Reply With Quote
yoni-bush- ..I like that.
It never is good for everyone but, that has less to do with policy than personal choice.
That's because you're an idiot that doesn't pay attention to what is being said.
If you say so.
yoni-bush- ..I like that.
Whatever greases your chute, pardner.
George Gervins Brazillian Wax is a more suitable name.
You pussies complaining about the US economy. Do you know how good you guys have it?
You have a very valid point there. The sentence should have read:
"Tax revenues, like all dollar amounts, would go up solely though inflation, all other things held equal."
It was not my intention to imply that tax revenues go up ONLY through inflation. There are MANY other factors that go into revenue growth.
The intention of the post was simply that of pointing out how the original post was misleading.
To be able to say for any certainty whether the revenue growth means anything, you would have to have revenue growth adjusted for inflation.
Not adjusting for the time value of money is a VERY common mistake/trick.
It is only logical that SOME growth can be attributed to the tax cuts.
What you CANNOT do, as Yoni does, is attribute ALL growth to the tax cuts.
What Yoni DID NOT tell you is the COST of those tax cuts. Since he has me on ignore, I can call a spade a spade. Yonis is a partisan hack.
Are tax cuts good? Yes, IF done right.
Were these done right? No.
The thing about Bush estimations is that they are then taken up by the party faithful as gospel, without those blind faithful questioning whether the underlying assumptions make sense.
Here is what the brookings ins ution had to say in 2002 about those assumptions:
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb101.htmThe official baseline budget ignores the long-term costs of retirement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and government pensions. It assumes that real discretionary spending will fall by 1 percent per year on a per-person basis, and that all expiring tax provisions will expire as scheduled, even though they are usually routinely extended. Finally, the budget assumes that 35 million taxpayers will face the AMT in 2010, which few people believe will occur
Three years after that:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20051026Economy pays price for Bush's tax cuts
Since 2001, changes in tax law have cost the federal government $929 billion, including $860 billion in direct cost and $69 billion in interest.1 Proponents of these tax cuts promised stronger economic gains than were typical of the past, but that did not occur.2 Unfortunately for most Americans, almost every broad measure of economic activity—GDP, jobs, personal income, and business investment, among others—has fared worse over the last four years than in past business cycles.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htmThe Tally So Far
The three rounds of tax-cut legislation (in 2001, 2002, and 2003) account for a substantial share of the nation’s current deficit.
The tax cuts would reduce revenues by $276 billion in 2004, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. Further, the interest costs associated with the enacted tax cuts would equal $20 billion, using Congressional Budget Office assumptions. The total cost would therefore be $297 billion, or 2.6 percent of the economy (or GDP).
Using these estimates, the cost of the tax cuts account for more than half of the 2004 deficit, which CBO estimates to be $477 billion or 4.2 percent of GDP. Based on these estimates, the deficit would have been 1.6 percent of GDP without the tax cuts.
Lie, spin, repeat.
Yoni must work for the Bush administration somewhere, because he so frequently uses many of the same misleading tactics.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-26-2007 at 04:00 PM. Reason: edited to cite sources.
Let me know if there are any other half-truths that need pointing out.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-26-2007 at 04:01 PM. Reason: grammar
I certainly do. Our economy is sizzling. Lowest
unemployment rate in years, taxes are low, government
income is up. Corporate profits are great.
People risk death to come here to work and live.
But you would never know this by reading our MSM.
According to them and most on this board we are just
one day away from being on the street.
2004 Deficit?
I thought we were talking about current revenues into the treasury?
The economy is stronger now; maybe because of the tax cuts, maybe not. But to post information about a 3 year old deficit is somewhat disingenuous, and misleading.
Not only that RG, but you should name your resources. However, it doesn't really matter because it can be argued that from 2000-2002 this country was on the verge of economic collapse and without the TAX STIMULUS we would be an awfully worse shape today. To assume the government lost tax revenue because rates were once higher is to assume the state of the economy would be where it is today without the tax cuts. We can certainly argue that point, but IMO I'm shocked how far our markets have recovered since 2000-20002.
Remember the adage "A bigger percentage of nothing is still nothing".
Hmm.
Hadn't really thought of it that way.
I will try to get some current figures then.
Even so, the amount of debt PLUS INTEREST that the shortfalls have caused is not inconsequential. Older figures show the same picture as newer ones. How much interest have we forked over because of that extra borrowing in the last 6 years?
"Borrow and spend" is what gets normal people in lots of trouble and will get us collectively in the same trouble.
Looking over CBO data, it looks like the budget deficit has abated somewhat in the last couple of years, lead by a doubling of revenue from corporate income taxes.
2004 budget deficit was about $568 BILLION dollars
2005 budget deficit was about $493 BILLION dollars
2006 budget deficit was about $434 BILLION dollars.
ulative total NEW debt......$1495 BILLION dollars, or if you prefer: $1.5 TRILLION of new debt.
Remember kids, all of that money has to be paid back eventually.
Pay for it now or pay interest on it for 20 years and THEN pay it back.
correct, but the way to pay for that is for the government to collect more taxes. So the questions should be over the next ten years would the governement collect more tax revenues by increasing taxes, cutting taxes, or leaving it status quo?
The analysis should definitely be made over atleast 10 YEARS.
BTW, I'm way more interested in you responding to the following http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65210
How 'bout they cut spending?
Wouldn't that pay for it as well?
Yes indeed it would.
Getting us out of Iraq immediately would do wonders for being able to cut back unnecessary spending.
So would deporting all the illegals and cutting back welfare.Yes indeed it would.
Getting us out of Iraq immediately would do wonders for being able to cut back unnecessary spending.
or stop pouring billions into the unecessary war
You still wouldn't be in any better shape. I won't call it a drop in the bucket but, it's not much more than a cupful in a bucket. Cutting en lements is the only thing that would significantly change the outlook.
This statement VASTLY underestimates the real costs of this war, most of which won't be seen in Iraq spending bills.
Consider:
Lost productivity of KIA (remember most of them had 3+ decades of earning ahead of them)
Lost productivity of wounded and discharged.
Lost productivity of war veterans through a host of stress related causes (PTSD, etc).
The MASSIVE amount of extra health care that must be bought for active duty and veterans because of the tens of thousands of wounded. (20000+ if memory serves, but please look it up for yourselves to make sure)
The massive wear and tear on equipment that is being used up at an alarming rate. Operational costs are the only thing that go on the official tab, but replacement costs get hidden in the rest of the defense appropriations.
This doesn't even consider the future terrorist attacks that will happen because Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists that it wouldn't have been otherwise.
Failed businesses of National Guard and Reserve members whose tours and call ups kill their ability to run their small businesses.
I would say a bit more than a "drop" in the bucket.
God God! We better never engage in another war.
Iraq will run over $1T, IF the US takes care of the vets correctly. As we've seen recently and going back to VN and Gulf War, vets are generally ed over.
Not if you are Argentina
Lose this war and you haven't even started to address
the cost of the war. But how would you know. All you
know is Bush sux.
Oh and I am a vet and I wasn't or have been used as
you described.
Put down the crack pipe. The country was in the verge of a recession, nothing more. Economic collapse is what happened in Mexico in 1994, in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and in Argentina in 2002.
Give me a break!
S how do you spell corruption. That is what really happened
in Mexico, Russia and Argentina.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions