It's the economy, Stupid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

As some of you have pointed out;

This country has got to cut spending. Period.

---

Don't disagree, but both parties embrace big government. You and Ryan's voting record ain't kidding anybody.

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.

Sure as hell can't do that now.

Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.

---

I agree with this too. But the whole deduction thing for lower rates was Reagan's doing, and he was another guy that didn't give a shit about running deficits.

Was it Cheney that said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao

---

I'm sure there are a lot more ways now than in 1940-1965. The tax law is lot more complex with a lot more deductions. And tax lawyer/tax accountant sector is also a lot bigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.

Sure as hell can't do that now.

Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.

---

It was in reference to Yoni's JFK quote in the OP, what JFK was saying about tax rates has absolutely nothing to to with tax rates today. The quote was idiotic.

I'll ask again, how many Jobs were created under Bush II administration when taxes were drastically cut on the wealthy? That is your argument, is it not? Cut taxes and jobs will be created because of the additional investment. BTW - we are still living under the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

But they did not. As a matter of fact, revenue fell and pretty sharply.

Receipts grow over time as a function of GDP growth, since it expands the tax base. That's why comparing year X dollar revenue with year Y dollar revenue, even if adjusted for inflation, means nothing if you don't know how much the tax base grew between year X and year Y.

For example, during the Clinton years, the year-to-year receipt growth was about $139 billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):

billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):
1997: $1,889.3
1998: $2,040.2
1999: $2,135.4
2000: $2,309.2

after the 1st round of tax cuts, revenue couldn't even catch up with the growth:
2001: $2,214.3
2002: $2,027.9

after the 2nd round, it killed receipts even further but growth started to catch up:
2003: $1,900.5
2004: $1,949.3
2005: $2,153.6
2006: $2,324.6

And so we arrive at basically the 'same' amount of money on receipts as in FY 2000.

For the tax cuts to pay "themselves" they would've needed to stimulate the economy in such a way where in 2006 you would've had the same receipt income that you had prior to the cuts, adjusted for the annual growth.

In other words, at $139 billion annual growth pre-cut, the revenue on 2006 should've been $2,309.2 + (6*$139) = $3,143.2 (FY 2005 dollars).

Which means by 2006, the tax cuts actually cost $818.6 billions (FY 2005 dollars).

It gets worse. Because after 2008 GDP fell rather sharply, receipts obviously tanked too.



It's a phony table because of what I explained above, plus it has a few other errors. Here's the source that was used:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z3.xls

And that I used to run the numbers above.

---

You forgot the end of the Y2K scare.

Don't you realize the effect of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You forgot the end of the Y2K scare.

Don't you realize the effect of that?

---

Please quantify the effect of that on the economy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao

---

It was 91% in 1963.

What these liberals don't realize id the higher rate they tax people, the more wealth the rich accumulate.

If you can write off a purchase and effectively reduce it's cost 91% by paying that much less in taxes on its value, it only costs you 9%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Please quantify the effect of that on the economy...

---

You know I can't but it was tremendous. You cannot act as if it had no impact. That would be dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

I'm sure there are a lot more ways now than in 1940-1965. The tax law is lot more complex with a lot more deductions. And tax lawyer/tax accountant sector is also a lot bigger.

---

stupid is as stupid does.

classic example.

1963 long form

If only things were so simple again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Don't disagree, but both parties embrace big government. You and Ryan's voting record ain't kidding anybody.

---

So, why is Obama wanting to raise taxes?

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, why is Obama wanting to raise taxes?

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

---

I belive it should be about 3:1 cuts to revenue increases. the issue is people like you who will not take 10:1 cuts to increase. The intransigence of people like you, Paul ryan and Grover Norquist are the the problem tbh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Wyden himself said he worked on policy papers, not legislation. Apparently when it was actual time to put legislation together, the echo chamber went in full effect.

---

Romney misspoke when he called it legislation but, it was a bit more than "policy papers."

http://imgv2-3.scribdassets.com/img/...241/1341962038
CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE WYDEN/RYAN PLAN

Much of which is still embodied in the Romney/Ryan plan and modeled after the Clinton plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercos

There is simply no evidence that the tax cuts themselves led to greater revenue,...

---

Except that every time it's been tried, it's increased revenues; Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

---

Neither team wants to cut spending. Both teams already had full control of government and both love themselves more deficit.

They're all big government: Ryan, Romney, Barry... Ryan already voted for unfunded liabilities like Medicare Plan D, Romney walks in stating he's going to increase military spending, Barry... well... he wants to keep doing what he's doing.

But this isn't new. Reagan loved his deficits and living on the govt credit card too.

Actually, it's Akin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Romney misspoke when he called it legislation but, it was a bit more than "policy papers."

---

That's all it was, a proposal. This got included as part of a much larger budget proposal which Wyden had nothing to do with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Much of which is still embodied in the Romney/Ryan plan and modeled after the Clinton plan.

---

Actually, if you go by mittromney.com, not really. There's no longer a "choice" there. It's simply a voucher program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Except that every time it's been tried, it's increased revenues; Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

---

The only thing it increased is deficits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's all it was, a proposal. This got included as part of a much larger budget proposal which Wyden had nothing to do with.

---

You're right but, the point was to demonstrate -- on Medicare, at least -- there has been bi-partisan work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Actually, if you go by mittromney.com, not really. There's no longer a "choice" there. It's simply a voucher program.

---

From www.mittromney.com

Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan

• Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
  
  
• Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
  
  
• All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
  
  
• If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
  
  
• “Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
  
  
• Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
  
  
• Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The only thing it increased is deficits.

---

That would be a manifestation of out-of-control spending.

Increased revenues rarely, if ever, lead to deficits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

[*]“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option

---

What part you don't understand? Government will issue vouchers for a set amount, and if it pays for govt medicare good, if it doesn't seniors pony up the difference. It's a voucher program. There's no option NOT to receive a voucher.

I'll start believing in glibertarian/conservative/neoliberals' zeal to reduce the size of government when they start wailing about this with the same enthusiasm and urgency in which they attack social spending:

Quote:

---

At the height of the American occupation, in the face of Sunni and Shiite insurgencies and a bloody civil war, the Pentagon built 505 bases there, ranging from micro-outposts to mega-bases the size of small American towns -- in one case, with an airport that was at least as busy as Chicago’s O’Hare International. As it happened, during all but the last days of those long, disastrous years of war, Americans could have had no idea how many bases had been built, using taxpayer dollars, in Iraq. Estimates in the press ranged, on rare occasions, up to about 300. Only as U.S. troops prepared to leave was that 505 figure released by the military, without any fanfare whatsoever. Startlingly large, it was simply accepted by reporters who evidently found it too unimpressive to highlight.

And here’s an allied figure that we still don’t have: to this day, no one outside the Pentagon has the faintest idea what it cost to build those bases, no less maintain them, or in the end abandon them to the Iraqi military, to the fate of ghost towns, or simply to be looted and stripped. We have no figures, not even ballpark ones, about what the Pentagon paid crony corporations like KBR to construct and maintain them.

Why, in our zeal to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, we never considered spending a fraction as much to rebuild Detroit, New Orleans, or Cleveland (projects that, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq in their heyday, have never enjoyed widespread support)?

Here’s the bottom line: a nation spends its resources on what’s important to it. Failed reconstruction elsewhere turns out to be more important to us than successful reconstruction here at home. Such is the American way of empire.

Imperial Reconstruction and Its Discontents

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That would be a manifestation of out-of-control spending.

---

Or a reduction of receipts without a similar reduction in spending. It doesn't have to be 'out of control'.

All that said, both teams love themselves bigger and bigger government.