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.
Yea...i want him to name the trillions. And i want him to make sure that a nice proportion of it comes out of his district. You know...like those aircraft engines that no one wants.
Until then, he's peeing down everyones leg and claiming that it's raining.
No doubt, Boehner and the right won't make any real cuts like to the bloated defense, restoring the tax rates to the wildly successful Clinton plan like they were suppose to, and other corporate handouts.
John Boehner has been the Speaker for how long now? How many bills have he and his Republican majority passed in that time?
I'll give you a hint: you can count them on one hand.
Now, how many of those bills have been job-related?
I'll give you a hint: you don't need any hands.
John Boehner is a blowhard who's demonstrably not doing any real work for Americans, particularly with regard to getting them back to work, which would go a LONG way towards increasing revenues and helping pay down our debt.
Next time post this line first so I can ignore you as you clearly don't know anything about economics and have bought in to the lefty argument that reducing taxes somehow reduces revenue. Everytime taxes have been reduced it has increased the revenue that government takes in. The idea that tax cuts have to someohow be 'baid for' if Democrat-spun propaganda. Learn from history.
Instead of asserting that because my opinion differs from yours "I must not know anything about economics," let's test your theory that "every time taxes have been reduced it has increased the revenue that government takes in." By now, after the Reagan tax-cut of 1982 (and the 1983 increase because revenue dropped in 1982) plus the Bush tax-cuts, we have plenty of data to evaluate.
Quote:
Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.
There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.
Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692
...
The simple fact is that there was a 5 year drop in tax collections, which was extremely uncharacteristic of a growing economy.
(source)
Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and there was steady growth until Bush cut taxes in 2001, at which time revenue collapsed. It took the housing bubble for revenues to recover. Nevertheless, it took until 2005, with an increase in population, for revenues to recover just to 2000 levels -- let alone the increase in revenue that supply siders boast should happen.
Here's another chart:
In short, the notion that tax cuts increase government revenues has no empirical support. It's what we call a zombie lie -- no matter how many times this lie is shot down, it gets up to be repeated. It's a ludicrous theory that implies that if we cut taxes to zero, the government would have unlimited revenue. It's clear to see why it does not work. If tax-rates are cut from 30% to 15%, economic activity would need to double in order for government revenues just to be equal.
Quote:
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither. (source)
The theory is busted and I would contend that it is not me who is short on macro economics knowledge, pal. My 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. Goodman, was right. Those that know the least are first to use insults to hide their shortcomings.
In short, the notion that tax cuts increase government revenues has no empirical support. It's what we call a zombie lie -- no matter how many time this lie is shot down, it gets up to be repeated.
This is what's so frustrating for anyone who's actually paying attention to reality. Why won't it just die already?
This is what's so frustrating for anyone who's actually paying attention to reality. Why won't it just die already?
It's called cognitive dissonance.
Even with the mountain of evidence that cutting taxes cuts government revenue, they will still believe the opposite.
How can this be? The answer rests with understanding the mind. It is a mind heavily invested in believing conservative dogma; a mind that filters evidence challenging their political beliefs, that they hold with religious faith.
Cognitive Dissonance is a mental escape mechanism. When two conflicting beliefs exist, or a firm belief conflicts with known facts, the mind must reconcile the conflict. To resolve the mental tension, a person can either modify their belief or if the belief is held firmly, the person will discount the facts to make it consistent with the belief.
As an example, if I believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and I smoke cigarettes, then dissonance should occur. I am then motivated to reduce the dissonance by either stopping smoking or by changing my attitude about the smoking-cancer link (“The research is bad” “The super-light, low tar cigarettes I smoke couldn’t possibly cause cancer,” etc.). (Source: http://www.uwm.edu/People/hynan/205/205PRESS.html)
With respect to politial views, dissonance was created when their firm faith in the conservative pillar, that tax-cuts increase government revenue, collides with into the brick wall of data that proves the opposite. Instead of losing faith in the ideology, the ideologue resolves the conflict by either dismissing the contrary evidence or they shifted blame. “Bad data” fits into that second category. “There are other reasons, etc.” It’s very neat and clean how the mind prevents facts from interfering with the bedrock of our deepest beliefs.
So no, I'm not holding my breathe that rogerbacon will change his opinion.
I guess Boehner's focus on Jobs got, ......Aborted?
Worse than that, Boehner's focus on deficits is also phony, as it relies upon the Ryan Plan, which cuts the debt only if its magic assumptions, such as health care costs will fall and unemployment will fall to 2.8% -- a rate not seen since the Truman Administration. Thus, those assumptions will never be real.
The reality is that the Ryan Plan is a not-so hidden plan to lower taxes on the rich from 35% to 25%, while shifting burdens to everyone else. The rich get the tax cut; the middle class lose the home mortgage deduction; seniors adsorb 2/3 of medical costs and the poor lose federal programs.
John Boehner has been the Speaker for how long now? How many bills have he and his Republican majority passed in that time?
I'll give you a hint: you can count them on one hand.
Now, how many of those bills have been job-related?
I'll give you a hint: you don't need any hands.
John Boehner is a blowhard who's demonstrably not doing any real work for Americans, particularly with regard to getting them back to work, which would go a LONG way towards increasing revenues and helping pay down our debt.
Yes, but he is 1,000,000,000,000,000% better than Pelosi!!!!!
Even with the mountain of evidence that cutting taxes cuts government revenue, they will still believe the opposite.
How can this be? The answer rests with understanding the mind. It is a mind heavily invested in believing conservative dogma; a mind that filters evidence challenging their political beliefs, that they hold with religious faith.
Cognitive Dissonance is a mental escape mechanism. When two conflicting beliefs exist, or a firm belief conflicts with known facts, the mind must reconcile the conflict. To resolve the mental tension, a person can either modify their belief or if the belief is held firmly, the person will discount the facts to make it consistent with the belief.
As an example, if I believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and I smoke cigarettes, then dissonance should occur. I am then motivated to reduce the dissonance by either stopping smoking or by changing my attitude about the smoking-cancer link (“The research is bad” “The super-light, low tar cigarettes I smoke couldn’t possibly cause cancer,” etc.). (Source: http://www.uwm.edu/People/hynan/205/205PRESS.html)
With respect to politial views, dissonance was created when their firm faith in the conservative pillar, that tax-cuts increase government revenue, collides with into the brick wall of data that proves the opposite. Instead of losing faith in the ideology, the ideologue resolves the conflict by either dismissing the contrary evidence or they shifted blame. “Bad data” fits into that second category. “There are other reasons, etc.” It’s very neat and clean how the mind prevents facts from interfering with the bedrock of our deepest beliefs.
So no, I'm not holding my breathe that rogerbacon will change his opinion.
I know it's cognitive dissonance that's at the root of the problem, however, your detailed description of how and why it works the way it does is so good that I had to bookmark it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Worse than that, Boehner's focus on deficits is also phony, as it relies upon the Ryan Plan, which cuts the debt only if its magic assumptions, such as health care costs will fall and unemployment will fall to 2.8% -- a rate not seen since the Truman Administration. Thus, those assumptions will never be real.
The reality is that the Ryan Plan is a not-so hidden plan to lower taxes on the rich from 35% to 25%, while shifting burdens to everyone else. The rich get the tax cut; the middle class lose the home mortgage deduction; seniors adsorb 2/3 of medical costs and the poor lose federal programs.
Seriously, I weep for the future of this nation if these people ever regain control. We thought the 2007 recession was bad? Woo boy, we ain't seen nothin' yet if they ever get back into power. This country would be so screwed.
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.