By far easiest way to make economy grow:

[Conservative65]

It is simply not possible for tax cuts to add to the debt.

Your logic fails.

It decreased revenue which then lead to increasing the debt.

This says otherwise and covers several times in recent history when tax cuts were put in place:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-times-revenue-increased-after-tax-cuts/article/2557140

No your link doesn't include the bush tax cuts. revenue went down as I've already shown.

What it does counter is your argument that tax cuts don't generate more revenue.

I said the bush tax cuts lowered revenue. I did not say they always do. Stay on track, you seem lost.

You would be wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

dear stupid liberal, are you saying that was a valid scientific experiment which proved that tax increases stimulate the economy and produce more revenue while while tax cuts depress the economy and produce less revenue???

can anyone imagine how stupid a liberal has to be??

Thanks to you, we realize how boring a parrot owner by a Neo-Conservative can be.

 

[Brain357]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

dear stupid liberal, are you saying that was a valid scientific experiment which proved that tax increases stimulate the economy and produce more revenue while while tax cuts depress the economy and produce less revenue???

can anyone imagine how stupid a liberal has to be??

Show it happened with bush tax cuts. Link?

 

[Conservative65]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

 

[Brain357]

It decreased revenue which then lead to increasing the debt.

This says otherwise and covers several times in recent history when tax cuts were put in place:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-times-revenue-increased-after-tax-cuts/article/2557140

No your link doesn't include the bush tax cuts. revenue went down as I've already shown.

What it does counter is your argument that tax cuts don't generate more revenue.

I said the bush tax cuts lowered revenue. I did not say they always do. Stay on track, you seem lost.

You would be wrong.

Well show it happened with a bush tax cuts.

 

[Conservative65]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

dear stupid liberal, are you saying that was a valid scientific experiment which proved that tax increases stimulate the economy and produce more revenue while while tax cuts depress the economy and produce less revenue???

can anyone imagine how stupid a liberal has to be??

Show it happened with bush tax cuts. Link?

Look at the link on post #244.

 

[Brain357]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

 

[Conservative65]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No it clearly says revenue fell.

oh good so now the genius liberal has proof that cutting taxes makes revenue fall and so we should raise taxes to get more revenue rather than expand the economy to get more revenue!!

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

John F. Kennedy

 

[Indeependent]

Simply stop replacing Americans with Indians and Chinese.

 

[Brain357]

You said the tax cuts expanded the economy. .

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

 

[Indeependent]

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Dear, in a conversation with a Neo-Conservative NEVER mention more than 1 fact at a time as they don't possess the IQ to connect dots.

 

[initforme]

Tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax increases for the middle and lower class. No regulations on corporations. Cut wages and benefits for workers. End social security and medicare and unemployment compensation. Make mi imum wage $2 an hour. Get rid of safety regulations. Finally persuade people not to get educated. Sound familiar? Oh and increase CEO pay while cutting his or her employees pay.

 

[Conservative65]

dear brainless liberal , tax cuts expand the economy and tax increases contract the economy!!!

Do you have the IQ to understand???

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

 

[Brain357]

Didn't happen with bush tax cuts. Sorry.

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

 

[Conservative65]

This says otherwise:

www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

 

[Brain357]

No it clearly says revenue fell.

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

 

[Conservative65]

Paragraph 5 plainly says that revenues increased 44% after the cuts in 2003.

Since you're so big on supporting evidence, I'm still waiting on proof of your claim that you make more than me. Where is it?

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

 

[Brain357]

But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

 

[Indeependent]

Seems you didn't read what I posted. Sad how you consider a 44% INCREASE as a decline.

Still waiting on proof that you make more than me. Not going to show it? Didn't think so.

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!