Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[Dot Com]

Dems have completely controlled all of Congress for 4 of the last eight years, and they controlled the Presidency for the last six years.

But it's the GOP's fault.


You can't make this shit up.

which party has the record of saying "I object" in the senate asswipe?
Gridlock in Congress Blame the GOP - CNN.com

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

would it kill you rw hacks to use a source every once in a while?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Fuck off asswipe. Harry Reid spiked 350 House Bills and the GOP is the party of no?

What a joke.

LOL, Really? You mean bills like 55+ Obamacares repeals??? lol

you replied before I could. Yep, Repubs think the Dem senate will pass a Repub bill dismantling the Presidents HC Law just so the President can veto it WelfareQueen hack.

 

[Dot Com]

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

so you people basically had the presidency handed to you on a silver platter in '12 but the people said "not them again"

You people lost the Presidency, even when 44 had 8% unemployment because the voters know that the GOP primary function is to serve the rich and screw everyone else.

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

 

[Wry Catcher]

Americans pay a lower tax rate than the rest of the industrialized world

Our workers have less to show for it. They get less vacation, fewer holidays, retire later, work more hours, get worse healthcare, pay more for education

Over 40% of the GNP goes to the combined cost of government and that is an enormous amount no matter who else pays more.

That is the reason Americans have a hard time. They are forced to give their money to the government and they get little or nothing of substance for it.

The people that earn money are not the problem. The problem is the government taking the money from them.

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

 

[Dot Com]

All one has to do to gauge conservative econ policy is the fiscal disaster in Kansas overseen by Brownback.

From bad to worse for Kansas Brownback MSNBC

 

[Wry Catcher]

No moron, force and fear are the elements of an armed robbery, as well as the use of a weapon.

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The overwhelming number of Americans voluntarily report their income and pay their taxes every April 15

I don't see the IRS kicking down many doors

No one pays their taxes voluntarily, moron. Kicking down your door isn't the only way government uses force on you.

A hundred million Americans peacefully pay their taxes every year. There is no kicking down doors, no threats, no intimidation

As a free nation, our tax collection is relatively benign

A Thug doesn't have to show you his gun or break your leg to use force on you. All he has to do is show you the gun and explain why you wouldn't want to make him use it to gain your compliance. According to you, that isn't force.

The IRS is the closest thing to the Gestapo any country has ever had since WW II.

Who do you think you're fooling?

No, wrong again moron; showing a gun or knife is to instill fear in the victim, and thus meets the elements of both force & fear, essential to charge armed robbery.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

SO CONGRESS CONTROLS SPENDING AND IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT THE OBAMA DEFICIT??? LOL

And the GOP hasn't had the House for 4 years???lol



Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, AND? The US has been in debt for almost EVERY year since it's founding./ AND? lol

Reagan tripled (first and only time a Prez did that BTW), AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED US DEBT!

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

There are liars, damn liars and statistics. You are a damn liar, for damn liars lie by omission. I know you're not bright enough to understand, but I don't give a damn, others get it.

 

[bripat9643]

Huh?

"Changing the rules" means imposing punitive taxes on high incomes. The wealthy don't "claim" more income. They earn it. Their income is not a gift from the government. It's the result of entirely voluntary transactions. It was given to them in exchange for some product or service.

They are no more punative than they were under Eisenhower and yet his economy flourished.

That's pretty damn putative. If you want to bring back the same economic conditions that existed during the Eisenhower era you'll have to bomb the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

Workers earn their money also. Most say moreso than the wealthy. Warren is just advocating that they should keep more of what they earn

They haven't "earned" anything that isn't the result of a voluntary transaction. Warren intends to impose force into the transaction between employer and employee. That's more akin to the kind of transaction that occurs during an armed robbery.

No moron, force and fear are the elements of an armed robbery, as well as the use of a weapon.

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The force of law, not violent force. And you wonder why I consider you a dishonest moron.

There is no difference between the force of law and "violent force." Just ask Eric Garner. The cops were enforcing a law that taxes cigarette sales when they killed him.

 

[bripat9643]

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The overwhelming number of Americans voluntarily report their income and pay their taxes every April 15

I don't see the IRS kicking down many doors

No one pays their taxes voluntarily, moron. Kicking down your door isn't the only way government uses force on you.

A hundred million Americans peacefully pay their taxes every year. There is no kicking down doors, no threats, no intimidation

As a free nation, our tax collection is relatively benign

A Thug doesn't have to show you his gun or break your leg to use force on you. All he has to do is show you the gun and explain why you wouldn't want to make him use it to gain your compliance. According to you, that isn't force.

The IRS is the closest thing to the Gestapo any country has ever had since WW II.

Who do you think you're fooling?

No, wrong again moron; showing a gun or knife is to instill fear in the victim, and thus meets the elements of both force & fear, essential to charge armed robbery.

When the IRS takes your house, you don't think guys with guns will show up to kick you out?

If you don't think the IRS tries to install fear in its victims, you don't know squat about the IRS.

 

[Flash]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

 

[Flash]

Only stupid Libtards would think that a country that raises $3 trillion in Federal tax money, borrows almost another trillion a year and raises another $2.5 trillion in state and local taxes doesn't have enough money to pay for roads without raising more taxes.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only stupid Libtards would think that a country that raises $3 trillion in Federal tax money, borrows almost another trillion a year and raises another $2.5 trillion in state and local taxes doesn't have enough money to pay for roads without raising more taxes.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

I did wonder why GWB and his administration invaded and occupied Iraq on borrowed money. At least the Vietnam fiasco was paid for by a tax increase.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Huh?

"Changing the rules" means imposing punitive taxes on high incomes. The wealthy don't "claim" more income. They earn it. Their income is not a gift from the government. It's the result of entirely voluntary transactions. It was given to them in exchange for some product or service.

They are no more punative than they were under Eisenhower and yet his economy flourished.

That's pretty damn putative. If you want to bring back the same economic conditions that existed during the Eisenhower era you'll have to bomb the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

Workers earn their money also. Most say moreso than the wealthy. Warren is just advocating that they should keep more of what they earn

They haven't "earned" anything that isn't the result of a voluntary transaction. Warren intends to impose force into the transaction between employer and employee. That's more akin to the kind of transaction that occurs during an armed robbery.

No moron, force and fear are the elements of an armed robbery, as well as the use of a weapon.

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The force of law, not violent force. And you wonder why I consider you a dishonest moron.

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Typing moronic ideas in really big fonts does not make them less moronic

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Elizabeth Warren says "America's middle class is in deep trouble."

this is because liberals have attacked the middle class with the highest corporate taxes in the world and by making labor unions legal. Just those two have driven 30 million jobs off shore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent.

Real revenues increased by 24% AND the people got to keep an additional 1.1% of GDP?

Win-Win!!!

You can do that if government grows less than GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Federal revenues soared under Reagan. Your chart got blowed up

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

SO CONGRESS CONTROLS SPENDING AND IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT THE OBAMA DEFICIT??? LOL

And the GOP hasn't had the House for 4 years???lol



Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Reagan's $1.6 trillion was awful. And all we got was a victory in the Cold War.
Obama added $7.4 trillion, so far, and what have we won?

 

[Flash]

[


Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

That is the business of the Romney's, not mine. Stop being so greedy. If you are going to bother yourself with class envy then look at John Kerry. That is a rich bastard. I don't see you bitching about the filthy Kennedys or that asshole George Soros, who has more overseas accounts than Carter has Liver Pills.

Every cent paid to every government employee is either taken from a person who earned it or taken from our children if borrowed money.

The money would have been used in the productive economy or used by however the person that earned wanted it to be used.

You don't create jackshit by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. That simple fact of economics seems to escape the mind of all Moon Bats.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You don't create jackshit by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another.

yes exactly, when the govt spends it stimulates and when it taxes for the stimulation it destimulates so no net benefit is possible.

Liberals exist because they lack the IQ to understand that simple concept.