"Unprecedented" disaster
-
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
-
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
-
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
Are we looking at the same chart, John? It shows the sources of the deficit going forward. And the biggest source, and by a wide margin, are the tax cuts, not the spending.
But wouldn't repeal of the tax cuts diminish the gap?
My point is that we need to cut spending to the extent of the tax cuts.
-
The point of the graph is to bring some reality into the discussion of who and what caused the deficits the people in here, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party, all blame mostly on President Obama, if not exclusively on President Obama. And when you try to point out that it was mostly someone else's administration, they accuse you of blaming Bush and tell you to move on.
As Steve Martin sarcastically says in Parenthood, "No, I'll blame the dog."
Well, yeah, we're blaming Bush. Because his policies are responsible for most of the deficit. And the right is screaming, "Stop blaming Bush!" because they can't accept that reality, and would rather point the finger somewhere else.
So yes, job number one is setting tax rates at a more sensible level, and cutting entitlements and military spending.
-
it's ignorant to say the deficit is caused by mostly those tax cuts.
Without the tax cuts, things would have been worse...
You go ahead, Heck, and convince Obamao to have opposing voices thrown in...
no, I mean, convince Obamao to raise taxes on everybody.
Watch how the revenue plummets, and the deficit goes way upward.
Too....much....spending....get....it...straight.
TOO MUCH SPENDING.
-
Yes, the man just saw a graph that showed the giant revenue shortfall caused by the Bush tax cuts, how they are more responsible for the deficit picture than anything else, and then said things would have been worse without them.
This is the bubble you people live in. You should open the window and let a little reality in.
Yes, Cal, the Bush tax cuts caused an increase in growth. No, Cal, it wasn't nearly enough to make up for the overall loss in revenue. The budget picture would be improved immeasurably had Bush not cut taxes the way he did.
If you can learn one thing this entire year, learn that. Though I don't have high hopes.
-
So now that we know the white house has been in charge of the operation since day one I wonder why the earlier efforts to stop the flow were unsuccessful.
I'd been hearing that BP wasn't as competend as they should have been.
On another note maybe we sould build these in shallower water so in case the rare leak occurs it'd be more easily addressed.
WSS
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
Maybe we should stop doing anything that involves risk.
40,000 traffic fatalities a year.
WSS
-
Well, the man who cherry picked a narrow perspective graph that jives with his
boo sheet:
Just so you know, here is why I am right AGAIN:
Oh, btw, Heckiswrongagain: "National Center for Policy Analysis" = NCPA
Have nice day, Heck. Have a cookie. Have a glass of milk.
Have the nads to sing the "I'm a big dummy and Cal was right again" song.
Say you're sorry dammit. @@
*******************************************
http://www.ncpa.org/media/study-bushs-capi...us-more-revenue
Study: Bush's Capital Gains Tax Cuts Provided Stimulus; More Revenue
January 23, 2008
President Bush's investment tax cuts helped stimulate the economy and increase government revenue, and raising the capital gains tax rate, as some are now proposing, would be harmful to the economy at a time when it is once again in need of stimulus, according to a new study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
"Some policy makers want to nearly double the tax on capital gains," warned Stephen Moore, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and author of the study. "That is the exact opposite of what our economy needs. If anything, the rate should be cut further."
Faced with a fragile economy early in his presidency, President Bush responded with a series of tax cuts, including reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income. These measures were designed to stimulate capital investment and produce more jobs. The study notes that the stimulus package had positive effects on the economy and government finances. The economy grew, the government gained revenue and the rich now pay a larger share of taxes than ever. For example:
•The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn - from negative business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase of more than 10 percent in the three succeeding years.
•In the four years since the cut, federal revenues increased $740 billion and revenues from the capital gains tax nearly doubled to $110 billion.
•There was a sizable "unlocking effect" from the lower tax rate, meaning that investors voluntarily sold stock and other assets at a much higher volume once the tax rate was reduced, nearly doubling the amount of capital gains realized.
The study notes that the cuts are scheduled to expire after 2010, increasing the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent, which is higher than most developed countries. Some have suggested raising the rate to 28 percent, higher than the rate when Bill Clinton left office and placing the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage
"Increasing the capital gains tax rate would have a negative effect on the economy in both the short and long term," said Moore . "It is critical that Congress extend the life of these cuts by making them permanent. And they need to do it sooner, rather than later to help boost the economy and reduce the growth-dampening effects of uncertainty."
-
"ha ha, Cal, but your study is not a study because I don't like it,
and it was not produced by George Soros and obamao"
"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal
is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and
control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive,
entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes,
Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental
regulation"
-
So, Heck, perhaps you should knock off the "bubbly" -
you are clearly outclassed by anybody else on this board.
Drink more water, learn to actually think for yourself,
and start living in the real world.
-
Or perhaps we shouldn't do this at all anymore, realizing the horrible cost of spills, and should move toward cleaner energy sources.
We just killed off a large portion of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast for decades. And it might not even be over. Let's hope it is.
Maybe we shouldn't do that at all anymore.
Maybe we should stop doing anything that involves risk.
40,000 traffic fatalities a year.
WSS
Maybe we should stop doing anything that involves risk.
40,000 traffic fatalities a year.
WSS
What an absurd argument. In fact, there's a name for those types of arguments, and it's got the word "absurd" right in it.
-
And Cal, you're just a dope. This is a study done by Stephen Moore. If you think Stephen Moore is non-partisan, you have no idea who Steven Moore is. (Which you don't.) They even spell out their agenda in the paragraph you posted. It's sort of funny.
But even more to the point, this study is about capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even if you agree that this analysis is correct, guess what? Those aren't the primary taxes we're talking about when we talk about the Bush tax cuts. We're talking about across the board income tax reductions. And those are the primary cause of the current deficits we face.
And I can't believe I wasted five minutes typing to you on a Saturday.
-
No, we were talking about tax cuts.
You raise taxes, and it will hurt the economy.
Especially when we are fighting a War on Terror that
your president is too big a pansy to admit to.
That's it.
It's what you pitiful pouty libs do every time, diss the source,
diss the author,
whatever it takes, to deny reality.
I can't believe you are any smarter than the groundhogs out in one of our fields.
-
Raising taxes doesn't always hurt the economy. That's another simplistic lie you've been sold. It's easily repeatable, so you repeat it. But it's not true.
Remember when the Clinton tax hikes were going to destroy the economy? We hear this same trope from the right every time.
Well, what happened the last time Clinton raised taxes? We had serious economic growth, and ended up with a budget surplus.
Yes, can't let that happen again. Let's try the Bush formula instead. Worked so well.
-
two words:
Jimmy Carter.
Where we were was bad.
President Ronald Reagan got us out of that serious mire,
in a huge, huge way. He cut taxes.
Maybe you need a whole package of cookies, and a dairy cow. @@
-
Raising taxes doesn't always hurt the economy. That's another simplistic lie you've been sold. It's easily repeatable, so you repeat it. But it's not true.
Remember when the Clinton tax hikes were going to destroy the economy? We hear this same trope from the right every time.
Well, what happened the last time Clinton raised taxes? We had serious economic growth, and ended up with a budget surplus.
Yes, can't let that happen again. Let's try the Bush formula instead. Worked so well.
Raising taxes doesn't always hurt the economy. That's another simplistic lie you've been sold. It's easily repeatable, so you repeat it. But it's not true.
Must I repeat that Obama musta thought repealing the tax cuts would have made things worse not better?
If not he screwed us on purpose.
Remember when the Clinton tax hikes were going to destroy the economy? We hear this same trope from the right every time.
Hey imagine the growth without 'em!!!
(of course then came the downturn that Bush saved us from)
And: "
What an absurd argument. "
Good eye.
Keep it in mind when you make absurd statements.
WSS
-
Hey, Cal liked it. You must be making sense.
Yes, Steve. Tax cuts are like a knob that controls the entire economy. You turn it one way you get growth. The other way you crush it. Why go any further than that when you just stop right there and imagine you said something insightful?
And this is the problem. It's taking something terribly complex, and then distilling it down to something that's so simple it's repeatable, but also worthless. And then imagining that this passes for insight.
You can read the graph. You simply can't make the claim that Bush's tax cuts were good fiscal policy. For whatever boost the economy got out of it, they were the largest new factor in creating the current fiscal imbalance. They failed to "pay for themselves", as people who live in dream world like to think, and cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue.
If all we lived to do is maximize GDP growth, you might have a point. But we don't, so neither do you.
And if all you like to do is point to the benefits without being honest about the costs of achieving those benefits - or even admitting the size of the benefits - you should go back to night school.
-
Hey, Cal liked it. You must be making sense.
Yes, Steve. Tax cuts are like a knob that controls the entire economy. You turn it one way you get growth. The other way you crush it. Why go any further than that when you just stop right there and imagine you said something insightful?
And this is the problem. It's taking something terribly complex, and then distilling it down to something that's so simple it's repeatable, but also worthless. And then imagining that this passes for insight.
You can read the graph. You simply can't make the claim that Bush's tax cuts were good fiscal policy. For whatever boost the economy got out of it, they were the largest new factor in creating the current fiscal imbalance. They failed to "pay for themselves", as people who live in dream world like to think, and cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue.
If all we lived to do is maximize GDP growth, you might have a point. But we don't, so neither do you.
And if all you like to do is point to the benefits without being honest about the costs of achieving those benefits - or even admitting the size of the benefits - you should go back to night school.
Hey, Cal liked it. You must be making sense.
Yes, Steve. Tax cuts are like a knob that controls the entire economy. You turn it one way you get growth. The other way you crush it. Why go any further than that when you just stop right there and imagine you said something insightful?
Ahh a useless Heckism.
The old "always" or "never" ploy.
Hey why not triple 'em? Think how rich we'd be then!!!!!
And this is the problem. It's taking something terribly complex, and then distilling it down to something that's so simple it's repeatable, but also worthless. And then imagining that this passes for insight.
Exactly.
Like the idea that higher taxes are the key to prosperity.
They aren't. They are more easily absorbed in times of prosperity.
Unfortunately when the bubbles burst they hurt.
No matter how "insightful" you think you are.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login