Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[g5000]

Are all these people Democrats?

CDC Warning Immigrant Children Could Be Spreading This New Mystery Virus In Public Schools

They are mexican. This is what they do. Look at what mexicans did to Bell, California. It's just how they roll.

Looks like it was written by someone 16 years old. Which is mentally about right for fags.

They went there to see if it's true the average muslim guy's woman as more facial hair than his goat and smells worse too.

Dimwit policies are always about our 'safety' and our 'children'....

that's why they are bringing into our country contagious, diseased and/or gang member illegal children....

Jeb, Hillary and Warren are all equally as toxic to the health of the nation. The difference is, a republican senate and house will oppose a democrat where they won't a republican. Jeb would erase our borders and have us up to our armpits in illiterates from south of the border. To him, the child rapes, drug dealing, hit and run driving, area all acts of love that we must learn to appreciate.

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination.

What a dumb Ni$$er, you seem to be posting in the wrong thread!!

Excuse me, Nazi boi. Where did you get the impression I'm black?

Put down the meth.

Your thoughts and intellectual level scream, dumb ni$$er ..................

We should never let another Muslim into this country.
No More Muslims, we have quite enough thank you.

Fuck Islam! The war between Islam and the West is brewing and soon there won't be a save corner on the planet for the demonic cult!

Liberals defend Islam because Islam wants the same thing: The destruction of America.
This ones' for me:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
These are for my sons:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
Muslims are just like Nazis.
This one is for Curt Shilling:
Muslims are just like Nazis.
This one is for Paint my House:
Muslims are just like Nazis.

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Islam is a barbaric pagan religion.

TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not.

Woah, holy shit, that's a nice collection of posts to document the bigoted members.

Islam isn't a race, so you and g5000 are making stuff up.

Bigotry isn't just about race, bigot.

 

[nuhuh]

Yes, those Conservative Democrats did try to block every civil right's initiative those Liberal Republicans tried to pass. How in the world did the Democrats become Liberal and the Republicans Conservative considering their respective histories? HUH?

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

The South started voting Republican in 1964, and votes Republican to this day. Those weren't different people,

those were conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican party.

The racists never changed.....they're known as Democrats.

Here is the change:

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter,"Mugged"

I'm sure you can explain for all of us why Tony Perkins bought the KKK mailing list if it was full of liberals, and why its called the Council of Conservative Citizens instead of the Council of Liberal Citizens, and why John Derbyshire and his VDARE pals aren't considered leftists, and why everyone in Europe recognizes their neo-fascist parties as belonging to the extreme right, and why the judge's initial ruling in Loving v Virginia doesn't sound like anything that ever came out of a Libera;'s mouth, and KKK members who have run for office are doing so as Republicans. You simply don't get to rewrite history or political science, but you do have to live with it.

What part of conservative is fixed in stone. The conservatives who support racism are democrats who want to conserve racism. The modern American Conservatives who belong to the Republican, tea party, libertarian party, want to conserve the principals of our founding documents, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence which declare and protect the belief that all men are created equal.

You are doing nothing except proving you are an idiot. "The conservatives who support racism are democrats who want to conserve racism."

 

[2aguy]

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

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

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."


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 historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And lying about it is all you have since the truth and reality show you are wrong. But what is right, true and real have no bearing on you morons on the left. All you care about is growing the state…for some unknown reason. Government wastes, steals and loses money and yet you morons want to give them more of what you earn…on the premise that this time…..they will spend it on what you want them to spend it on.

I am sure you morons don't trust politicians,
Uwe don't trust politicians either…the difference, we want to reduce heir power, you want to expand their power…who is the idiot in that formulation…..? Not us, that is for sure.

LMAOROG



SERIOUSLY? Static dollars NOT adjusted for inflation and population growth OR HE 11 TAX INCREASES RONNIE HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE REVENUES WERE GUTTED JUST GOING FROM 70% TO 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? lol



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.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. 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’



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

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth





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.


..The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

Bruce Bartlet, Reagan Admin


No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

 

[g5000]

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

The South started voting Republican in 1964, and votes Republican to this day. Those weren't different people,

those were conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican party.

The racists never changed.....they're known as Democrats.

Here is the change:

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter,"Mugged"

I'm sure you can explain for all of us why Tony Perkins bought the KKK mailing list if it was full of liberals, and why its called the Council of Conservative Citizens instead of the Council of Liberal Citizens, and why John Derbyshire and his VDARE pals aren't considered leftists, and why everyone in Europe recognizes their neo-fascist parties as belonging to the extreme right, and why the judge's initial ruling in Loving v Virginia doesn't sound like anything that ever came out of a Libera;'s mouth, and KKK members who have run for office are doing so as Republicans. You simply don't get to rewrite history or political science, but you do have to live with it.

What part of conservative is fixed in stone. The conservatives who support racism are democrats who want to conserve racism. The modern American Conservatives who belong to the Republican, tea party, libertarian party, want to conserve the principals of our founding documents, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence which declare and protect the belief that all men are created equal.

You are doing nothing except proving you are an idiot. "The conservatives who support racism are democrats who want to conserve racism."

Yeah, he's really going down the rabbit hole to preserve his severely erroneous belief system.

 

[Dad2three]

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism.

In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.

Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?

The CONservatives old bait and switch.

Hint IDEOLOGY:

CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.


UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?


"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."


lol

Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?

See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats

Cities huh? lol

NO CRITICAL THINKING TO BE A CONservative. Hint STATE but more than ANYTHING, FEDERAL GOV'T POLICY influence those cities. Hint "free trade" and tax cuts for the rich so they could gamble on Vegas East and offshore jobs, deindustrialized those cities. Perhaps read REAL history once in a while looner?

 

[g5000]

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

See?

GOP: Borrow and spend. Cut taxes, increase spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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."


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 historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And lying about it is all you have since the truth and reality show you are wrong. But what is right, true and real have no bearing on you morons on the left. All you care about is growing the state…for some unknown reason. Government wastes, steals and loses money and yet you morons want to give them more of what you earn…on the premise that this time…..they will spend it on what you want them to spend it on.

I am sure you morons don't trust politicians,
Uwe don't trust politicians either…the difference, we want to reduce heir power, you want to expand their power…who is the idiot in that formulation…..? Not us, that is for sure.

LMAOROG



SERIOUSLY? Static dollars NOT adjusted for inflation and population growth OR HE 11 TAX INCREASES RONNIE HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE REVENUES WERE GUTTED JUST GOING FROM 70% TO 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? lol



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.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. 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’



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

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth





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.


..The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

Bruce Bartlet, Reagan Admin


No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

Tax revenues do not increase because taxes are cut. That's absurd.

 

[2aguy]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds plausible, and repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics that show how wrong Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the Nov. 30 issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

 

[2aguy]

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And lying about it is all you have since the truth and reality show you are wrong. But what is right, true and real have no bearing on you morons on the left. All you care about is growing the state…for some unknown reason. Government wastes, steals and loses money and yet you morons want to give them more of what you earn…on the premise that this time…..they will spend it on what you want them to spend it on.

I am sure you morons don't trust politicians,
Uwe don't trust politicians either…the difference, we want to reduce heir power, you want to expand their power…who is the idiot in that formulation…..? Not us, that is for sure.

LMAOROG



SERIOUSLY? Static dollars NOT adjusted for inflation and population growth OR HE 11 TAX INCREASES RONNIE HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE REVENUES WERE GUTTED JUST GOING FROM 70% TO 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS? lol



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.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. 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’



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

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth





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.


..The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

Bruce Bartlet, Reagan Admin


No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts…..why are you statists against people keeping their own money…..and giving it to politicians who waste, steal, or lose it and then use whatever is left for their own purposes…..tax revenue increases when taxes are cut….works every time it is tried. And yet you still hate people keeping the money they make. you truly are insane.

Tax revenues do not increase because taxes are cut. That's absurd.

It is not absurd….it is only absurd if you learned economics from left wing statists who believe that all money belongs to the government. Tax cuts increase the ability of individuals to create businesses and employ people….that increases taxes from those new jobs and businesses and the transactions in goods and services…it happened under both Kennedy and Reagan…...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Racist Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan...

...racist Democrat Confederate Army veterans. Democrats who proudly flew the Confederate Flag.

And where do we find those who proudly fly the Confederate flag today? Among Democrats? Liberals?

lol, hardly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

 

[g5000]

The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.

And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

 

[g5000]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Even after the "Bush tax cuts", tax rates were still higher than when Reagan left office.

 

[2aguy]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Sorry, not true…clinton was still benefitting from the Reagan tax cuts, and it took him 8 years of increasing taxes to kill off that growth…remember, the country went into a recession just before he left office…he almost made it out but just missed it….Bush inherited the clinton recession.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Crazy.

 

[2aguy]

I can only post with borg drones so often. You guys really think that giving more of your money to politicians, to spend, steal, waste and lose is better than you keeping it for yourselves and your families and spending it according to your needs and priorities…..you are really sick in the head…and I don't know what will cure it.

You bitch about government being controlled by big business…right? And that big business buys politicians who then give big business our money…right?

And so you want to give those same people more of your money…in the form of taxes….right?


You guys are simply nuts.

 

[g5000]

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

An interesting chart. Use the center column (constant dollars). See who the big spenders really were.

Hint: evry1

 

[2aguy]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Why do you want to give corrupt republican politicians more of your money…..?

YOu know….those of us on the conservative side know politicians are corrupt. I am giving you guys undeserved credit in thinking you know that politicians are also corrupt.
the difference between us and you….we don't want to give them one penny more than we absolutely have to because we know they are corrupt and will abuse the money we give them.

You guys….you bitch about the government and how it favors big business and how corrupt it is and how it gives our money to big business….your solution….give them more money.

Do you ever fucking think that logic through? You should try sometime…..you might just wake up….

 

[2aguy]

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

An interesting chart. Use the center column (constant dollars). See who the big spenders really were.

Hint: evry1

Here you are posting about big spenders in government….you took time to post a link to some chart because you obviously don't like what they do…..

Your solution? Give them even more money….right? How does that make any fucking sense?

 

[g5000]

I can only post with borg drones so often. You guys really think that giving more of your money to politicians, to spend, steal, waste and lose is better than you keeping it for yourselves and your families and spending it according to your needs and priorities…..you are really sick in the head…and I don't know what will cure it.

You bitch about government being controlled by big business…right? And that big business buys politicians who then give big business our money…right?

And so you want to give those same people more of your money…in the form of taxes….right?


You guys are simply nuts.

The giant elephant you seem to be missing is that Republicans spends as much, if not more, than Democrats.

After you have lived through a few Administrations of both parties, with every variation of friendly and opposition houses of Congress, it becomes blazingly obvious that both parties are HUGE SPENDERS.

But many of you piss drinkers live in denial and walk about like this: