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.
I think the GOP started it slide into absurdity when it nominated Mr. Goldwater.
Yet Goldwater was a thinking man's conservative. He had principles. I think the nomination of Goldwater is what the nomination of Paul would be. Both were/are ideologues to the extreme, but at least some of those principles are noble. I see little that is noble in most of the mainstream Republican candidates today, though. I see Romney as intelligent and pragmatic, I guess, but even he has his moments of zaniness.
they lost their sense of reality when they became exactly like the democrat party. the 2 parties in washington dc are the one and the same. they say we have a 2 party system, when all we have is a 1 party system that argues about different subjects.
when it comes down to it, they both want larger goverment.
When Republicans showed us how stupid we were and elected The Gipper (Reagan) to office based solely on his being a famous actor and witty one-liners. That validated the Republican vision of having politicians act more like movie stars and cater to the emotions rather than what they should be doing - debating and appealing to logic.
You left out the fact that Reagan was the governor of the most populous state in the union... after he was an actor.
Did Obama launch two wars paid for by two tax cuts? Didn't think so.
Overspending causes deficits/debts, not wars. Tax cuts increase government revenue. Obama is spending far more than Bush ever did, which the figures I posted (which you choose to ignore) show. BTW, Bush had Congressional aprpoval to "launch" those wars.
Quote:
No, he inherited the biggest meltdown since the depression (depressed revenues, increased support payments). Bush presided over the largest real estate boom in history. The better question might be why couldn't Bush turn a surplus like Clinton did with the much smaller dot.com boom?
What "surplus?" The national debt increase by over $1 trillion while Clinton was in office. Bush inherited an economy which became a recession. Even with the 9/11 attacks, that recession ended by Nov., 2001.
Quote:
You folks are unbelievable.
The ones who are unbelievable are those who make inaccurate posts and ignore data!
Overspending causes deficits/debts, not wars. Tax cuts increase government revenue. Obama is spending far more than Bush ever did, which the figures I posted (which you choose to ignore) show. BTW, Bush had Congressional aprpoval to "launch" those wars.
!
Wars are free. Really? I really I was thinking the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost over 1.4 trillion. That is not overspending? It would only make sense that you also include another myth that tax cuts increase revenue.
Wars are free. Really? I really I was thinking the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost over 1.4 trillion. That is not overspending? It would only make sense that you also include another myth that tax cuts increase revenue.
You see, in conservatopia, tax cuts increase revenue and tax cuts on the wealthy create jobs , wars pay for themselves (if you cut enough taxes), government doesn't provide jobs, and there is a mermaid in every swimming pool and a unicorn in every pasture. Book of Reagan Chapter 7 Verse 7-77 tells us so.
Wars are free. Really? I really I was thinking the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost over 1.4 trillion. That is not overspending?
I didn't say wars are free. Can't you libs ever absorb information correctly?
Quote:
It would only make sense that you also include another myth that tax cuts increase revenue.
It's not a myth. The actual stats have been posted here several times. Another example of libs not being able to accept facts! Government revenue increased after the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush tax cuts.
Selling their followers this kind of crap is why the Republican party has come to be the party that loves morons so much that they elevate them to presidential candidates. Sarah Africa-is-a-country, Alaska's-proximity-to-Russia-gives-me-foreign-policy-bona-fides Palin, Michele I'm-gonna-shut-down-our-embassy-in-Iran, Gardasil-causes-retardation Bachmann, Herman We-must-prevent-China-from-going-nuclear, Uzbekibekibekistanstan Cain, Mitt I-support-a-woman's-right-to-choose, I-am-firmly-pro-life Romney, Newt We-can-afford-a-fairly-ignorant-presidency-now, Poor-children-have-no-concept-of-’I-do-this-and-you-give-me-cash,’-unless-it’s-illegal Gingrich. So naturally their followers buy into the garbage they sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The ones who are unbelievable are those who make inaccurate posts and ignore data!
Indeed. I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
It's not a myth. The actual stats have been posted here several times. Another example of libs not being able to accept facts! Government revenue increased after the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush tax cuts.
It is a myth. If you only look at raw numbers and don't bother to learn how those numbers are generated, you are doomed to forever be snookered by people selling you a bill of goods.
The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the (Bush) White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
...
Other Republicans and administration officials, including the president, have made similar statements about the power of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. But McCain and his colleagues are not accounting for the decrease in revenue that accompanied the cuts.
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the WashingtonPost last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”
Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue."
...
Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962.
...
But can the increase in receipts over the last three years — though not a net increase — be attributed to the tax cuts? Where has the growth in revenue come from? That is a tough question for economists to answer definitively, but the bulk of the growth in federal receipts has been in corporate tax revenue.
In 2006, according to the CBO, individual income tax revenue was 1,043.9 billion, an increase of 5 percent since 2001. Corporate tax revenue was 353.9 billion in 2006, a 134 percent rise from 2001. That’s a dramatic increase.
“It really is astonishing,” Viard says of those numbers. But he can’t point to major corporate tax cuts that would have spurred the growth. Corporate profits are doing very well and the economy is growing, but “I don’t know that there’s a single, clear cut reason for that.”
...
The CBO analyzed data to uncover the causes of revenue growth since 2003 in response to a request from Sen. Kent Conrad, chair of the Senate budget committee. In a letter to Conrad, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag says that overall receipts increased by 1.9 percentage points as a share of GDP and that the increase “disproportionately” comes from a rise in corporate income tax revenues.
Orszag attributes two-thirds of the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits. The rest he pins to tax policy. For instance, when provisions allowing partial expensing of investment in equipment expired, tax revenue increased. In other words, revenue declined when the provisions were enacted and bumped up again when they expired.
Orszag says there was growth in capital gains realizations in individual tax receipts, but measures such as lower rates on dividends and an increase in the child tax credit, as well as a drop in job wages, caused a reduction in revenues. A CBO chart in Orszag's letter shows that legislation (not counting an impact on capital gains) had a total negative effect on revenue growth.
The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We're not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not "increase revenues."
These are the facts. Tax cuts do not increase revenues, even if revenues increase in the year immediately following a tax cut. Revenues were going to increase anyway, as they always do. Unfortunately for the fiscal health of this country, they're going to increase far, far less than what they would have increased without the tax cuts.
David Frum is a RINO who thinks facts and reality actually matters. Where does this guy get the nerve?
Yeah, I can't believe he actually wrote that. On a serious not, I haven't read anything by him in a couple of years, but he was ALWAYS a huge GOP booster. Doesn't sound like much of one anymore.
And the GOP won't die. It will eventually, if subtly, change direction to be more in line with rational America. At worst, the outliers that a good number of these candidates are playing to (Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Perry especially, Romney depending on which way the wind blows) will split and form their own party.
It's going to really hit the fan next November when Obama likely wins because the GOP is SO fractured and has no good candidates to run, aside from Hunstman, who has no chance of winning the nomination anyway. We'll see if the GOP stays as one.
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.
