Why has NO ONE refuted $200+ billion in lost Tax Revenue?

[G.T.]

omg...........shut the fuck up dude

A: there was no cheerleading for the terrorists. that's a streeeeeeetch to go from "We're losing" to "I hope THEY win!".........a big streeeetch, and saying that doesn't make it a fact, it's a cheeseball assed OPINION. Learn what FACT means.

B: there's no empirical evidence to assume correlation between the length of the Iraq war, and anyone's political rhetoric at home. None. It's huff-puff banter, and you're frankly full of shit. Another non-fact, just OPINIONATED bullshit.


Next - I can account for a fuck ton of lost revenue. The Bush Tax cuts. It was a lot more than $200 Billion, and Bush DID spend like a drunken sailor, that's a FACT.

 

[G.T.]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

 

[G.T.]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

 

[G.T.]

you got.........so thoroughly............

 

[G.T.]

 

[Greenbeard]

Being the only President in history to introduce a new entitlement with absolutely no pretense of even trying to pay for any of it might contribute to the man's reputation. Bruce Bartlett on Part D:

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[G.T.]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

 

[healthmyths]

omg...........shut the fuck up dude

A: there was no cheerleading for the terrorists. that's a streeeeeeetch to go from "We're losing" to "I hope THEY win!".........a big streeeetch, and saying that doesn't make it a fact, it's a cheeseball assed OPINION. Learn what FACT means.

B: there's no empirical evidence to assume correlation between the length of the Iraq war, and anyone's political rhetoric at home. None. It's huff-puff banter, and you're frankly full of shit. Another non-fact, just OPINIONATED bullshit.

AND YOU are a fu...ing idiot as HERE IS AN EMPIRICAL STUDY done by:
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health
policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate
of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Next - I can account for a fuck ton of lost revenue. The Bush Tax cuts. It was a lot more than $200 Billion, and Bush DID spend like a drunken sailor, that's a FACT.

AND you are a FUCKing IDIOT! PROVE that stupid asine statement!
MORE the $200 billion???
OK you idiot.. Proof!
Down load this file from the IRS!!!
SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
Taxes paid by tax payers in 2004 for 2003 returns!!!
132,226,042 returns
$4,670,165,637,000 taxable income
$831,975,834,000 total taxes paid or 17.81% ACTUAL TAXES of Income!
Bush tax cuts of 3.6% would have added less then $160 billion!

FUCKING less then the $200 billion that was written OFF!
If the $4.670 trillion that was reported was increased by the losses
The taxable income would have been $4.870 trillion!


PLUS you idiot.. WHY is Obama pushing for the payroll tax continuance??

KEEP consumers spending you idiot!
That's why there was a Bush tax cut in the first PLACE...geez are you stupid!

 

[G.T.]

 

[G.T.]

omg...........shut the fuck up dude

A: there was no cheerleading for the terrorists. that's a streeeeeeetch to go from "We're losing" to "I hope THEY win!".........a big streeeetch, and saying that doesn't make it a fact, it's a cheeseball assed OPINION. Learn what FACT means.

B: there's no empirical evidence to assume correlation between the length of the Iraq war, and anyone's political rhetoric at home. None. It's huff-puff banter, and you're frankly full of shit. Another non-fact, just OPINIONATED bullshit.

AND YOU are a fu...ing idiot as HERE IS AN EMPIRICAL STUDY done by:
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health
policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate
of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Next - I can account for a fuck ton of lost revenue. The Bush Tax cuts. It was a lot more than $200 Billion, and Bush DID spend like a drunken sailor, that's a FACT.

AND you are a FUCKing IDIOT! PROVE that stupid asine statement!
MORE the $200 billion???
OK you idiot.. Proof!
Down load this file from the IRS!!!
SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
Taxes paid by tax payers in 2004 for 2003 returns!!!
132,226,042 returns
$4,670,165,637,000 taxable income
$831,975,834,000 total taxes paid or 17.81% ACTUAL TAXES of Income!
Bush tax cuts of 3.6% would have added less then $160 billion!

FUCKING less then the $200 billion that was written OFF!
If the $4.670 trillion that was reported was increased by the losses
The taxable income would have been $4.870 trillion!


PLUS you idiot.. WHY is Obama pushing for the payroll tax continuance??

KEEP consumers spending you idiot!
That's why there was a Bush tax cut in the first PLACE...geez are you stupid!

I'm an idiot?

How's that surplus math in the OP working out for you, slick?

so thoroughly owned. sit the fuck down.

 

[G.T.]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The stock market was up over 200% over the entire course of the Clinton presidency, even with the pullback at the end.

Why are you so f..king DUMB!

WHO disputes THAT.. Dumb sh..!
What HAPPENED though was ..duh...

1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market loss "The Stock Market Crash
of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of
companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[13]
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW do you UNDERSTAND TAXES?? DO you understand THESE MARKET LOSSES
of $5 trillion $5 Trillion WERE DEDUCTED From taxable income after 2002 and forward..
$200 billion a year in Federal tax revenue GONE!!!
IDIOT.. explain that!

Then why was CBO predicting budget surpluses from 2001 on for years, and why was GW Bush in 2001 saying he could cut taxes AND pay down the debt?

 

[G.T.]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

 

[Full-Auto]

The stock market was up over 200% over the entire course of the Clinton presidency, even with the pullback at the end.

Why are you so f..king DUMB!

WHO disputes THAT.. Dumb sh..!
What HAPPENED though was ..duh...

1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market loss "The Stock Market Crash
of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of
companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[13]
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW do you UNDERSTAND TAXES?? DO you understand THESE MARKET LOSSES
of $5 trillion $5 Trillion WERE DEDUCTED From taxable income after 2002 and forward..
$200 billion a year in Federal tax revenue GONE!!!
IDIOT.. explain that!

Then why was CBO predicting budget surpluses from 2001 on for years, and why was GW Bush in 2001 saying he could cut taxes AND pay down the debt?

Are rosy projections beyond your comprehension?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All your threads are asking why this and this hasn't been done.

You are the smawtest poster of eva and everyone else is retarded and below your intellectual prowess.

We all bow to you.


caps CAPS caps to emphasize!

I am asking honesty here!
You probably have said it.. "Bush spent like a drunken sailor".
or you blame Bush.. but then you explain what happened with
1) dot.com/2)9/11 and worst hurricanes.. DID THEY NOT have any costs?
Did Homeland Security NOT ADD to the costs?
You actually think now with your benefit of 20/20 hindsight.. Bush was totally wrong AT THE TIME.. with 2 major cities dozens of buildings destroyed,3,000 people died at one time.. YOU don't think YOU would
have done differently?

That's my point of honesty!
YOU would have been hiding in the closet!
You couldn't make a decision to go outside.. much the tremendous costs and lives decisions Bush made and yet you can act like a putz!

Come on be an adult and explain then where did the $8 trillion go?
Did those events NOT happen and therefore NO costs associated?

If you sophomorically think poking fun of the messenger is cute.. that says alot about your intelligence!
So come on be an adult and explain what happened???

Then why did Bush keep cutting taxes in the face of all these costs?

btw, you're asking rhetorical questions, which don't require answers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you so f..king DUMB!

WHO disputes THAT.. Dumb sh..!
What HAPPENED though was ..duh...

1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market loss "The Stock Market Crash
of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of
companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[13]
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW do you UNDERSTAND TAXES?? DO you understand THESE MARKET LOSSES
of $5 trillion $5 Trillion WERE DEDUCTED From taxable income after 2002 and forward..
$200 billion a year in Federal tax revenue GONE!!!
IDIOT.. explain that!

Then why was CBO predicting budget surpluses from 2001 on for years, and why was GW Bush in 2001 saying he could cut taxes AND pay down the debt?

Are rosy projections beyond your comprehension?

Why is that relevant? The projections were made before Bush cut taxes twice while increasing spending mainly via 2 wars and a massive increase in Medicare spending.

Why did the Republicans pursue a free lunch policy of hundreds of billions of additional spending while not asking anyone to pay for it?

 

[healthmyths]

Consequently in Bush administration:
Total expenditures $33.618 trillion
Total income $28.298 trillion
Loss of $5.319 trillion i.e. more expenses then income.


But if dot com/9/11/worst hurricanes did NOT occur..
Total Income : $29.898 Trillion and
if expenditures excluded the following:
* HSD $512 billion Iraq War $700 billion...

Total expenditures : $28.686 Trillion

Creating a Surplus of $1.212 TRILLION!

So 33.618 trillion minus 1.212 trillion is 28.686?


fuzzy math right thurr...........think you did that wrong, smarty pants.



you totally fucked that up. here, let me fix it for you.


if your total revenues are 29.898 as a result of no 9/11, dot com bust, hurricanes.................

and you subtracted 1.212 trillion from your 33.618 trillion EXPENDITURES (because you stupidly subtracted it from your adjusted revenues, dipshit)



you do NOT get a "1.212 trillion surplus!!".......short bus rider.

expenditures: 33.618T minus $512b hsd, minus $700b iraq war, = $32.406T
Revenues:28.298 PLUS 1.6T lost revenues = 29.898t


so the adjusted numbers are 32.406 minus 29.898



creating a DEFICIT of $2.51 Trillion Dollars....................................NOT A SURPLUS.


aka spent like a drunken sailor, even EXCLUDING DOT COM, 9/11 AND THE HURRICANES.



You got served.

I WAS WRONG!!! I copied the wrong information and was WRONG!

Now for the correct information:
Based on this Federal web site:
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

If the $8 trillion in Dot.com/9/11/worst hurricanes losses were deducted for next 30 years at $266.7 billion a year:
From 2001 to 2008 total $1.866 trillion ADDED to receipts:
Receipts $28.298 trillion plus $1.866 trillion that would have come in:
Total receipts.. $30.165 trillion

Total Expenditures from 2001 to 2008 $30.712 trillion.. BUT when
Homeland Security and Iraq war of $1.283 trillion deducted from $30.712
Adjusted expenditures $29.428 trillion after deductions..
Net :
$30.165 trillion adjusted receipts
$29.428 trillion adjusted expenses
$736.8 billion .....SURPLUS!!!

SURPLUS of:$736.8 billion

SO AGAIN I was WRONG at $1.5 trillion!!! WRONG

Tell me again where these numbers are wrong!!!

ALSO NOT ONE criticism though of the premise of $266 billion a year in
lost tax revenue! WHERE IS YOUR brilliant Retort on that???

IT IS MATH

 

[G.T.]

for the next 30 years?

8 trillion in tax revenue losses cuz of dot com, 9/11 and the hurricane?

You're smoking crack. You made that up, or else you really dont know how to read the chart you linked, my dude.





and yea, you were WRONG WRONG WRONG! So, how'd it feel?

plus, you dont deduct the iraq war you dimwit.

Bush and the R's, as well as the Dems, all voted us into it.






also:


9/11 - HAPPENED
dot com bust - HAPPENED
Hurricanes - HAPPENED




keep dreaming.

 

[healthmyths]

All your threads are asking why this and this hasn't been done.

You are the smawtest poster of eva and everyone else is retarded and below your intellectual prowess.

We all bow to you.


caps CAPS caps to emphasize!

I am asking honesty here!
You probably have said it.. "Bush spent like a drunken sailor".
or you blame Bush.. but then you explain what happened with
1) dot.com/2)9/11 and worst hurricanes.. DID THEY NOT have any costs?
Did Homeland Security NOT ADD to the costs?
You actually think now with your benefit of 20/20 hindsight.. Bush was totally wrong AT THE TIME.. with 2 major cities dozens of buildings destroyed,3,000 people died at one time.. YOU don't think YOU would
have done differently?

That's my point of honesty!
YOU would have been hiding in the closet!
You couldn't make a decision to go outside.. much the tremendous costs and lives decisions Bush made and yet you can act like a putz!

Come on be an adult and explain then where did the $8 trillion go?
Did those events NOT happen and therefore NO costs associated?

If you sophomorically think poking fun of the messenger is cute.. that says alot about your intelligence!
So come on be an adult and explain what happened???

Then why did Bush keep cutting taxes in the face of all these costs?

btw, you're asking rhetorical questions, which don't require answers.

"Then why did Bush keep cutting taxes in the face of all these costs? "?

YOU FU..king idiot!
DID YOU KNOW That a recession started in Clinton officially began in 3/2001 and ended BECAUSE of the TAX cUTS in 11/2001??
LOOK IT UP idiot!

AND did you KNOW that BUSH had NO IDEA nor anyone the magnitude of the $5 trillion writeoffs of the DOT.com BUST???
AND did you know the so-called "surplus" clinton left WAS totally wiped out by the $266 billion a year in tax losses??
IDIOT.. have YOU EVER heard of the IRS ruling for Net Operating Losses
and how they can be carried against taxable income???

ALL of that occurred in 2001 AND then 9/11 remember that??
AGAIN NONE of you seem to consider that!

AND we had Homeland security adding $600 billion.. so NONE of that was ever conceived in Mar/2001 when the recession started!!!

 

[healthmyths]

SO I ask you idiots again...
WHY hasn't anyone spoken or written about the nearly $1.2 Trillion in TAX writeoffs
against taxable income ALL due to dot.com/9/11 and worst hurricanes??

NO ONE has any intelligence to say..hmmm... If there were $8 trillion in losses.. wouldn't that affect tax revenue??
BUT you all BLAME Bush TAX CUTS??? Did any of you idiots ONCE suggest there would be tax losses due to dot.com/9/11/worst hurricanes all at a rate of loss $266 billion/yr?