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.
Adorable my .... Obama had to LIE and his re-election team LIED and demonized. Then there is the IRS to silence his opponents. His speeches were singing to the victim mentality and attacking Americans. Nothing positive. And this is who represents people like you?
Obama is nothing to be proud of if he had to use those tactics to win..
You mean to tell me that there politicians who actually tell the truth out there? Most lie in varying degrees. Obama is just one of many. I agree he isn't the best president but the majority of Americans didn't think anyone was better for the job whether it was based on lies or whatever.
Reminding me is making me lose my appetite for a week.
His failure to stop the illegal alien invasion, or should i say, his encouraging and embracing of the hundreds of thousands flowing in, with no serious attempt to enforce our laws and prevent it, will lead to a major uprising, one that will capsize his presidency.
What world do you live in where you believe it's the President and his party blocking immigration reform? Also, more illegals have been deported under Obama than his predecessor-- or any predecessor.
I think some of the foam from your mouth is getting in your eyes-- because you can't see clear facts.
What world do you live in where you believe it's the President and his party blocking immigration reform? Also, more illegals have been deported under Obama than his predecessor-- or any predecessor.
I think some of the foam from your mouth is getting in your eyes-- because you can't see clear facts.
They are just letters the government mailed out.
I have read many of them.....and no one has really left.
The funny thing here is that a lot of people with power in the party don't want illegals to be gone. It's something that you scream about to the mouth breathers to get them worked up. People who run businesses and the agriculture lobby don't want illegals gone. Republicans talk about a border fence to drum up donations as they know it won't go anywhere.
Now, this is where you are actually right. The Bush tax cuts wouldn't have been a problem, except Bush loved to spend money. And in this case especially, what a massive waste of money.
Wow, this is such a erroneous statement that I am in shock you even said it.
Trust me
The IGM Forum is a group of America's most highly respected economists. The IGM Forum like all respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase revenues." A Tax Cut Won't Increase Revenue - Forbes
Your video spoke of capital gains tax cuts increasing revenues (but it left out why.)
Economic experts agree that cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. Yes there is a short term revenue increase when capital gains tax rates are cut, but this increase has nothing to do with business stimulation or a stimulated economy. This short term revenue increase you speak of is because investors cash out when the capital gains rate gets lowered, (but after that cash out revenues decrease.) Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Why is it that republicans get upset when people talk about 2007 and GW Bush, but its OK for republicans to talk about 1933 and Franklin D. Roosevelt?
First, I am not a Republican. I hate the Republicans just as much as I hate the Democrats.
Second, I was merely using FDR to show that your statement that "Democrats consistently have lower debts and deficits" is obviously a bald-faced lie. And I thought it was silly for you to even say something so ridiculous.
With that said, I agree with you on a point. The reason why FDR had high deficits was because of the great depression and WWII. And so we agree that "context is important" when discussing numbers.
The problem is, while you want to keep FDR in context. You don't seem to want to keep any other president in context. If we are being fair, we need to attempt to understand presidential policies in the context of economic and political circumstances.
In the case of an oil and gas boom, or a technology boom. Tax revenue is going to increase regardless. And in the case of a recession, tax revenue is going to decrease regardless.
Recessions are rarely caused by direct presidential action. They have more to do with business cycles and the incompetence of the Federal Reserve. And economic growth is basically never caused by presidential action. Government policies tend to restrict economic growth instead of support it. At best, the government helps to "smooth out" the business cycles, it does not create booms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
You asked what is the cause of the Clinton surplus?
The above 2 laws created the Clinton surplus.
Let us pretend for a moment that you transported Bill Clinton back to 1933. Would he have been able to create a budget surplus during the Great Depression/WWII era? Would increasing taxes circa 1933 have lowered the budget deficit? How would it have affected the economy?
If you switch Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's presidencies around. And George W. Bush was president during the technology boom, and without a 9/11. Would GWB have had a budget surplus? Would Bill Clinton have had a budget surplus in the post 9/11 years? What would Clinton have done after 9/11?
What role did a Republican dominated Congress have on Bill Clinton's reforms? Why did Bill Clinton reduce the capital gains rate from 28% down to 20%?
What if Bill Clinton had been able to stay president over the next four years. Would 9/11 not have happened? Would the tech bubble not have bursted? Would there have continued to be a surplus?
Furthermore, why do debts and deficits really matter anyway? We are now at $17.6 trillion in debt. We will be around $18 trillion by the end of the year. How are we going to pay off such a massive debt anyway? Who holds our debt? Ar we going to raise taxes to transfer "the people's" money to the rich people in this country who own our debt? Or to the other countries like China who own our debt?
I could really care less about the debt. We don't even have to pay it, or we could inflate our way out of debt.
I could care less if Obama or Bush was spending a lot of money, if I thought they were doing good with it.
If I give credit to Bill Clinton for anything. I would say that, I think Bill Clinton is a nice guy, and that he does want to do good things. I think Bill Clinton is far more bipartisan than Obama. And during and after his presidency, he showed a lot of respect to his old political rivals. He flies around the world with George Bush through his foundation and on other missions.
The Clinton's don't really like the Obama's whatsoever. And I can't imagine either George Bush or Bill Clinton hanging out with Obama after his presidency.
Obama is just a polarizing figure. Who imagines himself a king. I acknowledge that he wants to do good things. But he has no respect, and shows no respect to anyone else unless it benefits him.
Economists cannot consider the laffer curve to be a joke. Because the laffer curve is just a fact. If you had a 100% tax rate, you would have no tax revenue. And for that matter, if you had a 90% tax rate, you would have almost no tax revenue because you would collapse the economy.
The problem with the laffer curve isn't that it isn't correct in theory. The problem with the laffer curve is that it is difficult to really know what the tax "sweet spot" is.
If I was to guess, I would say it would be somewhere around 17%. If you look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP since WWII. It has fluctuated from about 15% to 20%.
As for your link, it isn't saying that the laffer curve is wrong(because that would be stupid). What it is saying is that, current tax rates are probably already in their "sweet spot" or could possibly already be lower than the sweet spot. And so any more reductions would almost certainly produce lower tax revenue.
Which I agree.
Anything below 17% is probably going to be counterproductive to tax revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Economic experts agree that cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. Yes there is a short term revenue increase when capital gains tax rates are cut, but this increase has nothing to do with business stimulation or a stimulated economy. This short term revenue increase you speak of is because investors cash out when the capital gains rate gets lowered, (but after that cash out revenues decrease.)
And your source clearly shows the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues.
In 2000 revenues were $2.5 trillion.
In 2001 revenues were $2.4 trillion
In 2002 revenues were $2.2 trillion
In 2003 revenues were $2 trillion.
2003 had over $500 billion dollars less in revenues than in 2000.
Let us dissect a few things.
First, yes, revenue was $2.5 trillion in 2000 if adjusted for inflation, and fell to $2 trillion. But what was the cause? If the tax cuts took effect in 2001, then why did tax revenue continue to fall for years after? And then why did tax revenues then rapidly increase from $2 trillion all the way to $2.663 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars? And how does that compare to the $2.543 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars from 2000?
Wouldn't you, the ideologue, have to concede that tax revenues under Bush in 2007 with the Bush tax cuts, were still higher, even after adjusted for inflation and population, than the tax revenues of the Clinton boom year of 2000? And were far enough removed from the "short-term" effects of the cuts as to make that a non-factor?
Is it possible that revenue increases and decreases have less to do with the tax policy, and more to do with economic circumstances? I mean, why did tax revenues drop from $2.663 trillion in 2007, all the way down to $2.105 trillion in 2010? The Bush tax cuts?
I think we are arguing different things. I am merely trying to point out that you need to consider the bigger picture when you interpret data. If you ignore context, you will always be wrong.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-07-2014 at 07:18 PM..
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.
