U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2014, 03:48 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,829 posts, read 9,204,666 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
One must be ridiculously stupid to believe that tax cuts, which increased revenues, is responsible for spending..
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP declined almost immediately after Bush's cuts were enacted, an absolutely genius bit of fiscal policy considering we were a nation at war.

I can't fathom the failure that was GWB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2014, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
28,608 posts, read 17,605,446 times
Reputation: 24579
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
Another deceptive right-wing thread title. With a Republican in office after Dubya, the deficit now would be $600 Trillion. Pubs only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House.

The Pubs in Congress want the deficit to go UP because they think this will deceive people into thinking that it's President Obama's fault. Bush turned a SURPLUS into a record deficit. He decimated the hell out of every domestic category, each requiring that money be spent to repair the damage after he left office. The damage Bush did may take decades, DECADES, to undo, especially with Congressional Republicans perpetuating the Bush nonsense. Bush also started two wars, which represented a continuing black hole of spending until President Obama took over. Thanks to today's Congressional Republicans still representing Dubya, WE STILL HAVE A DEFICIT.

President Obama inherited this mess, worst in history. Were he to have his way, we'd be in a SURPLUS now. Kudos to President Obama for making sure the deficit does not climb to $600 Trillion, like it would if a clueless Pub were at the helm, ruining the economy as they typically do.
When I read Obamabots comments, it's like you're possessed and devoid of rational thought. Do you not realize that Dems controlled both the House and Senate when the economy slipped off the rails in 2008? Can you comprehend that? Can you accept that? Do you know that when we ran our largest deficits in history, the Dems controlled the House , Senate and President? You guys scare me because you don't evidence the ability to think past some wild emotions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:22 AM
 
29,693 posts, read 18,096,706 times
Reputation: 20353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugg Mann View Post
...and you can thank George Bush's implemented policies that Obama inherited for 5.07 trillion of that amount.

Here's the breakdown courtesy of the New York Times:

Hilarious-

The very first response post blames Bush.

I am wondering at what exact time and date that Obama becomes responsible for his policies, if ever?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Where it's cold in winter.
1,074 posts, read 746,951 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretsky99 View Post
For the worse! Obama ruining my children's future all by design. I can't believe Bill O'Reilly said at the end of the interview “I think your heart is in the right place.”.----Idiot!

Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News
While for the most part, I like O'Reilly, he can be a bit much at times. The "I think your heart is in the right place" statement is standard Christian talk used to appear not to be judgmental. It's a completely overused phrase, and I think it's often used out of ignorance. Obama's heart is not in the right place. Obama is a Marxist/socialist with an agenda to destroy America. He has been taught all his life that America is evil, and he hates America. That's why he is doing what he is doing; dismantling our military, destroying our economy, destroying our standing in the world, and transforming our government into just another Marxist/socialist statist system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:46 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
86,885 posts, read 42,996,878 times
Reputation: 13059
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP declined almost immediately after Bush's cuts were enacted
That's because the vast majority (85%) of the Bush tax cuts went to upper-middle class and below, and the tax base narrowed.
Quote:
"The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion."
Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010


Kennedy actually did tax cuts the correct way by reducing the rates on corporations and high income earners, which spurred greater than normal economic growth:
Quote:
"The 1920s, '60s [Kennedy] and '80s were three of America's greatest decades of economic growth. Without them, growth since the inauguration of the income tax in 1913 averages less than 3 percent per year. Each of the tax-cut decades saw at least seven years of growth of 4 to 5 percent, along with advances in entrepreneurship, employment, living standards and wealth."
Recalling the days when Democrats cut taxes


Christina Romer, chair of Obama's House Council of Economic Advisers, resigned in 2010 because she knew from her own work as a researcher in Economics that if Obama's tax increase policies were enacted they would blunt an already very weak economic recovery.

Romer's study examined all the legislated tax changes in the U.S. since World War II, and found that there is a negative correlation between increases in the level of taxation and the amount of tax revenue received by the government as a result of that change.

She also found that for every 1% increase in the tax rate, GDP declined by anywhere from 2.5-3%, and that "... stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment."
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~dromer/pa...ERJune2010.pdf

Turns out she was right. We've had an extremely weak recovery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Where it's cold in winter.
1,074 posts, read 746,951 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains View Post
Obama inherited an economy going through one of the worst financial collapses in the modern era. He also inherited the lowest tax rates since the 1930s and sky high government spending because of Bush's wars. Obama had literally NOTHING to work with in regards to stimulating the economy and keeping the deficit down.

If you want to protect your children OP then I suggest you not vote in war mongers like Bush who will start wars and then slash taxes leaving no way to pay for the wars. And I bet you voted for Bush twice, didn't you?!
Obama inherited nothing of the sort, but whatever he inherited, he has made it far worse. The economy he inherited was a predictable outcome (and many had predicted it) of Democrat policies, some of which date back to the Carter administration. This is well documented.

However, we could have recovered quickly from that situation with the right policies. Instead, Obama pursued Obamacare, spent millions on bailouts and so-called "stimulus" spending (none of which worked), and silly programs like "cash for clunkers" (good used automobiles are still hard to find, and expensive, we read), and grants to useless, so called "green" energy company's (all who had donated heavily to his campaign) who took the money and soon filed for bankruptcy.

The Democrats own this economy, just as the own Obamacare. If they suffer a shellacking in 2014, it will be well deserved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:59 AM
 
56,261 posts, read 25,309,110 times
Reputation: 13552
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP declined almost immediately after Bush's cuts were enacted, an absolutely genius bit of fiscal policy considering we were a nation at war.

I can't fathom the failure that was GWB.
"I can't fathom the failure that was GWB"

That is because you don 't know the facts. Considering how long ago it was I am NOT surprised that you are so mis-informed.


"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."


By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.


But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Bush's debt and deficits were fueled almost entirely from the wars, Katrina, and all of the other bad luck events that happened under his watch.

Unfortunately for Bush, his time in office never saw a break in terms of bad luck. Regardless of all this bad luck, he managed to control the 2001 recession and bring unemployment back down to healthy levels again (less than 5%). Bush managed to get the economy back on its feet, and given the fact that we were in two wars and had Katrina hit during 2005 (near the peak of the economy), I think he did a fantastic job managing everything.

In addition, he managed to steadily reduce our increase in public debt and our deficit near the end of his final term. It only started to rise again in 2008. If Bush had more time in office, I am very confident he could have gotten this economy stabilized and back on its feet again in much shorter time than Obama. Unemployment would not have gone higher than 9% I'm thinking either. In fact even during the 2001 recession, unemployment never got higher than 6.3%!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 07:26 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
86,885 posts, read 42,996,878 times
Reputation: 13059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
From 2004 to 2007. That is actually a VERY important point, and this is why...

Over-reliance on higher income earners spells disaster for federal tax revenue when higher taxed higher-income earners' share of the income declines. Look at what happens to federal personal income tax revenue after the financial crisis:


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...custom1-v2.jpg

(Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.)

There was a 25% decline in federal income tax revenue even though we didn't have a 25% economic contraction (it was only 5.1% peak to trough). A comment posted previously explains why...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
AND when the people at the top started losing money, the federal government lost a disproportionate amount of tax revenue, MUCH MORE of a loss than the people at the top had. Why? Because the federal government is overly reliant on higher income groups for tax revenue.

That SIGNIFICANTLY increases deficit spending in a recession or economic slowdown, which in turn cranks up the National Debt. The National Debt is at $16 Trillion now because of the over-reliance on only a few for tax revenue and the consequent deficit spending that ensues when the economy is sluggish. Pi** poor economic policy, but there you have it.

When nearly 40% of the federal income tax revenue is paid by a group whose share of the income declines (which it has, by 7% so far), the result is MORE than a minor decline in tax revenue (which is exactly what happened).

That illustrates why a flat tax is a much more fiscally sound taxing policy. It's immune to shifts in income share.

In addition, a flat tax ensures everyone pays their fair share according to their level of income: Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT.
By disproportionately relying on only higher income earners for the bulk of federal income tax revenue, and seeing the subsequent amplified revenue decline when their income drops, it's actually in the government's best interest to keep the higher earners earning as much as possible.

Liberals who want to soak the rich via exorbitant tax rates? Think about that amplifier effect, how it incentivizes the government to encourage highly disparate incomes, and how a loss of income among the top 1% causes devastating tax revenue loss...

Put 2 and 2 together, and what is your conclusion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
28,988 posts, read 15,844,021 times
Reputation: 5801
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
One must be ridiculously stupid to believe that tax cuts, which increased revenues, is responsible for spending..
Tax cuts dont increase revenues. Thats why they are called "cuts".


Tax is revenue, when you cut it, you have less of it.

this is very simple people.

tax cuts could indeed lead to more economic activities, but that means the increased economic activity is why you have more revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,482 posts, read 7,844,046 times
Reputation: 8248
If the Republicans were really fiscal Conservatives, at the end of these 2 wars they went into, there should be large tax increases to bring debt down. It took 30 years or so of tax rates in the 50-60% range to pay off WWII. The wars, which were going to pay for themselves, are part of the issues happening today. We still are paying for Korea and Viet Nam, through the VA. We sent people to war and need to support the damaged people from the current wars for the next 30-50 years.

When going to war you need to understand all the costs and that they last untill the last vet. is gone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top