besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?

[Liability]

The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.

So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).

It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.

Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.

So. Your synopsis wold be if the Government were spending 6 trillion dollars per year, but had been running a deficit and decided to try to stimulate the private sector economy by cutting taxes, THAT would LEAD to a bigger deficit.

And of course, that's crap.

If the government had been running a deficit, that would mean that it had been spending more than it was taking in. Pretty fucking stupid and irresponsible most of the time. So, here's the hint. STOP DOING THAT.

Cutting taxes might hinder government revenues OR it might just do as hoped and stimulate the private sector. In the latter case THEIR increased wealth production might just lead to increased revenues for the gubmint even at the reduced tax rate.

Your presupposition is that if the government taxes us at "X" per cent, then the government will take in "Y" dollars. Obvious sophistry. It doesn't work like that. If the "economy" were totally static, it might. But what economy of this size could possibly be "static?"

Raising taxes, by contrast, might very well cut productivity and thereby reduce government revenues.

Since taxation to achieve these socio-economic goals is far from certain, let's go with something that can be handled with honest math. CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Alan Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

Greenspan describes himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican"

Bogus question. Stupid answer. Anybody who makes a universal claim about the effect of tax policies on the deficit is imprecise in his/her thinking.

One must qualify.

SOMETIMES a tax cut stimulates the economy. Naturally, whether it does or doesn't is a complicated matter involving innumerable variables. Again, the economy is not static.

But it is often true that increasing the tax burden on consumers and producers can be expected to slow down the economy. And when that happens, despite the increased tax rate, the revenues generated MAY be lower than before the tax rate increase.

Once again, then, unless you insist on sticking your head in the sand, you should be able to come to a not-so startling conclusion. The tax rate, standing alone, is not the best method to address a deficit. There IS a way, however, that WILL more predictably and honestly address the deficit practically EVERY time. And that is?

Yep. CUT the DAMN fucking SPENDING.

 

[MaggieMae]

Stupid fuck. You don't even go to jail for not paying taxes at all. But you can go to jail for tax evasion.

Ask Wesley Snipes about that.

There's a clear legal distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The latter is prosecutorial, and that's why Wesley Snipes went to jail. If some schmuck "avoids" paying taxes because he just doesn't have the money, he doesn't get locked up.

 

[MaggieMae]

90% of government spending is welfare. Liberals attempt to define welfare so narrowly that almost all payments to parasites are excluded.

Medicare is welfare. Social Security is welfare. Ethanol subsidies are welfare. It's all welfare.

Then I guess the VA is welfare too, eh?

Nope, Veterans performed a service and the VA is part of their compensation. What service did the greedy geezers who spend all day on the gold course perform for me?

You're the one who claimed "90%" is government "welfare" which is bullshit. Obama had to reinstate the GI bill, once considered part of a soldier's compensation package. Who thought it was a good idea to remove it? Was it considered "welfare" or something??

 

[MaggieMae]

You're not paying 50% of everything you earn in taxes. Stop.

Sure I do. When you add up Federal income taxes, State income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, hotel taxes, yada, yada, yada, it comes close to 50%.

Then bitch to your governor or mayor.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive.

What do I owe you or any of the other human tics in this forum? Was does welfare or Obamacare have to do with the survival of the country? If anything, they are positive threats to the survival of the country.

They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

Since when is looking out for yourself immoral?

Oh yeah, it became immoral when mooching became a way of life for millions of Democrats.

You're just stupid. If you think you're "winning" with your kind of attitude, I'd love to see where you wind up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stupid fuck. You don't even go to jail for not paying taxes at all. But you can go to jail for tax evasion.

Ask Wesley Snipes about that.

There's a clear legal distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The latter is prosecutorial, and that's why Wesley Snipes went to jail. If some schmuck "avoids" paying taxes because he just doesn't have the money, he doesn't get locked up.

No he just gets his paycheck garnished and his bank accounts confiscated.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Bogus question. Stupid answer. Anybody who makes a universal claim about the effect of tax policies on the deficit is imprecise in his/her thinking.

One must qualify.

SOMETIMES a tax cut stimulates the economy. Naturally, whether it does or doesn't is a complicated matter involving innumerable variables. Again, the economy is not static.

But it is often true that increasing the tax burden on consumers and producers can be expected to slow down the economy. And when that happens, despite the increased tax rate, the revenues generated MAY be lower than before the tax rate increase.

Once again, then, unless you insist on sticking your head in the sand, you should be able to come to a not-so startling conclusion. The tax rate, standing alone, is not the best method to address a deficit. There IS a way, however, that WILL more predictably and honestly address the deficit practically EVERY time. And that is?

Yep. CUT the DAMN fucking SPENDING.

1 You keep forgetting that cutting spending can also slow economic growth, thus not getting a dollar for dollar savings.

2 There isn't much reason to believe that raising our historically low taxes would have a big impact on the economy. Maybe if we had a top marginal rate in the 70%+ range.

 

[bripat9643]

You're the one who claimed "90%" is government "welfare" which is bullshit. Obama had to reinstate the GI bill, once considered part of a soldier's compensation package. Who thought it was a good idea to remove it? Was it considered "welfare" or something??

What percent of the budget does the VA constitute? Whether the government offers veterans a GI bill or not, it's part of their compensation. All you're arguing is what should be included. The irrefutable fact remains that the greedy geezers did nothing for me that justifies taking 14% of my income.

 

[bripat9643]

You're not paying 50% of everything you earn in taxes. Stop.

Sure I do. When you add up Federal income taxes, State income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, hotel taxes, yada, yada, yada, it comes close to 50%.

Then bitch to your governor or mayor.

How does that prove I said something untrue?

 

[bripat9643]

You're just stupid. If you think you're "winning" with your kind of attitude, I'd love to see where you wind up.

Stating the truth about liberals is the first step in the road to victory. Pretending they're decent people is the prescription for defeat.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We have a debt to GDP ratio of over 5% and climbing. We have unsustainable debts long term. By 2020 it has been projected to cost us 90% of our GDP -- and that's based on rosy projections. Have you ever seen what happens AFTER 2020?

The POINT is not to debate the specific of the LAffer curve. The POINT is to RECOGNIZE that we have allowed ourselves (by our failure to rein in our elected representatives) to accumulate MASSIVE and dangerous debt.

The POINT is that you can have a year of ZERO additional debt (not counting interest payments, sadly) even if revenues are brought down to zero by the simple expedient of spending nothing.

It is SPENDING that drives the deficit.

You can't tax your way into prosperity. The very notion is foolish lib-think. Even 60 Minutes had a piece on the fact that the unduly high corporate tax structure in our nation drives businesses (and jobs) overseas. I can't help it that you libs live your life with your head in the sand. But he fact is pretty obvious. IF you want to "create" jobs (which the government doesn't actually EVER do), you can FOSTER the climate where the businesses that make such a thing POSSIBLE might be inclined to do so. LOWER taxes.

Spending and revenue are equal in determining the deficit but cutting spending or raising taxes too much could hurt our recovery which would hurt revenues.

If you are serious about deficit reduction you should cut spending and maybe reform taxes. You don't have to raise the tax rates just cut some of the deductions that were bought by lobbyists.

And there's the kicker. How many actually PAY the 35% or 25% in the case of corporations? GE is just the latest example of the latter. The problem with trying to establish a budget is that the federal government operates under an accrual accounting system, so it forecasts X-amount of revenue for the forthcoming fiscal year. Then it gets hit when those revenues never happen because of all the tax loopholes.

Yes and which presidential admin arranged it so GE would not be contributing to the federal coffers?
GE cut a sweetheart deal because they agreed with the Obama admin to begin production of wind produced energy. That is the only reason GE paid no federal income tax.
This is pure politics. GE agreed to kowtow to Obama's silly "green energy" nonsense and GE was rewarded for it.
No. Government is well aware which tax loop holes are in place.
Budgets are susceptible to fluctuations in revenue as they relate to economic conditions.
Use of the term "tax loophole" is merely an attack buzzterm used by the Left to indicate their thoughts on "fairness"....

 

[thereisnospoon]

The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.

So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).

It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.

Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.

No it cannot.

The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have. The problem with saying that tax cuts increase the deficit is at assumes that the money belongs to the government in the first place, and that they get to decide how much you keep.

You don't have to assume anything. A deficit is tax revenue minus spending period. It is what it is.

You seem stuck on the much repeated conservative talking points "It's our money, not the governments...they're just letting us keep more of our own money. blah, blah, blah." None of that changes what a deficit is.

I am just not going to let you get away with changing definitions just to fit your narrative.

Then answer this question....Who's money is it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive.

What do I owe you or any of the other human tics in this forum? Was does welfare or Obamacare have to do with the survival of the country? If anything, they are positive threats to the survival of the country.

They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

Since when is looking out for yourself immoral?

Oh yeah, it became immoral when mooching became a way of life for millions of Democrats.

These Leftist socialist maxist progressives have convinced themselves the dream of a utopian sociaety where government provides womb to tomb care for all citizens and anyone who decides it's ok to violate our borders is possible.
They believe that is government dramatically increases taxation, especially on high income and high nret worth people, this can be achieved. And why do they desire this? Because these people would rather be taken care of, experience no potential for disappointment and are quite comfortable with the notion of 100% security.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive.

What do I owe you or any of the other human tics in this forum? Was does welfare or Obamacare have to do with the survival of the country? If anything, they are positive threats to the survival of the country.

They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

Since when is looking out for yourself immoral?

Oh yeah, it became immoral when mooching became a way of life for millions of Democrats.

You're just stupid. If you think you're "winning" with your kind of attitude, I'd love to see where you wind up.

Unable or more likely unwilling to answer the questions put you.....It figures. Typical liberal.
Look genius, until you can convince me you have shed all of your worldly possessions and given away your wages to charities, shut it.
Unlike you, I believe in working to achieve, succeed and advance myself as a means to better provide for my family. If that makes me a shit head in your eyes, so be it.\
I really don't give a half a shit what you liberals think.
As previously stated, if you people are so God damned interested in funding your sacred social programs and other nonsense, write a fucking check.
I really am amazaed at how the liberal idea of compassion begins in the bank accounts of others.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bogus question. Stupid answer. Anybody who makes a universal claim about the effect of tax policies on the deficit is imprecise in his/her thinking.

One must qualify.

SOMETIMES a tax cut stimulates the economy. Naturally, whether it does or doesn't is a complicated matter involving innumerable variables. Again, the economy is not static.

But it is often true that increasing the tax burden on consumers and producers can be expected to slow down the economy. And when that happens, despite the increased tax rate, the revenues generated MAY be lower than before the tax rate increase.

Once again, then, unless you insist on sticking your head in the sand, you should be able to come to a not-so startling conclusion. The tax rate, standing alone, is not the best method to address a deficit. There IS a way, however, that WILL more predictably and honestly address the deficit practically EVERY time. And that is?

Yep. CUT the DAMN fucking SPENDING.

1 You keep forgetting that cutting spending can also slow economic growth, thus not getting a dollar for dollar savings.

2 There isn't much reason to believe that raising our historically low taxes would have a big impact on the economy. Maybe if we had a top marginal rate in the 70%+ range.

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.
Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes. And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Bogus question. Stupid answer. Anybody who makes a universal claim about the effect of tax policies on the deficit is imprecise in his/her thinking.

One must qualify.

SOMETIMES a tax cut stimulates the economy. Naturally, whether it does or doesn't is a complicated matter involving innumerable variables. Again, the economy is not static.

But it is often true that increasing the tax burden on consumers and producers can be expected to slow down the economy. And when that happens, despite the increased tax rate, the revenues generated MAY be lower than before the tax rate increase.

Once again, then, unless you insist on sticking your head in the sand, you should be able to come to a not-so startling conclusion. The tax rate, standing alone, is not the best method to address a deficit. There IS a way, however, that WILL more predictably and honestly address the deficit practically EVERY time. And that is?

Yep. CUT the DAMN fucking SPENDING.

1 You keep forgetting that cutting spending can also slow economic growth, thus not getting a dollar for dollar savings.

2 There isn't much reason to believe that raising our historically low taxes would have a big impact on the economy. Maybe if we had a top marginal rate in the 70%+ range.

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.

All economic activity (including government spending) contributes to the economy. Please feel free to look that up. What doesn't contribute a lot to the economy is corporations just sitting on 2 trillion dollars in capital.

Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes.

Of course absolute statements like that are rarely true... as in this case but in general it is true because we generally want to leave production in the hands of private industry (by choice).

And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

 

[Political Junky]

The Bush tax cuts are no more, thanks to Obama.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1 You keep forgetting that cutting spending can also slow economic growth, thus not getting a dollar for dollar savings.

2 There isn't much reason to believe that raising our historically low taxes would have a big impact on the economy. Maybe if we had a top marginal rate in the 70%+ range.

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.


Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes.

Of course absolute statements like that are rarely true... as in this case but in general it is true because we generally want to leave production in the hands of private industry (by choice).

And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

I see you decided to edit my posts and attach my username to statements I did not make.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

How does more government spending change that behavior?

 

[thereisnospoon]

1 You keep forgetting that cutting spending can also slow economic growth, thus not getting a dollar for dollar savings.

2 There isn't much reason to believe that raising our historically low taxes would have a big impact on the economy. Maybe if we had a top marginal rate in the 70%+ range.

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.


Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes.

Of course absolute statements like that are rarely true... as in this case but in general it is true because we generally want to leave production in the hands of private industry (by choice).

And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

See: crushing federal regulations, overbearing and impossibly expensive environmental rules, 35% corporate tax rate which is the highest in the industrialized world and of course these free trade agreements.
You'll never be able to prove businesses are "sitting on" two trillion or any other amount of money. So stop parroting lib talking points.
The fact is any one with investment capital or venture capital is certainly going to take a long hard look at the Obama administrations constant threat of increasing taxes. Higher taxes which will do NOTHING to eliminate or even reduce federal deficits are the enemy of economic growth.
Read carefully. No nation in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
The democrats are in a dire panic because they know the largest portion of the federal budget is made up of social sacred cow entitlements. Those entitlements and transfer payments are virtual guaranteed democrat votes. This is why congressional democrats are fighting ANY budget cuts that involved social spending.