.
That's why just about all economists say tax cuts do not pay for themselves. You can't get around that basic fact.
fact check is manipulated by soros and the cfr and you know it
LOL! It must be weird thinking reality is a huge conspiracy theory against you. "Reality and the facts don't agree with my made up world view... Quick! Claim it is a conspiracy and ignore the facts!"
I am contributing the minimal level of research effort that apparently you can't do for yourself on google.
I'm more than capable of using Google for myself thank you.. Tell me that was the only result on google? Ooh the humor.. Admit it, you went to factcheck and did a search, dont lie to me about using google..
Quote:
Originally Posted by damie
And since you are still claiming that an increase of revenue is proof that tax cuts work (or otherwise pay for themselves) you really might want to broaden your understanding on this topic before commenting further. You've been given some bad information on this topic.
Tell me ooh wize one.. what bad information have I given? You saying so doesnt make it true..
There were two tax cuts one in 2001 when Bush first came in and a second in 2003. Notice how the record is mixed and not as straight forward as you claimed? Not how once the revenue went down and the other it went up. BTW even the most optomistic estimates are that Bush's tax cuts only added about 0.5% to growth per year while debt to pay for those tax cuts went up much faster. That's even without considering debt from new spending; we're talking about debt just on existing spending.
That's why just about all economists say tax cuts do not pay for themselves. You can't get around that basic fact.
Revenue went down due to a recession.. Tax cuts ENDED the recession.. You should know all about recessions, correct me if I'm wrong, we're living in one now...
Soo the Bush tax cuts only ADDED to the growth? Jees, adding to growth would indeed INCREASE revenues.
He's right too as proven by just about every single peer reviewed economist in every country on the planet. This right wing myth that you don't have to pay for tax cuts with off setting cuts is not just wrong it is retarded and proven wrong over and over again.
For the reality impaired neo-cons who keep claiming tax cuts pay for themselves here is what Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan had to say today:
Greenspan also said he is generally in favor of tax cuts but warned that tax cuts must be paid for or they are "disastrous". He warned that we can't keep borrowing money to pay for tax cuts and that the highest priority must be to balance the budget.
I'll also post a link to the video as soon as NBC posts it on their website.
There's a flaw with this thinking. Tax cuts are not something that is "paid for." If I cut my hours back so that I earn $50 less one week, have I given my employer $50?
Tax cuts are not a gift. They are the decision of a thief to be content in stealing a little bit less than he did before.
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.
Factcheck is a creditable independent fact checking source which points out you're wrong and that's why you're unhappy with it..jpg)
Check the chart again and tell me what happened to revenues..
