Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[Dad2three]

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy

US F/Y is from Oct 1 to Sept 30th every year Bubs. $1 trillion coming in and only $990 billion leaving the treasury, you have a surplus, REGARDLESS IF DEBT INCREASES (LIKE I SAID, CLINTON LOWERED THE PUBLIC DEBT, INCREASED INTRA GOV'T, EXCESS SS PAYMENTS DUMMY!)!




Get off your LONG debunked talking points!

"Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy."

Well.....that makes you the dummy, doesn't it.

The National Debt went up 41% under Bill the rapist Clinton....so there was no surplus.

Got it the moron wants to conflate debt with a yearly budget surplus or deficit./ I'm shocked.

DEFINITION of 'Budget Deficit'


A status of financial health in which expenditures exceed revenue. The term "budget deficit" is most commonly used to refer to government spending rather than business or individual spending. When referring to accrued federal government deficits, the term "national debt” is used.


The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus, and when inflows equal outflows, the budget is said to be balanced.


Budget Deficit Definition | Investopedia




BREAKING DOWN 'Budget Surplus'


When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income.


The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.

Budget Surplus Definition | Investopedia



FUKOFFTEATARD

 

[TemplarKormac]

To be quite honest, Republican doesn't mean conservative, and Democrat doesn't mean liberal. Both of them are undesirable. One isn't a better alternative to the other and vise versa.

This is nothing but a team game. My team, your team. All the meanwhile the only ones who lose in this pathetic little game are the people who are unfortunate enough to believe them and their promises.

 

[Ame®icano]

Being the liberal that you are, what do you know of true conservatism?

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

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.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

 

[Dad2three]

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

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.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Ame®icano]

We expect Democrats to be big spenders. It's a given. They PROMISE to spend more.

But when the GOP claims to be all about cutting spending and small government, then we see some real hypocrisy.

Federal debt 9/30/2001: $5,807,463,412,200.06

Federal debt 9/20/2007: $9,007,653,372,262.48

Federal debt 9/30/2009: $11,909,829,003,511.75


Democrats: Tax and spend

Republicans: Borrow and spend

Federal debt 9/30/2011: $14,790,340,328,557.15

Federal debt 9/30/2013: $16,738,183,526,697.32

 

[Dad2three]

We expect Democrats to be big spenders. It's a given. They PROMISE to spend more.

But when the GOP claims to be all about cutting spending and small government, then we see some real hypocrisy.

Federal debt 9/30/2001: $5,807,463,412,200.06

Federal debt 9/20/2007: $9,007,653,372,262.48

Federal debt 9/30/2009: $11,909,829,003,511.75


Democrats: Tax and spend

Republicans: Borrow and spend

Federal debt 9/30/2011: $14,790,340,328,557.15

Federal debt 9/30/2013: $16,738,183,526,697.32

What’s Driving Debt?

May 20, 2011


... showing that the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years.

What’s Driving Projected Debt? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[JQPublic1]

The richest cities in America are also run by Democrats.

They were all rich before Democrats took over. Give them some time...

NO they weren't. Democrats brought us out of the great depression created by republican fools! The emerging middle class accumulated wealth that endured and provided a tax base wherever they clustered together in places called... you guessed it.... cities.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm a Conservative who's gone from making a quarter million a year to making nothing.

Do i hold anyone accountable?

Nope.

That's the market.

Get a job you low-life pieces of shit.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm a Conservative who's gone from making a quarter million a year to making nothing.

Do i hold anyone accountable?

Nope.

That's the market.

Get a job you low-life pieces of shit.

 

[JQPublic1]

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

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.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Were we better off under Clinton or Bush II? There is no vulgarity there either except when I invoked the name of Bush... BUt wait....come to think of it, SHITTT... Hitler didn't use vulgarity either and look at all the damage HE caused..

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm a Conservative who's gone from making a quarter million a year to making nothing.

Do i hold anyone accountable?

Nope.

That's the market.

Get a job you low-life pieces of shit.

Ho ho ho! Looks like you need one now that you can;t steal from and trick poor people out of their welfare checks anymore. What happened, did a bigger shark move in and take over?

 

[Dad2three]

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

The real vulgarity is saying you're Conservative and then not acting like it.

What I see here is you trying to dictate to others what a conservative should be. There you go trying to confine free thought to a singular set ideal, just like a good liberal would.

It's quite amusing to hear liberals preach of tolerance and prosperity, yet practice intolerance of views they don't like and policies that penalize prosperity. The vulgarity is saying you're a liberal and not acting like one.

 

[GWV5903]

we all enjoy letting someone tell us what is better,,,good thing the Founders didn't listen...

So you didn't watch the video?

Too bad, you might learn something...

 

[GWV5903]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

And the Democrats are as described, so what's your point then?

There is a Conservative majority in this country, not a Liberal one...

The Liberal plays the blues...

 

[JQPublic1]

1. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.

The Dixiexcrats was a separate arm of the Democratic Party that surfaced in 1948 and ended the same year. Their platform was segregationist and their mission was to protect the :southern way of life. They were never more than a minor faction of the National Democratic Party. Yet, Right Wing pundits take every opportunity to drag that rotten skeleton out of the closet and shake it in the faces of modern Democrats



The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.

However, as evidenced by the RW hordes here and elsewhere, the term has taken a life of it's own and has become the smoking gun for firing aspersions at modern Democrats in the North as well as the South.



But lets take a closer look at the partisan voting that passed the 1964 Civil Rights bill. That is key to solving the controversy of which National party majority really passed the 1964 Civil Right's Act.

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Stop lying. At least wait a few more years before you try to convince us that Bush's tax cuts for the rich created jobs, jobs,jobs. Most of us were alive several years ago when the tax cuts were due to expire and the GOP heavy Congress extended them.

Tax cuts for the rich did NOT produce jobs, the bahs-turds just hoarded their assets and placed them into secret off shore bank accounts.

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don’t back up the assertion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatism is better because.....

When Bush meets Muslims he's a Christian.
When Obama meets Muslims he must be a Muslim
When Obama meets the Pope he's a Muslim.

 

[L.K.Eder]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Earn Credits. Win Prizes.

Our disruptive approach to education doesn't just reward you with knowledge, By watching our videos and completing course materials, you earn credits that enable you to win prizes.

yeehaw.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]