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.
You mean the DNC. They are the ones who are throwing everyone under the bus if they don't get their way. IF they cared, which they don't, about anyone, they would not allow the tax cuts to expire at all. But instead, THEY want to raise everyone's taxes and point the the GOP and all you lemmings will head over the cliff right along with them.
No, I said GOP and I mean GOP. Dems already offered cuts for 97%, which was rejected by GOP. GOP said they'd rather see taxes go up on everyone, and I think they will get their wish.
It matters none what it went to. He was promised cuts if he went along with tax increases. He did and the cuts never came.
Dude...Reagan raised taxes at least ELEVEN times throughout his presidency. It's one thing to supposedly be fooled once or twice, but ELEVEN times? Granted, most of them were regressive tax hikes, which right wingers don't seem to mind, but still...
After a certain point, Reagan should have just said he'd veto any spending bill that didn't accomplish his supposedly fiscally conservative dream of balancing the budgets. But he didn't. REPEATEDLY.
Quote:
Because the total debt isn't real? It doesn't actually have to be paid for? Even though it does and it's legit lets look at your numbers.
Even doubling the tax on the top doesn't cover 1/4 of the deficit. The debt continues to grow. As I said. Triple their tax. The debt continues to grow.
Of course the total debt is important, but it's also important to slow the growth of deficits, which in turn slow the growth of the interest payments which take up a good chunk of the bill.
The total debt isn't going to balanced for a LONG time. Even boy genius Paul Ryan's budget doesn't even attempt to balance the budget until 2050!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"I personally see no reason/evidence that these "tax cuts" had a significant impact."
Maybe you need to broaden your sources of news.
just a snipent: *Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
Revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts took hold. In fact the gov't took in MORE revenues then any other time IN HISTORY.
The deficit was DECLINING after the tax curs took place.
Would be nice if you posted a link, but there's a LOT wrong with whatever you're sourcing. I noticed it doesn't include any jobs LOST under Bush. The actual number is 1 million under 8 years, lol.
Also the revenues increasing MORE THAN ANY TIME IN HISTORY is such a misleading number. Of course revenues increased, because the economy continues to grow. The argument is that the revenues would have been EVEN HIGHER if those tax cuts wouldn't have been in place. Many of Bush's own economics advisers never said his tax cuts would come close to paying for themselves, even if they did created increased revenue.
Of course the total debt is important, but it's also important to slow the growth of deficits, which in turn slow the growth of the interest payments which take up a good chunk of the bill.
The total debt isn't going to balanced for a LONG time. Even boy genius Paul Ryan's budget doesn't even attempt to balance the budget until 2050!
As I showed, doubling the tax on "the rich" still causes the debt to increase year after year. There is no way we ever get things under control without cuts.
The sad thing is we could cut far more in simple waste than can be raised by taxing millionaires "just a little more". Recall, this is Obama's argument in his ads. Taxing millionaires "just a little more". As I pointed out "just a little more" is nothing more than a whizz in the ocean.
Much of this waste goes to the millionaires people who refuse to consider cuts complain about constantly.
To address the debt we will have to target tax increases combined with cuts.
I did and you opinion, "Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber Unfortunately I think the GOP will have their way and force tax hikes for everyone." is still wrong. The GOP wants to keep the tax cuts FOR EVERYONE.
Dude...Reagan raised taxes at least ELEVEN times throughout his presidency. It's one thing to supposedly be fooled once or twice, but ELEVEN times? Granted, most of them were regressive tax hikes, which right wingers don't seem to mind, but still...
After a certain point, Reagan should have just said he'd veto any spending bill that didn't accomplish his supposedly fiscally conservative dream of balancing the budgets. But he didn't. REPEATEDLY.
Of course the total debt is important, but it's also important to slow the growth of deficits, which in turn slow the growth of the interest payments which take up a good chunk of the bill.
The total debt isn't going to balanced for a LONG time. Even boy genius Paul Ryan's budget doesn't even attempt to balance the budget until 2050!
Would be nice if you posted a link, but there's a LOT wrong with whatever you're sourcing. I noticed it doesn't include any jobs LOST under Bush. The actual number is 1 million under 8 years, lol.
Also the revenues increasing MORE THAN ANY TIME IN HISTORY is such a misleading number. Of course revenues increased, because the economy continues to grow. The argument is that the revenues would have been EVEN HIGHER if those tax cuts wouldn't have been in place. Many of Bush's own economics advisers never said his tax cuts would come close to paying for themselves, even if they did created increased revenue.
I did and you opinion, "Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber Unfortunately I think the GOP will have their way and force tax hikes for everyone." is still wrong. The GOP wants to keep the tax cuts FOR EVERYONE.
That is not what I said it post #22, although that one too is correct.
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.
