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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by renault
Thanks for the hope and change, Obama. I miss George W. Bush more and more every day you "Occupy" the Oval office.
You miss the man who implemented policies that cost our nation 12 million jobs, but you dislike the ones that has created 5 million jobs, that makes perfect sense.
Interesting that you stopped at 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts were still in place for 2008/2009.
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
Prove that the revenue increases from 2003 to 2007 were the result of the tax cuts. Prove that the declining revenues in 2008 and 2009 were not the result of the tax cuts.
You may dismiss economic theory if you want, but without it I guess I'm free to claim that tax cuts only work at increasing revenue for 4 years, at which point the tax revenue will begin to decline.
If you accept the Laffer curve then whether or not a tax cut will increase or decrease revenue depends on where you currently are on the Laffer curve. If you are on the right side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go down. If you are on the left side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go up.
Really? You do remember that economic collapse that occurred in 2008 right? That Democratic influenced housing bubble? WOW!! Memories are short. So prove that the revenue increases were not part of the tax cuts.the burden is on you. I love how liberals are so selective in their history.
Really? You do remember that economic collapse that occurred in 2008 right? That Democratic influenced housing bubble? WOW!! Memories are short. So prove that the revenue increases were not part of the tax cuts.the burden is on you. I love how liberals are so selective in their history.
Bush supported the actions that caused that bubble. There was a small handful of Republicans that were sounding the warning but nobody listened.
[quote=le roi;28475340]no. that is a common myth. social security, for example, is currently funded by payroll taxes, but will be funded whether the payroll tax exists or not.
we didn't need a tax to fund the Iraq war, we didn't need a tax to fund the bailouts, and we don't need a tax to facilitate the social security and medicare programs.
We simply CHOOSE to prioritize bailouts and war over social security by allowing the first two to run deficits, while expecting SS to be paid for by workers' taxes.
The only way you'll ever convince me that SS/Medicare must be funded by taxes, is when we completely re-write banking law and force banks start having to loan out their own money instead of borrowing from the Fed. ONLY when such a strong-dollar policy is put into place in the private-sector banking system will the public-sector be able to fund itself through taxes.
Of course because SS hasalways been a trust type governamtn fund to supplement rwetirees and diabled workers. No one wants it to become anther welfare program which would endanger it more like medicare and mediciad are now.The FED were banks borrow from is not government run also. banks actually pay mnay fees to be regualted also by governamtn agencies.Even the most conservative were not infavor of governamnt bialsouts but those bialout alos saved mnay other investents of normal people when done .Mnay of the banks were forced to take the funding and certainly its been mroe a success than mortgage bails out thru fannie and freddie which are still being bailed out.
Interesting that you stopped at 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts were still in place for 2008/2009.
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
Prove that the revenue increases from 2003 to 2007 were the result of the tax cuts. Prove that the declining revenues in 2008 and 2009 were not the result of the tax cuts.
You may dismiss economic theory if you want, but without it I guess I'm free to claim that tax cuts only work at increasing revenue for 4 years, at which point the tax revenue will begin to decline.
If you accept the Laffer curve then whether or not a tax cut will increase or decrease revenue depends on where you currently are on the Laffer curve. If you are on the right side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go down. If you are on the left side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go up.
Ahh, look at that, revenues fell from the 2000 high, but eventually rebounded to 2000 levels. Let's give credit to those tax-cuts for eventually increasing revenue after 5 years.
I couldn't have asked for a better example of why one needs to take into account inflation and population growth, both which increase revenue regardless of policy. When we do that, we see that revenue per capita never gets to the level that existed prior to the tax-cuts -- in-spite of an economy much larger in real terms than in 2000.
no. that is a common myth. social security, for example, is currently funded by payroll taxes, but will be funded whether the payroll tax exists or not.
we didn't need a tax to fund the Iraq war, we didn't need a tax to fund the bailouts, and we don't need a tax to facilitate the social security and medicare programs.
We simply CHOOSE to prioritize bailouts and war over social security by allowing the first two to run deficits, while expecting SS to be paid for by workers' taxes.
The only way you'll ever convince me that SS/Medicare must be funded by taxes, is when we completely re-write banking law and force banks start having to loan out their own money instead of borrowing from the Fed. ONLY when such a strong-dollar policy is put into place in the private-sector banking system will the public-sector be able to fund itself through taxes.
The funding for a housing bubble or a stock bubble comes from the same place as the funding for deficits: The use of national credit, backed by the labor and assets of the american people.
And Obama broke the long standing principle of Social Security... That it funds itself via the payroll tax. For the first time ever, Social Security was taking in money from another source to make up for the loss from the payroll tax... He increased fees for new Fannie and Freddie loans. It isn't the rich that get these loans, it is the middle and lower incomes that do. Obama's payroll tax reduction was therefore regressive as the rich got the payroll tax reduction, but didn't have to pay for the catch up.
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.
