"Unprecedented" disaster
-
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
-
God, you're hopeless. You really are. You just can't graduate from this type of nonsense. You're not even on the right topic.
This isn't about taxes being wonderful, or the keys to prosperity. Taxes are, by their nature, inefficiencies. However, they also serve an important and obvious function, and that is to pay for government expenditures. And for years now we've decided that we should pay less in taxes, and spend far more than we bring in. And now that a Democrat is in office, the right is claiming to be worried about all of this, even though the majority of the new spending is to address the economic downturn, temporary, or, in the case of health care, paid for by new taxes and rules and efficiencies. Meanwhile, a large swath of the deficit is result of the revenue shortfall created by the Bush tax cuts. If you don't believe me, again, look at the graph. Or any other study of the budgetary effects of the Bush tax cuts.
The idea pushed and sold by the right - clearly false - is that the Bush tax cuts or any form of tax cuts create so much growth that they pay for themselves through higher economic growth and acitivity. It's an argument that can only be held in the conservative fantasy land. It bears no resemblance to reality. And yet we hear it all the time. You're repeating a variety of that line now. True supply-side economics doesn't even claim this to be true. The guy who invented the Laffer Curve on which this idea is (incorrectly) based even says his theory is wildly and widely misunderstood. And it's all proven to be untrue in reality, as you can see from the graph. You get a small bump in GDP growth from the increased amount of money in the economy, and you get a massive loss in tax revenue, which only means one thing - deferred tax increases.
A tax cut in a time of deficit is just a future tax increase. And cutting a few points off the current income tax rate structure does not pay for itself. It loses money. Lots of it, in fact.
Do you get that part? If you only argue one side of the equation - GDP growth - you aren't having an honest argument. It's like arguing that it's great to do meth because it makes you feel good, without discussing the downside. And then responding to this point by saying, "Couldn't you have stayed happier if you'd done even more meth?"
What happened to tax revenues after the Bush tax cuts? If we had left the rates where they were and had (slightly) less growth during the Bush years, would we have had more revenue or less?
Would we be in a better fiscal position now or worse?
That's the question. I know you'd rather keep repeating how lower taxes means more growth. But try to imagine that we've stipulated that basic and over-generalized notion, and moved on.
-
Higher taxes never helps the middle class.
Never helps the rich.
but it helps the locked in Dem voters in every election.
fancy that.
I think Heck is already eating a cookie, with something strange in it...
-
God, you're hopeless. You really are. You just can't graduate from this type of nonsense. You're not even on the right topic.
This isn't about taxes being wonderful, or the keys to prosperity. Taxes are, by their nature, inefficiencies. However, they also serve an important and obvious function, and that is to pay for government expenditures. And for years now we've decided that we should pay less in taxes, and spend far more than we bring in. And now that a Democrat is in office, the right is claiming to be worried about all of this, even though the majority of the new spending is to address the economic downturn, temporary, or, in the case of health care, paid for by new taxes and rules and efficiencies. Meanwhile, a large swath of the deficit is result of the revenue shortfall created by the Bush tax cuts. If you don't believe me, again, look at the graph. Or any other study of the budgetary effects of the Bush tax cuts.
The idea pushed and sold by the right - clearly false - is that the Bush tax cuts or any form of tax cuts create so much growth that they pay for themselves through higher economic growth and acitivity. It's an argument that can only be held in the conservative fantasy land. It bears no resemblance to reality. And yet we hear it all the time. You're repeating a variety of that line now. True supply-side economics doesn't even claim this to be true. The guy who invented the Laffer Curve on which this idea is (incorrectly) based even says his theory is wildly and widely misunderstood. And it's all proven to be untrue in reality, as you can see from the graph. You get a small bump in GDP growth from the increased amount of money in the economy, and you get a massive loss in tax revenue, which only means one thing - deferred tax increases.
A tax cut in a time of deficit is just a future tax increase. And cutting a few points off the current income tax rate structure does not pay for itself. It loses money. Lots of it, in fact.
Do you get that part? If you only argue one side of the equation - GDP growth - you aren't having an honest argument. It's like arguing that it's great to do meth because it makes you feel good, without discussing the downside. And then responding to this point by saying, "Couldn't you have stayed happier if you'd done even more meth?"
What happened to tax revenues after the Bush tax cuts? If we had left the rates where they were and had (slightly) less growth during the Bush years, would we have had more revenue or less?
Would we be in a better fiscal position now or worse?
That's the question. I know you'd rather keep repeating how lower taxes means more growth. But try to imagine that we've stipulated that basic and over-generalized notion, and moved on.
Would we be in a better fiscal position now or worse?
Oh about the same.
And then the Republicans could say it was Clinton's tax hikes that brought on the worst economy since blah blah blah.
Which is the real reason Obama doidn't repeal the tax cuts on day one.
It most lilely would make things worse and you guys would have to eat it. This way they remain the boogeyman!
Ironic that Clinton's success and Bush's downfall came with the change of power in the houses, since you bring it up .
But as far as your wonderful programs, yoou're right.
Nobody wants to dump them OR pay for them.
That's why it's easyt to blame the rich.
Hey if the crap is inefficient the average voter thinks it's paid for by the evil rich.
You get less bellyaching about free food.
(not none, but less)
WSS
-
Embarrassing. Come on, man. You've got to do better than that. These are numbers. They're vastly different. The difference is counted in the hundreds of billions. And you suggest they're about the same, and there is no real difference.
Wow...
Steve, you have to learn more about this stuff. You really do. You're clearly out of your league, and out of things to say - Obama won't repeal the tax cuts, da evil rich, bellyaching, etc.
Every. Single. Post.
Or maybe I should stop giving you more credit than I give Cal. After all, if you said something about cookies at the end of your posts they wouldn't look much different.
-
Embarrassing. Come on, man. You've got to do better than that. These are numbers. They're vastly different. The difference is counted in the hundreds of billions. And you suggest they're about the same, and there is no real difference.
Wow...
Steve, you have to learn more about this stuff. You really do. You're clearly out of your league, and out of things to say - Obama won't repeal the tax cuts, da evil rich, bellyaching, etc.
Every. Single. Post.
Or maybe I should stop giving you more credit than I give Cal. After all, if you said something about cookies at the end of your posts they wouldn't look much different.
Embarrassing. Come on, man. You've got to do better than that. These are numbers. They're vastly different. The difference is counted in the hundreds of billions. And you suggest they're about the same, and there is no real difference.
Wow...
Steve, you have to learn more about this stuff. You really do. You're clearly out of your league, and out of things to say - Obama won't repeal the tax cuts, da evil rich, bellyaching, etc.
Every. Single. Post.
Or maybe I should stop giving you more credit than I give Cal. After all, if you said something about cookies at the end of your posts they wouldn't look much different.
Why should you expect differnt responses to the same old shit Heck?
Here's a question for you to duck.
Do you believe the world economy (if Obama had repealed the Bush tax cuts on day one) would be:
A A lot better.
B A little better
C The same
D Worse
E A lot worse.
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