Reply With Quote
scare monger, go yourself, you ignorant
By way of analogy, this is what the Dems are doing to America with their health care bill.
Reconciliation at 38 seconds into video.
scare monger, go yourself, you ignorant
It's funny because Democrats hate America and they're shoving health care down our throats etc.
This is nonsense. It is used all the time. Bush tax-cuts deficit neutral? Didn't think so.
Last edited by Spurminator; 03-15-2010 at 03:41 PM.
Can I play, too?
By way of analogy, this is how the Dems will get their health care bill passed:
[/QUOTE]
No numbnuts. Scaring people is Obama's thing. Remember the old if you don't pass stimulus now or else speech. We passed his pork bill and we got "or else". He does not talk about that anymore.
With 85 percent of the people covered, he is telling the people of our great nation that people will die if we don't pass his health care scam. More scare tactics.
well, at least you admit to being scared.
"Scaring people is Obama's thing"
People don't need to be scared about medical bankruptcies, 10%+/year premium hikes skimmed off their salaries, losing their insurance with losing their jobs, etc, etc. They know all that's TRUE.
Not scare-mongering lies like "my baby" and "death panels" and "taking over health care" and "socialism".
You're right, federal revenues rose with the Bush tax cuts.
That's an old spin, yoni: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
You need to come up with new material...
My think tank says your think tank is wrong...
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
heritage lol
The report is detailed an sourced...I'm sorry you have an inability to critically examine the information they provide.
Factcheck.org is not a think thank...
Furthermore, the article you linked does not debunk the notion that revenues would have been indeed higher without the cuts... (Myth #2)
You didn't read.
I did read. Quote relevant part?
The inference in the response to Myth #2 is this, revenue would have been lower without the tax cuts ergo, the tax cuts increased revenue. Unfortunately, not enough to offset spending.The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.
Of course, you also need to consider that capital gains tax revenues more than doubled when Bush cut the rate by half, from 20% to 10% (Myth #4).
Bottom line...the Bush Tax Cuts raised federal revenue.
Looks like the one that didn't read was you. From Factcheck:
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Ins ute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”
Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue."
If the government had reined in spending – as McCain wanted – the senator might have more to brag about. Viard says economists would expect a boost to the economy if tax relief had been matched by spending cuts. When the cuts are deficit-financed (as these are), it’s still possible to have positive growth, he continues, but that’s a different matter from saying there’s a net increase.
-----
So, there's absolutely no way you can prove cuts actually increased revenue. And the CBO merely calculates estimates, they obviously don't have a magical crystal ball to see the future.
Since I see you're too lazy to read the relevant parts:
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee's estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT's projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005.
Maybe I'll just say it with a picture.
Remove spending from the equation because, well, it's not revenue and -- in your world -- "nets," highly reliant on a spend-easy Congress don't look at raw, gross, receipts.
What explains the simple rise in federal tax receipts after the passage of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Act?
Oh great. Another youtube. Will not watch.
Please summarize
/ bag
Because you're either too lazy to read, or your reading comprehension completely fails, this is your same graphics, with the Magenta line showing what the actual projected federal revenues should have been if the tax-cuts would have not been made:Maybe I'll just say it with a picture.
Remove spending from the equation because, well, it's not revenue and -- in your world -- "nets," highly reliant on a spend-easy Congress don't look at raw, gross, receipts.
What explains the simple rise in federal tax receipts after the passage of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Act?
Again:
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee's estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT's projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005.
It's simple...What Democrats are about to do to America
They are going to do what they've been doing for decades...
They are going to America!
--- had to get my thoughts out from the le thread... Now I'll read the posts---
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-15-2010 at 08:42 PM.
They bare going to America!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
