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.
Nope.. no surpluses there either.. Are you getting close to admitting there was no surplus, or just looking to change the subject to years under Bush?
I never changed the subject... somebody else on this thread did... It seems that you're the only one who seems to think that Bush didn't inherit a surplus... only to run the worst deficit in human history...
At any rate, there was no such grousing about the deficit while President Bush was running it up. In a poll conducted in early 2009 about national priorities, the deficit came in sixth --- after regulating the financial industry, ending the war in Iraq and health care reform. I actually wish President Obama had done even more, just as I wish moderate Democrats in Congress had stronger spines and Republicans weren’t so addicted to obstructionism
First, tax cuts are not an effective means by which to stimulate the economy, relative to other measures. The Congressional Budget Office recently declared that the extension of Bush tax cuts would have a marginal impact on growth — producing a meager 10 to 40 cent increase in GDP for each dollar spent, and that if tax cuts were rescinded and the revenue was spent on state projects and unemployment benefits, the economic impact would be three times greater.
I never changed the subject... somebody else on this thread did... It seems that you're the only one who seems to think that Bush didn't inherit a surplus... only to run the worst deficit in human history...
At any rate, there was no such grousing about the deficit while President Bush was running it up. In a poll conducted in early 2009 about national priorities, the deficit came in sixth --- after regulating the financial industry, ending the war in Iraq and health care reform. I actually wish President Obama had done even more, just as I wish moderate Democrats in Congress had stronger spines and Republicans weren’t so addicted to obstructionism
Never discussed Bushs budgets on this thread.. only showed that the Treasury Department says there was no surplus. A lie that continues to this day for so many uneducated americans..
If you want to change the subject to Bushs deficits, they werent that bad either.. 2007 Deficits were $250B.. This years.. 5 X that.. I think Obama finally beat Bush on something
Because the benefits of Bush-era tax cuts go primarily to high-earners who are likely to either save their incomes or invest in tenuous financial instruments (remember Mortgage-Backed Securities?), it isn’t surprising that a tax extension for the super-rich lacks sound economic rationale.
Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Contrary to the apocalyptic predictions forwarded from the Austrian school, the U.S. economy sustained the longest period of growth in U.S. history from 1992 to 2000. Clinton produced a historical high of 21 million new jobs; interest-rates fell by 40 percent, facilitating the greatest housing boom in history; inflation fell to 2.5 percent, halving the average of the previous 12 years; and the largest budget surplus in history, $128 billion, was created despite Reagan’s mammoth deficits.
First, tax cuts are not an effective means by which to stimulate the economy, relative to other measures.
The issues isnt stimulating the economy, its balancing the budget..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475
producing a meager 10 to 40 cent increase in GDP for each dollar spent,
THERE YOU GO.. Tax increases are NOT $1 for $1 as I previously posted.. Maybe you need to start reading what others post and stop thinking everyone is wrong that you disagree with.. Eventually you'll post exactly the same things they said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475
and that if tax cuts were rescinded and the revenue was spent on state projects and unemployment benefits, the economic impact would be three times greater.
Yeah, things like increasing food stamps has a 1.27% (something like that) benefit to the economy, so why dont we just put everyone in the country on food stamps since the stimulus is over 100%? Heck, they should sell foodstamps to those not on food stamps to stimulate the economy right? Since after all, the only thing that matters to you is the CBO says the benefit is more than allowing people to keep what they earn!!!
The problem with your argument is, we're not discussing stimulating the economy, we're discussing the claims that taxes have gone down and that tax increases always mean increased revenues.. Why dont we simply tax everyone at 100% then... The budget would get balanced overnight!!!
Because the benefits of Bush-era tax cuts go primarily to high-earners who are likely to either save their incomes or invest in tenuous financial instruments (remember Mortgage-Backed Securities?), it isn’t surprising that a tax extension for the super-rich lacks sound economic rationale.
Wrong as always.. the poor received far greater benefits than high earners. Some of those on the lower income brackets began receiving CHECKS from the government due to Bushs tax cuts..
Mortgage backed securities have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. People invest in whats available, and those instruments are not taxed until they are cashed in. They reduce taxable liabilities regardless of the tax rate.. Nice try though but you proved yet again you havent a clue..
Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Contrary to the apocalyptic predictions forwarded from the Austrian school, the U.S. economy sustained the longest period of growth in U.S. history from 1992 to 2000. Clinton produced a historical high of 21 million new jobs; interest-rates fell by 40 percent, facilitating the greatest housing boom in history; inflation fell to 2.5 percent, halving the average of the previous 12 years; and the largest budget surplus in history, $128 billion, was created despite Reagan’s mammoth deficits.
MARGINAL tax rate went up, not the effective tax rate which went down the very years you claimed there was balanced budgets.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/effectivetaxrates.jpg (broken link)
Also note, the effective tax rate went UP when Bush cut taxes in 2002. Marginal tax rates are meaningless because no one pays marginal.. You need to look at the effective tax rates for data.
Wrong as always.. the poor received far greater benefits than high earners. Some of those on the lower income brackets began receiving CHECKS from the government due to Bushs tax cuts..
Mortgage backed securities have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. People invest in whats available, and those instruments are not taxed until they are cashed in. They reduce taxable liabilities regardless of the tax rate.. Nice try though but you proved yet again you havent a clue..
You crack me up because according to your skewed stats... the economy should have been in recession since 1992...
You crack me up because according to your skewed stats... the economy should have been in recession since 1992...
What did I say to give you this synopsis from? The stats I post come right from the government
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.
Heck, they should sell foodstamps to those not on food stamps to stimulate the economy right? Since after all, the only thing that matters to you is the CBO says the benefit is more than allowing people to keep what they earn!!! 
