What a 15% corporate federal tax rate would mean...at the minimum $55 billion additional Taxes!

[healthmyths]

Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell.

But that is not what you said before. You said "18,000 businesses were destroyed". Those were your words. So now we have a case of you shifting the goalposts. And no, 9/11 was not a catastrophic financial loss. As you saw in the facts, the market regained all its losses from 9/11 less than two months following the attack.

There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S. 2001 to 2009: Top Financial Events That Rocked the Decade

So I'm wondering why you lumped in the expansion of homeland security with the financial losses from 9/11? Are you trying to say they had something to do with one another?

And you totally ignored the dot.com bust!

No I didn't. In fact, if you read my post, you'd see the cause of the dotcom bubble burst were The Capital Gains Tax Cuts. And even with the dotcom bubble burst, GDP growth for 2001 was still positive. Probably because of all those Mortgage Equity Withdrawals.

And you ignored the WORST Hurricane SEASONS!

Geez, maybe we should do something about Climate Change, then.

Where is your facts that the "Capital gains tax cut caused the dot com bust?
Because here are MY FACTS!!!
We've long known that the U.S. stock market's "Dot Com Bubble" really began in April 1997 and ended in June 2003, but we've never addressed two key questions about the event:

1. What caused it to begin?
2. What caused it to end?

Today, we can answer those two questions. Let's begin by revisiting and tweaking our operational definition of just what an economic bubble is:
An economic bubble exists whenever the price of an asset that may be freely exchanged in a well-established market first soars then plummets over a sustained period of time at rates that are decoupled from the rate of growth of the income that might reasonably be expected to be realized from owning or holding the asset.
Here's Why The Dot Com Bubble Began And Why It Popped

So A) There never was a "Capital gains tax cut"!
EGTRRA: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Specifically, EGTRRA
WHERE in the below is a "Capital Gains Tax Cut:??? Do you see any mention of Capital GAINS???
Was EGTRRA Worth It?
Why do you make dumb ass comments without ANY research to see if it is true????

 

[healthmyths]

YEA climate change affected NO major hurricane in 9 years until Harvey! Blame that on climate change SURE!!!

You were complaining about hurricanes during Bush somehow serving as the excuse for why his economic growth was shit. I was just being pithy.

I wasn't complaining! I am simply stating facts while you are being pissy and ignorant!

Also explain to me this:

YET in spite of these gigantic cataclysmic events Bush had:

Year Deficit in Billions
2002 $157.8 Also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.

2003 $377.6 BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses... again tax revenues down affect of 9/11

2004 $412.7 Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.

2005 $318.3 Revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%

2006 $248.2 Revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%

2007 $160.7 Revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%

2008 $458.6 Revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

NOTICE anything??? REVENUES UP DEFICIT down!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Libs would rather have 35% of zero than 15% of billions.

This implies that US companies have no profits at all in the US when in fact the vast majority of US companies aren't multi-nationals and only do business in the US. So all of the business profits for US based companies would be taxed at 15%.

How will the federal budget make up for that 20% loss of revenue?

 

[healthmyths]

The OP is exactly the kind of cut-taxes-raise-revenues fantasies that has gotten us 20 trillion in debt.

Explain this:

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is exactly the kind of cut-taxes-raise-revenues fantasies that has gotten us 20 trillion in debt.

Explain this:

View attachment 146856

I explain by pointing out that Bush kept cutting taxes even when it was clear that the government needed more revenue.

 

[Dragonlady]

YEA climate change affected NO major hurricane in 9 years until Harvey! Blame that on climate change SURE!!!

You were complaining about hurricanes during Bush somehow serving as the excuse for why his economic growth was shit. I was just being pithy.

I wasn't complaining! I am simply stating facts while you are being pissy and ignorant!

Also explain to me this:

YET in spite of these gigantic cataclysmic events Bush had:

Year Deficit in Billions
2002 $157.8 Also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.

2003 $377.6 BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses... again tax revenues down affect of 9/11

2004 $412.7 Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.

2005 $318.3 Revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%

2006 $248.2 Revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%

2007 $160.7 Revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%

2008 $458.6 Revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

NOTICE anything??? REVENUES UP DEFICT down!!!

The deficit figures you quoted did not include the costs of Bush's wars so there was in fact, no deficit reductions in any of those years. Both the deficits and the national debt increased.

 

[The Derp]

Where is your facts that the "Capital gains tax cut caused the dot com bust?

Two places:

1. Business Insider: "Here's Why the Dotcom Bubble Began And Why It Popped" (12/15/10)
2. An NYU study from the Stern Business School: "Capital Gains Taxes and Stock Return Volatility: Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997"

So, you are completely misquoting the same Business Insider link I am using, either deliberately or unknowingly. What that link says is that the Capital Gains Tax Cut led to increased stock volatility (the bubble).

In fact, you completely glossed over the meat of the article that explains how the Capital Gains Tax Cut caused the increased volatility:

To provide more compelling evidence that the 1997 tax cut affected volatility (and mitigate concerns about omitted correlated variables), we focus on cross-sectional tests which are designed to detect the differential responses in return volatility of stocks with different characteristics. We hypothesize that the effect of a capital gains tax change on stock return volatility should vary depending upon dividend policy and the size of the unrealized capital losses (or gains). Consistent with expectations, we find that non- and lower dividend-paying stocks experienced a larger increase in return volatility than high dividend-paying stocks. We also find that stocks with large unrealized capital losses had a larger increase in return volatility after a capital gains tax rate reduction than stocks with small unrealized capital losses. However, we do not find a similar relation with unrealized capital gains.

We infer from the findings in this study that the volatility left, after controlling for every known determinant, reflects the influence of the 1997 capital gains tax rate cut. Stock return volatility was substantially greater after 1997. Furthermore, firms most affected by the rate reduction showed the greatest change in volatility. Specifically, non-dividend paying firms had a greater increase in volatility than dividend-paying firms and firms with large unrealized capital losses experienced a greater increase in volatility than firms with small unrealized losses.​

WHERE in the below is a "Capital Gains Tax Cut:??? Do you see any mention of Capital GAINS???

So now you're trying to conflate the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997, which caused the dotcom bubble, with the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001, which caused the mortgage bubble according to Bush himself. It's obvious why...you don't want to admit your low-tax ideology is really a crock of shit that causes instability and deficits.

Furthermore, after the first four years of the Bush Tax Cuts (2001-2004), Bush lost 841,000 jobs. He would lose net 460,000 jobs after 8 years of tax cuts. So what fucking growth are you talking about?

Furthermore, if you take out all the economic activity attributed to people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's economy looks a lot shittier than realized:

 

[Flash]

How about this: Reduce taxes and then reduce spending. Problem solved.

Isn't it better to spend the money that you earned on things that you want than to give it to some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend for you?

Any tax plan that is "revenue neutral" is a joke. All that does is change the mix of winners and losers. The only real tax reform is to stop taxing the American people so much. That is the only sane thing to do.

 

[The Derp]

2002 $157.8 Also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses... again tax revenues down affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 Revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 Revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 Revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 Revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
NOTICE anything??? REVENUES UP DEFICIT down!!!

LOL! First of all, what was the deficit in 2001? Oh right, there was no deficit. Secondly, the deficit in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009 (which you left out...weird how you cherry picked the years that put your entire argument into perspective) were all record high deficits. So Bush didn't "decrease the deficit", he created the deficit because there was a surplus before he was President. Which your link shows. So you're saying Bush decreased the deficit after creating one in the first place.

Ridiculous.

 

[The Derp]

How about this: Reduce taxes and then reduce spending. Problem solved.

OK, so what spending do you cut, then?

Isn't it better to spend the money that you earned on things that you want than to give it to some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend for you?

By cutting taxes you are increasing out of pocket costs for education and health care. So you're spending less on things you want and more on things you need to survive.

 

[Flash]

How about this: Reduce taxes and then reduce spending. Problem solved.

OK, so what spending do you cut, then?

Isn't it better to spend the money that you earned on things that you want than to give it to some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend for you?

By cutting taxes you are increasing out of pocket costs for education and health care. So you're spending less on things you want and more on things you need to survive.

This country spends far too much money on government. The combined cost of government is 40% of GDP and that is despicable. That is the reason why this economy is not growing like it should.

We spend more money on education than any country in the world and have piss poor education. Money does not prodiue good education. It is parents caring about the education of their children that will produce far more benefits than feeding money to the Teacher's unions.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. Taking my money and then giving to a stupid bureaucrat to pay your bills is absolutely an immoral thing to do.

 

[healthmyths]

2002 $157.8 Also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses... again tax revenues down affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 Revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 Revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 Revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 Revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
NOTICE anything??? REVENUES UP DEFICIT down!!!

LOL! First of all, what was the deficit in 2001? Oh right, there was no deficit. Secondly, the deficit in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009 (which you left out...weird how you cherry picked the years that put your entire argument into perspective) were all record high deficits. So Bush didn't "decrease the deficit", he created the deficit because there was a surplus before he was President. Which your link shows. So you're saying Bush decreased the deficit after creating one in the first place.

Ridiculous.

Idiot!
So
A) A recession started under Clinton became official 3/01. Had NO bearing on tax revenues in 2002 is that what you are saying?
B) A cataclysmic attack called "9/11" also had NO affect on tax revenues in 2002? Right???
C) BUT then in 2003, 2004,2005, 2006,2007 REVENUES went up? DEFICITS decreased! But that is cherry picking???
NOW for facts about the "federal spending"...
1) YOU don't think a loss of revenue would not have an affect on the deficit
2) You also don't think 9/11 and creation of Homeland Security a BRAND NEW agency...never existed before had NO affect on deficit?

Talk about cherry picking!

 

[healthmyths]

The OP is exactly the kind of cut-taxes-raise-revenues fantasies that has gotten us 20 trillion in debt.

Explain this:

View attachment 146856

I explain by pointing out that Bush kept cutting taxes even when it was clear that the government needed more revenue.

YOU explaining means this:

 

[Dragonlady]

How about this: Reduce taxes and then reduce spending. Problem solved.

OK, so what spending do you cut, then?

Isn't it better to spend the money that you earned on things that you want than to give it to some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend for you?

By cutting taxes you are increasing out of pocket costs for education and health care. So you're spending less on things you want and more on things you need to survive.

This country spends far too much money on government. The combined cost of government is 40% of GDP and that is despicable. That is the reason why this economy is not growing like it should.

We spend more money on education than any country in the world and have piss poor education. Money does not prodiue good education. It is parents caring about the education of their children that will produce far more benefits than feeding money to the Teacher's unions.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. Taking my money and then giving to a stupid bureaucrat to pay your bills is absolutely an immoral thing to do.

Typical conservative. Putting the emPHAsis on wrong syLLAbles.

Education expenditures are the highest in the world because your post-secondary institutions charge the highest tuition in the world. Your primary and secondary school teachers are among the lowest paid teachers in the first world, which is part of the reason why your education system sucks. American parents also contribute more out of pocket expenses than any first world country.

For starters, every school in the country needs to receive the same level of per pupil funding regardless of the neighbourhood tax base. Among first world countries, only the US and Turkey spend less money educating poor children than middle class kids.

Secondly, all children need textbooks. There should be no sharing of texts.

Thirdly, stop blaming the teachers and stop politicizing education. The teachers don't set the cirriculum, the school boards and the states do, and most states are Republican. Just as you don't blame GM workers if the cars they build have design flaws, you don't blame teachers if the cirriculum results in a shoddy education. They can only teach to the courses laid out by the state.

Health care is a right, not a luxury. Every human has a right to treatment under the law. One way or another, you pay for those who can't pay for themselves. Not dealing with this reality means that you pay more than you would by having a universal insurance system where everyone contributes.

Conservatives are always penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[BluesLegend]

Repatriating the trillions of dollars sitting off-shore hiding from you libs and your asshole taxes.

Bad news for you is that we tried a repatriation tax holiday in 2004. It led to a net loss of 20,000 jobs and a slow down of research spending for the top 15 companies that took advantage of it.

What part of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS HIDING OFF-SHORE flew past your pea brain? Apple alone has over $260 BILLION sitting off-shore. Dumb ass liberals think high taxes have no consequences, do us all a favor and move to communist China go live your dream working in the rice fields for the collective.

 

[Flash]

How about this: Reduce taxes and then reduce spending. Problem solved.

OK, so what spending do you cut, then?

Isn't it better to spend the money that you earned on things that you want than to give it to some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend for you?

By cutting taxes you are increasing out of pocket costs for education and health care. So you're spending less on things you want and more on things you need to survive.

This country spends far too much money on government. The combined cost of government is 40% of GDP and that is despicable. That is the reason why this economy is not growing like it should.

We spend more money on education than any country in the world and have piss poor education. Money does not prodiue good education. It is parents caring about the education of their children that will produce far more benefits than feeding money to the Teacher's unions.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. Taking my money and then giving to a stupid bureaucrat to pay your bills is absolutely an immoral thing to do.

Typical conservative. Putting the emPHAsis on wrong syLLAbles.

Education expenditures are the highest in the world because your post-secondary institutions charge the highest tuition in the world. Your primary and secondary school teachers are among the lowest paid teachers in the first world, which is part of the reason why your education system sucks. American parents also contribute more out of pocket expenses than any first world country.

For starters, every school in the country needs to receive the same level of per pupil funding regardless of the neighbourhood tax base. Among first world countries, only the US and Turkey spend less money educating poor children than middle class kids.

Secondly, all children need textbooks. There should be no sharing of texts.

Thirdly, stop blaming the teachers and stop politicizing education. The teachers don't set the cirriculum, the school boards and the states do, and most states are Republican. Just as you don't blame GM workers if the cars they build have design flaws, you don't blame teachers if the cirriculum results in a shoddy education. They can only teach to the courses laid out by the state.

Health care is a right, not a luxury. Every human has a right to treatment under the law. One way or another, you pay for those who can't pay for themselves. Not dealing with this reality means that you pay more than you would by having a universal insurance system where everyone contributes.

Conservatives are always penny wise and pound foolish.

Liberals try to solve every problem with somebody else's money.

My sons attended a private school where the cost of their education was one third per pupil than the cost the county was paying. The school received no government funds or grants. Every year the school was rated in the top three in the district. The other two were also private schools. All the students got a great education because for the most part the parents cared about their children and had a family environment of learning.

Money doesn't do a damn thing to further education, especially here in the US where we waste so much moeny on bullshit stuff. Education in the US is a massive expensive failure. It is an embarrassment. The last thing we need to do is put more money into it. That would be stupid.

Health care is a commodity just like everything else. It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility. If you can't afford it then go be poor someplace else. I may chose to help you because I am a generous person but I sure as hell don't need some asshole corrupt political elected by the filthy welfare queens taking my money by force and giving it to your sorry ass.

 

[The Derp]

This country spends far too much money on government. The combined cost of government is 40% of GDP and that is despicable. That is the reason why this economy is not growing like it should.

No, it's not 40% of GDP. GDP is about $18T, and the government budget is about $3T. $3T/$18T = 17%...roughly the same amount we spend on health care. And what "government" do you want to cut? Once again, the specifics just aren't there and you're just speaking generally (and inaccurately).

We spend more money on education than any country in the world and have piss poor education. Money does not prodiue good education. It is parents caring about the education of their children that will produce far more benefits than feeding money to the Teacher's unions.

So again, you're being very general. Yes, we do spend more per student than other nations, however not all students get the same amount spent on them. The amount spent per pupil is skewed upward by well-funded school districts. What you're doing is taking the overall average and trying to apply that to the whole when you can't do that because no two school districts spend the same per student. Schools in wealthy neighborhoods spend more per student than schools in poor neighborhoods. So you're not really painting an accurate picture of education funding. And by education funding, I am referring chiefly to college costs. When a state cuts taxes, like Kansas did, the resulting budget deficits have to be closed and the way that's done is by cutting state funding for public colleges, forcing them to raise tuition which forces students to borrow more. In fact, that is precisely what happened in Kansas. They cut taxes, which created deficits, which were closed by cutting spending on state colleges, which forced the KS Board of Regents to raise tuition, which took more money out of the pockets of students and their families. So that's how tax cuts end up costing everyone more.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills.

It shouldn't be anyone's responsibility. We should have a single-payer system so we don't have to run up health care bills. What do you think health insurance is? You and a ton of other people pay into one pool, and from that pool your provider is reimbursed. So by enrolling in health insurance, you are responsible for paying others' medical bills, just as they're responsible for paying yours.

Taking my money and then giving to a stupid bureaucrat to pay your bills is absolutely an immoral thing to do.

Well, you give your money to a stupid administrator in Hartford who does the same thing. Only, that administrator can take as much as 20% of what you pay for themselves. Medicare doesn't do that. And BTW - insurance companies are liars, frauds, and cheats who put their profit margins above your health.

 

[Flash]

This country spends far too much money on government. The combined cost of government is 40% of GDP and that is despicable. That is the reason why this economy is not growing like it should.

No, it's not 40% of GDP. GDP is about $18T, and the government budget is about $3T. $3T/$18T = 17%...roughly the same amount we spend on health care. And what "government" do you want to cut? Once again, the specifics just aren't there and you're just speaking generally (and inaccurately).

We spend more money on education than any country in the world and have piss poor education. Money does not prodiue good education. It is parents caring about the education of their children that will produce far more benefits than feeding money to the Teacher's unions.

So again, you're being very general. Yes, we do spend more per student than other nations, however not all students get the same amount spent on them. The amount spent per pupil is skewed upward by well-funded school districts. What you're doing is taking the overall average and trying to apply that to the whole when you can't do that because no two school districts spend the same per student. Schools in wealthy neighborhoods spend more per student than schools in poor neighborhoods. So you're not really painting an accurate picture of education funding. And by education funding, I am referring chiefly to college costs. When a state cuts taxes, like Kansas did, the resulting budget deficits have to be closed and the way that's done is by cutting state funding for public colleges, forcing them to raise tuition which forces students to borrow more. In fact, that is precisely what happened in Kansas. They cut taxes, which created deficits, which were closed by cutting spending on state colleges, which forced the KS Board of Regents to raise tuition, which took more money out of the pockets of students and their families. So that's how tax cuts end up costing everyone more.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills.

It shouldn't be anyone's responsibility. We should have a single-payer system so we don't have to run up health care bills. What do you think health insurance is? You and a ton of other people pay into one pool, and from that pool your provider is reimbursed. So by enrolling in health insurance, you are responsible for paying others' medical bills, just as they're responsible for paying yours.

Taking my money and then giving to a stupid bureaucrat to pay your bills is absolutely an immoral thing to do.

Well, you give your money to a stupid administrator in Hartford who does the same thing. Only, that administrator can take as much as 20% of what you pay for themselves. Medicare doesn't do that. And BTW - insurance companies are liars, frauds, and cheats who put their profit margins above your health.

Too much derp in your response. I won't do tit for tat but will answer in general.

The US spends a ton of money on education and the money is spent unwisely because the allocation of the money is made by stupid bureaucrats whose bosses are corrupt politicians whoa re elected by greedy special interest groups and that is why we don't get good value for the money..

Education doesn't have to be expensive. It doesn't cost much to have a classroom and a qualified teacher. Money is wasted on education because the idiots use education for social engineering. For instance just think how much money was wasted for decades on something stupid like busing for racial reasons. Dumb!

The way for education to succeed is for the parents to take an interest in the education of their children. That is what we did with our children. We made sure they got a good education regardless of the cost. We put their education in the hands of people we knew would do a good job instead of what some stupid bureaucrat who didn't really give a shit dolled out to us.

Single payer sucks because it created a filthy ass entitlement to free health care and that is wrong. It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility. For someone to use the filthy ass government to steal money from me to pay their bills is thievery and it is despicable.

As far as insurance is concerned I'll discuss that with you when the filthy ass government stops dictating requirements to the providers and we have a f4eee market.

In a free market I don't mind paying a company a reasonable profit to establish a risk pool and administer it. That would be a lot cheaper to me than a bloated corrupt government doing a stupid inefficient single payer.scheme.

I want to be in charge of my health care not some government asshole that really doesn't give a shit. Health care is too important to allow the corrupt, inefficient and politically motivated government to administer it.

I am eligible for VA health benefits but I refuse to use it because the last thing I would ever want to do it have the government make decisions on my healthcare. However, I know there are some of my fellow veterans that are forced to use the VA because in the Obama economy they didn't have the money to afford private care and my heart goes out to them.

 

[The Derp]

A) A recession started under Clinton became official 3/01. Had NO bearing on tax revenues in 2002 is that what you are saying?

Not at all. It wasn't the recession that took us from a $128B surplus in 2001 to a $157B deficit by 2002. The recession ended around Q3 2001, so it has no bearing on revenues from 2002.

B) A cataclysmic attack called "9/11" also had NO affect on tax revenues in 2002? Right???

Nope. None whatsoever.

C) BUT then in 2003, 2004,2005, 2006,2007 REVENUES went up? DEFICITS decreased! But that is cherry picking???

Wrong. Revenues did not increase in 2003.

Receipts (In Billions)
2000: $2,025
2001: $1,991
2002: $1,853
2003: $1,782

Furthermore, one key part you're leaving out was that there were not deficits prior to Bush. Clinton ran surpluses his last 3 years (1998-2000), and also had a surplus in 2001 that was reduced from the high in 2000 thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts. And you are definitely cherry picking by crowing about Bush "reducing deficits" when he's the one who caused the deficits to appear in the first place. So I'm supposed to heap praise on him for kinda, sorta reducing the deficit he created, despite him setting four record high deficits during his term???? No. I refuse to do that.

1) YOU don't think a loss of revenue would not have an affect on the deficit

Of course a loss of revenue has an affect on the deficit. And tax cuts reduce revenue. We just saw it play out in Kansas.

US GDP growth for 2001 was still positive, despite the recession and 9/11. So if GDP growth is positive, then clearly 9/11 and the recession didn't have a hand in reducing revenues...mostly because we had a surplus in 2001 (thanks, Clinton).

2) You also don't think 9/11 and creation of Homeland Security a BRAND NEW agency...never existed before had NO affect on deficit?

9/11 didn't affect the deficit because the losses from 9/11, from a market and business perspective, were regained by November of that year. And DHS' budget was how much? We went from a $128B surplus in 2001 to a $157B deficit by 2002. Which is a swing of $285B. You're telling me that DHS' budget is $285B? Well, that's news to me since DHS' budget in 2001 was merely $16B. So in what world does $285B = $16B? In no world.

 

[TNHarley]

I would support it if they cut out all the loopholes.
LOL yea right