Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[JonKoch]

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Letting people keep more of their money is not welfare, it's just another liberal lie.

Sure Cupcake, sure

 

[Rustic]

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty.

It is not up to progressives to determine what poverty is...

 

[JonKoch]

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Good thing we aren't asking for charity but GOOD GOV'T POLICY right cupcake?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Typical right wing cupcake who ignores EVERYTHING else but says look at the chart:

" The decline happened years before the so-called war on poverty,":

HINT THE CHART SHOWS ALMOST 20% IN POVERTY BEFORE THE WAR ON POVERTY STARTED CUPCAKE, GOING TO BELOW 12%.

again, thanks for ignoring everything else about it though cupcake

If the poverty rate was already in decline, it just continued to decline after the so-called war on poverty started. This is not to mention that no policy has results for several years after it starts. IOW, it proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Good thing we aren't asking for charity but GOOD GOV'T POLICY right cupcake?

The only good government policy is one that requires an opt in…

 

[JonKoch]

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

Did you note how the percentages did not add up close to the actual Demn/Rep percentages? Your study is based on questionaires & not everyone stated their party.

Republicans rant & rave & rail against those needing assistance, that Republicans probably didn't want people to know they needed help.

HTF would somebody not know if they needed help? Geez

"Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says."

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

I KNOW THIS MUST BE A RIGHT WING LIE, AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES CUPCAKE? COME ON


But you have to go back to 2013 huh?

HOW BIG OF A HOLE DID DUBYA/GOP DIG AGAIN CUPCAKE?

 

[Rustic]

No one should be forced into paying for socialist entitlement programs they don't agree with…

 

[JonKoch]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

Typical right wing cupcake who ignores EVERYTHING else but says look at the chart:

" The decline happened years before the so-called war on poverty,":

HINT THE CHART SHOWS ALMOST 20% IN POVERTY BEFORE THE WAR ON POVERTY STARTED CUPCAKE, GOING TO BELOW 12%.

again, thanks for ignoring everything else about it though cupcake

If the poverty rate was already in decline, it just continued to decline after the so-called war on poverty started. This is not to mention that no policy has results for several years after it starts. IOW, it proves absolutely nothing.

Weird so it STARTED to decline but got nothing with LBJ's war on it huh? *shaking head*

Typical cupcake

 

[Rustic]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

I agree about that, cupcake.
The federal government fucks everything up it touches

 

[JonKoch]

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Good thing we aren't asking for charity but GOOD GOV'T POLICY right cupcake?

The only good government policy is one that requires an opt in…

OPINION

 

[JonKoch]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

I agree about that, cupcake.
The federal government fucks everything up it touches

Almost like a plan cupcake

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

 

[Rustic]

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Good thing we aren't asking for charity but GOOD GOV'T POLICY right cupcake?

The only good government policy is one that requires an opt in…

OPINION

True, but the fact is no one should be forced into something they do not want it will never use…

 

[Rustic]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

I agree about that, cupcake.
The federal government fucks everything up it touches

Almost like a plan cupcake

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

Well, the federal government does not need my money or millions just like me…

 

[JonKoch]

Food stamp use increased 70% during the Obama years. Is that good news or bad news to the left?

Because we had a horrible depression brought about after 8 years of GW.

That's fine blame the president before the Masai Obama, but remember this when us Trumpsters blame problems on the last presidents 8 years. Isn't that fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean a growing economy versus one dumping 9%+ the last quarter of 2008?

DECEMBER 2007


THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF MR. BUSH
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

By the time Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the unemployment rate had spiked from 5 percent to 7.8 percent, on its way to 10 percent a few months later. A rising tide of middle-class families were losing homes, turning to food stamps and seeking government-sponsored health care for the first time.

Yet Obama handed Trump the reins of an economy with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate; 75 consecutive months of job growth;rising stock prices, home values, corporate profits and consumer confidence; low inflation; and, following several years of sluggish income growth, a record spike in middle-class incomes.

In 2016, increases in hourly earnings accelerated, which, when combined with increased rates of employment, helped boost overall household incomes. Real household debt is lower than it was in 2006.

"As 2016 ends, the U.S. labor market is in its best shape since the recession, with nearly every measure of the market at its most favorable level in years," economist Jed Kolko concluded in his end-of-the-year report for the jobs website Indeed.

In other words, Obama left the economy in much better shape than he inherited it, even if it remains imperfect for every American.

Did Donald Trump inherit 'a mess' from Barack Obama?

Did Trump inherit a mess? 8 charts show otherwise

Did Trump inherit a mess? 8 charts show otherwise


IT'S CALLED CRITICAL THINKING AND REASONING CUPCAKE!

 

[JonKoch]

Why do the rich make as much as they do?

What has that got to do with our posts ?

seems like envy, if you care what others make (or don't make).

I could care less what they make, unless they are making it off me.

If you'd care to link your logic to the conversation, I'd be happy to try and understand it.

Right now, you are just deflecting.

Anybody who Pays you, is making money off you.

Why don't you butt out.

The point is that I've seen people abuse food stamps.

End of story.

I've seen MANY more abuse Gov't and Gov't programs via Corporations!

 

[JonKoch]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

I agree about that, cupcake.
The federal government fucks everything up it touches

Almost like a plan cupcake

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

Well, the federal government does not need my money or millions just like me…

Cupcake, that's why the millions like you don't pay income taxes....

 

[Rustic]

Food stamp use increased 70% during the Obama years. Is that good news or bad news to the left?

Because we had a horrible depression brought about after 8 years of GW.

That's fine blame the president before the Masai Obama, but remember this when us Trumpsters blame problems on the last presidents 8 years. Isn't that fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean a growing economy versus one dumping 9%+ the last quarter of 2008?

DECEMBER 2007


THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF MR. BUSH
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

By the time Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the unemployment rate had spiked from 5 percent to 7.8 percent, on its way to 10 percent a few months later. A rising tide of middle-class families were losing homes, turning to food stamps and seeking government-sponsored health care for the first time.

Yet Obama handed Trump the reins of an economy with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate; 75 consecutive months of job growth;rising stock prices, home values, corporate profits and consumer confidence; low inflation; and, following several years of sluggish income growth, a record spike in middle-class incomes.

In 2016, increases in hourly earnings accelerated, which, when combined with increased rates of employment, helped boost overall household incomes. Real household debt is lower than it was in 2006.

"As 2016 ends, the U.S. labor market is in its best shape since the recession, with nearly every measure of the market at its most favorable level in years," economist Jed Kolko concluded in his end-of-the-year report for the jobs website Indeed.

In other words, Obama left the economy in much better shape than he inherited it, even if it remains imperfect for every American.

Did Donald Trump inherit 'a mess' from Barack Obama?

Did Trump inherit a mess? 8 charts show otherwise

Did Trump inherit a mess? 8 charts show otherwise


IT'S CALLED CRITICAL THINKING AND REASONING CUPCAKE!

Tax cuts were never the federal government's to begin with... shit for brains

 

[Rustic]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I said the same thing about Dubya's war of choice cupcake

I agree about that, cupcake.
The federal government fucks everything up it touches

Almost like a plan cupcake

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

Well, the federal government does not need my money or millions just like me…

Cupcake, that's why the millions like you don't pay income taxes....

I have three years of extensions trying to find loopholes to lower my tax rate… Put that in your village and smoke it

 

[JonKoch]

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

LOVE that static economic forecasting don't you?

IF what you say was true, how then did REVENUES double in the President Reagan decade?

As for Social Security going broke, simply observe the bottom line. Neutral site and I know how facts and reality are foreign to you. Need I coach you as to the meaning of the red and green numbers?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

DOUBLED? LMAOROG

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."


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 Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.


"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality




First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion.

Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



KNOW WHAT INFLATION IS BUTTERCUP?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Fact and Myth

From a totally anonymous site. So impressive!

Using ad homs versus logic and reasoning cupcake? I'm shocked

Going to tell me these aren't true cupcake:

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."


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 Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."