The US is insolvent !

Now, over the period of a few years revenue always goes up due to population growth and growth in the economy. The modern united states has never had more than a few consequetive quarters of negative economic growth, and the population growth is always positive....The actual data show bush's tax cuts did not pay for itelf, did not create a "surge" in revenue"...

Prissy, shut up, you have proven your own point to be a lie. You are doing better in this argument by remaining silent. I haven't used the word "surge", I said that tax revenues increase with tax cuts... and your numbers bear that out. I agree, the tax cuts along with 9/11, recession, the dot com burst, etc. produced a smaller rate of growth than would have normally been seen, but this doesn't support your argument, it supports mine.

that's what I feel when people claim that tax free municpal bonds do not generate economic activity, but somehow - magically - only income.

Sorry, I never claimed that municipal bonds didn't generate any economic activity, and only income does. This is what you would like to twist my argument into, but it's not what I said. I encourage you to go back and read what I've posted again, post the exact quote you are challenging, and present some tangible evidence other than your opinion, or outright lies about what I've said, to contradict my points. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind here, you're not going to ever win the debate that way.

Again, history shows, every time we've ever reduced the TMR, we have increased tax revenue to the federal government. This isn't a fluke, it isn't luck, it's rooted in basic economic principles. The more you tax the incomes of the rich, the less incomes the rich will produce, thus, the less taxes you can collect. You have already admitted this principle is true, when you admitted that rich people will always find a way to avoid paying taxes, especially when they don't have to pay the taxes, and have many avenues to avoid it.

In short, you've argued yourself into a box here, and you can't escape. It's just a matter of time before we start hearing your boasting of superior knowledge and experience in economics, and the typical flurry of ad hominem attacks. Why? Because you can't argue the point, and that is all you have left. So, go for it! Prove me right! Or start putting up some tangible evidence to support your contradictions.
 
-DIXIE: "I haven't used the word "surge", I said that tax revenues increase with tax cuts... and your numbers bear that out."

CORRECTION: You said if we have a revenue problem the solution is to cut the TMR”


-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."

ummmm......The Data prove you wrong. When bush raise the TMR, revenue growth was ANEMIC. The rate of growth was LOWER than virtually any previous presidential administration since the Great Depression:


1) -Clinton 1993 Economic Plan
Growth of revenue in first 5 years, 1993-1998: 33% growth in revenue

-Bush 2001 Tax cut Plan
Growth of revenue in first 5 years, 2001-2006: 13% growth in revenue

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


2) Also, Let's look at the rate of revenue growth under other presidents compared to Bush

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan: 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf



Bush’s tax cuts did not pay for themselves, and created the lowest growth in revenue in modern history

So, your assertion that “if we have a revenue problem”, the way to fix it is with cuts on the TMR is not supported by THE DATA. The data show that the only thing your tax cuts do, is to starve the government of revenue in a time of war.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
I think you mistake cause with effect....

I only know that the very wealthy people I know and with whom I work and socialize have NEVER let marginal tax rate changes effect their desire to maximize their wealth.
Click to expand...


Why didn't you say "effect their desire to increase their income"? That is what the argument is. Do you know rich people who want to increase their earned income when the TMR goes up? If so, you know some stupid rich people, and they are not representative of most rich people, or people with brains in general.

No, I am not mistaking 'cause and effect' at all, in fact, I am trying to get you to understand 'cause and effect' instead of living in Libreal La-la-land, where everything is a zero sum gain, and remains static, regardless of our actions. The effect caused by us raising the income tax rate on incomes that are not needed, is less revenue produced due to less income produced.
 
-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."


Let's look at the rate of revenue growth under other presidents compared to Bush

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan: 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf


Looks like your Bush 2001 tax cuts DIDN’T solve “the problem with revenue”. Compared to previous president’s, all your tax cut did was STARVE the government of revenue, with historically anemic revenue growth. During a time of war no less. How irresponsible.


And its almost the year 2007 Dixster. The statute of limitations has run out on blaming the 2000 dotcom bust, or the 2001 WTC attack.
 
CORRECTION: You said if we have a revenue problem the solution is to cut the TMR”

No correction needed. That is the truth. You are trying to spin the numbers to make it a lie.

When bush raise the TMR, revenue growth was ANEMIC.

Anemic, but nevertheless, growing. This was in the midst of far worse economic and financial crisis' than any we've seen since the Great Depression. You are trying to use intangibles like 9/11 and the dot com burst, to bolster your idiotic and unsupportable claim, and even THAT doesn't bear itself out in the numbers, there was STILL growth in revenues. Feel free to search back into history, and find an instance where raising the TMR produced more revenue in taxes. This would support your argument, and make your case. All you are doing now, is trying to compare an apple to an orange, and hope we don't notice the difference.
 
Anemic, but nevertheless, growing.


BINGO!

Your tax cuts did nothing to "solve the revenue problem". Growth in revenue has been anemic. And far below the growth in revenue of previous presidents in modern history.
 
-DIXIE: “Anemic, but nevertheless, growing. This was in the midst of far worse economic and financial crisis' than any we've seen since the Great Depression.”

LOL! The 2001 mild recession was the worst “financial crisis” we’ve seen in 80 years? And please, stop blaming 9/11. That was in 2001. We’re almost in 2007 now. The statue of limitations has run out on blaming 9/11 for Bush economic failures. Bush also had the biggest real estate boom in history.


-DIXIE: “there was STILL growth in revenues. Feel free to search back into history, and find an instance where raising the TMR produced more revenue in taxes.”

Year to year there’s is virtually ALWAYS revenue growth, REGARDLESS of tax policy. The population is always growing, the economy is always growing, and therefore tax revenue is always growing. Don’t believe me? Have a look - budget revenue data for the last century:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


You said reducing the TMR would “solve revenue problems”. The only way to read that, is that reducing the TMR provides a boost in revenue that allegedly is superior to any other tax policy. The data don’t support your assertion:

rate of revenue growth under other presidents compared to Bush

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan: 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf
 
Last edited:
The rate of revenue growth under other presidents, under other economic parameters and conditions, has absolutely no use in proving how an increase in tax on TMR's produced more revenue. Sorry. In every instance where we have lowered the tax rate for top marginal incomes, the revenues from taxing the TMR following the reduction have grown. This is data from the IRS and the feds, it doesn't have partisan partiality.
 
You said:

-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."

Let's compare your assertion, to "history" as you suggest.


-Bush dropped the TMR in 2001.

As a consequence Revenue growth in the six years since has been an Anemic 13%


-Other Presidents previous to Bush, saw revenue gains in their first six years of 27% to 40%.

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan: 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf


This indicates that Bush dropping the TMR was actually the worst possible way to increase revenue, and "solve a revenue problem", as you asserted.


Now that your assertion has been proven false, you may commence with blaming Clinton, Hillary, or 9/11 for the anemic revenue growth under bush........


-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."
 
Last edited:
Dixie says cuts in the TMR are the best way to solve a revenue problem/ revenue shortfall. But actually, the current data, shows bush’s cut to the TMR was actually the worst possible way, compared to reveunue growth under other presidents.

Let’s take it a step farther.

In the face of historically anemic revenue growth under Bush, Let’s assume Dixie might say: ”Well, SOMEDAY, I’ll be proven right! Someday, in future years, Federal revenue will PROVE that Bush’s tax cuts were the BEST way to increase revenue and solve a revenue shortfall and deficits!”


Let’s be generous and take the White Houses’ OWN revenue projection out to the year 2010*:


So the rate of revenue growth after Bush’s 2001 cut to the TMR will result in:

-2001-2010: A 45% growth in revenue for the whole decade.

How does this compare to revenue growth in previous decades?

-1991-2000: A 91% growth in revenue
-1981-1990: A 72% growth in revenue
-1971-1980: Over 150% growth in revenue



This is odd. Dixie’s assertion isn’t panning out…..revenue growth under Bush appears to be by FAR the worst. And consequently, its evidently not "the best" way to solve a revenue shortfall/problem in accordance with Dixie economics.

Bush’s cut to the TMR looks like the absolute WORST possible way to “solve a revenue problem, increase revenues, and solve a budget shortfall problem” as the Dixster asserted.



*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.PDF


-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."
 
Dixie said:
Why didn't you say "effect their desire to increase their income"? That is what the argument is. Do you know rich people who want to increase their earned income when the TMR goes up? If so, you know some stupid rich people, and they are not representative of most rich people, or people with brains in general.

No, I am not mistaking 'cause and effect' at all, in fact, I am trying to get you to understand 'cause and effect' instead of living in Libreal La-la-land, where everything is a zero sum gain, and remains static, regardless of our actions. The effect caused by us raising the income tax rate on incomes that are not needed, is less revenue produced due to less income produced.
Click to expand...


all the rich people I know want their earnings to increase regardless of the tax rate in place.... and I know a lot of rich people and have known a lot of rich people all my life...and I co-manage the equity portfolio of my very wealthy father with my brother - he being a Rush Limbaugh republican - and we would NEVER consider making investment decisions with that portfolio that would cause it to earn less income if such a move did not increase the net worth of the holdings, which it very rarely does. I realize that you have no experitse in this area - but that is really no bif surprise....you have shown little expertise in ANY area - be it Islamic studies or the law of war - since the day we first crossed paths. You have proclaimed yourself to be the "victor" in every single one of our debates, and you have, in fat, lost each and every one of them.

Tell me again how a municipal bond does not generate economic activity but somehow DOES generate an income stream that is tax free.
 
all the rich people I know want their earnings to increase regardless of the tax rate in place....

We aren't debating whether rich people want to increase their earnings or not, we are debating whether they want to do it by earning an income which is taxed at an excessive rate, or through wiser tax sheltered investments. Rich people do not want to do anything "regardless" of the cost, this is how most of them got to be rich in the first place, they are very wise with their investments and money.

Tell me again how a municipal bond does not generate economic activity but somehow DOES generate an income stream that is tax free.

Tell me again how you are unable to argue the point I made, and you have to continue going to lame assertions of things I never said? Tell me again how raising the tax on the top marginal rate is going to produce more revenue, when it has never happened before in our history? Tell me again how taxing something that is not a necessity, produces more of it?

Or better yet, shut your pie hole and go back to debating the war, and leave the economics discussions for people who know a little about economics!
 
As a consequence Revenue growth in the six years since has been an Anemic 13%

The key word you seem to be missing here Prissy, is "growth". In order for you to prove that reducing TMR's resulted in a loss, you can't show growth, it's the opposite of a loss. As I said, every time we've lowered the TMR, we've produced growth in revenues. Subsequently, every time we increased the TMR, we have reduced revenues.

Now, if you just want to keep re-posting my statement over and over, and claiming a lie is the truth, that is up to you, but you've offered nothing to make your point, and the very numbers you posted, prove MY point.
 
and we would NEVER consider making investment decisions with that portfolio that would cause it to earn less income if such a move did not increase the net worth of the holdings, which it very rarely does.

Another point you make, which proves my point. Rich people do not make decisions on their money "regardless of the cost" of their decisions. They make the most sound decision for their money. If the Feds said, we've decided to increase the tax on dividends invested in diversified portfolios next year, from the normal 20-22% to 39-40% ...you and your brother would immediately start looking for ways to reinvest your money, out of diversified portfolios, and into something else. You wouldn't just sit there like a static zero-sum gain moron, and pay the excessive taxes! Yet, that is the argument you continue to try and make for the earned incomes of the wealthy... that they would just work harder to make more... just like you and your brother would 'work harder' to make better investments in your diversified portfolio?

If the means in which your father's income is invested, becomes taxed too excessively, you will find alternatives to that form of investment. If a rich person is earning a personal income, and it becomes taxed too excessively, remember, he doesn't have to rely on a personal income, and there are other ways for him to earn wealth with a lower tax burden... what is he going to do? Be stupid, like you and your brother, and remain static? Just "work harder" to make more income to pay the tax? I argue that he is going to find an alternative to earning an income, which will not involve taxation at the TMR. In short, this means his tax dollars in potential tax revenue are never realized.

In addition, much of his personal income, is the result of commerce he is somehow personally involved in, and they will suffer as well, if he is not going to earn an income. This is just plain common sense. It doesn't matter if his personal income is derived from investments or trading... the shift will be, from more risky, yet lucrative, capitalist business ventures, and related markets, to more secure and reliable tax-sheltered bonds. A corporate owner might cancel expansion plans, or lay off workers... Entertainers and Singers can just take a vacation... Entrepreneurs and dabblers, can go enjoy the Islands of the South Pacific for a while on the yacht... and we can watch the economy slowly spiral down the toilet.

We reduced the TMR from 39.6 to 36%, and produced a 13% increase in revenue, according to Prissy. When Reagan cut the TMR from 50 to 39, it produced a 30% increase in revenue. You can go back to 1911, and try to find an instance where we raised the TMR and produced more revenue, Clinton raised the TMR by .6% in 92..3? and it produced a $20 billion decrease in revenues. Furthermore, it created the economic conditions which many believe were the cause of the recession. When Bush dropped the TMR, revenues increased, just as they did when Kennedy dropped them from 70-50... Just as they did when Reagan dropped them from 50-39... Just as they always have. I would like to see them dropped to 30%, because I believe this would produce insane revenues. History bears this out.
 
-DIXIE: “In order for you to prove that reducing TMR's resulted in a loss, you can't show growth, it's the opposite of a loss. As I said, every time we've lowered the TMR, we've produced growth in revenues.”


Here we see Dixie CHANGING his argument, when the facts refuted his original argument. The argument originally wasn’t that, year to year, the federal revenue “grows”. It virtually ALWAYS grows year to year because of population growth and growth in the economy, regardless of tax policy:

Federal revenue for last 100 years:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf


No, Dixie’s original argument was the reducing the TMR was the best way of addressing a ”revenue problem/revenue shortfall”…see for yourself:


-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."


1) The actual data show that Bush’s cut in the TMR was the worst possible way to “answer” a problem/shortfall in revenue. (refer to Dixie's second comment above). The growth in revenue under bush neither pays for the tax cuts, nor increases revenue nearly enough to pay down debt or deficit. In fact, revenue growth under Bush has been the most anemic in modern history:

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan: 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf


2) Lastly, lets take one more look at Dixie’s assertion that bush’s cut to the TMR ”answers or solves a shortfall/problem in revenue”

Bush’s 2001 tax cuts provided 1.35 billion in tax cuts through 2010. His 2003 tax cuts added on top of that, another 350 billion in tax cuts through 2010: That’s $1.7 trillion in tax cuts through 2010

Bush’s OWN white house website projects that revenue will increase between 2001 and 2010 from 1.991 trillion to 2.878 Trillion. That equals an overall increase through 2010 of $887 billion in additional revenue over the decade - the same period of time the tax cuts are in effect.

So, Bush cut taxes by $1.7 Trillion, and revenue ONLY increases by $887 billion over the ten year cycle that the tax cuts are in effect.

In other words:
-Bush’s tax cuts = $1.7 trillion from 2001 through 2010
-Revenue increase: = only $887 billion from 2001 to 2010.

i.e., A revenue SHORTFALL of 813 billion dollars!. Not only does Bush's tax cut NOT "solve" a revenue problem/shortfall (as Dixie asserted)....it makes the problem WORSE!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


So,

1) The tax cuts “don’t pay for themselves.”
2) The tax cuts aren’t “the best way to solve a revenue problem/shortfall” as Dixie asserted. They actually make the problem WORSE! These are based on actual WHITE HOUSE numbers.
3) Bush’s tax policy creates the most anemic growth in revenue in modern history.



-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."
 
1) -DIXIE: “When Reagan cut the TMR from 50 to 39, it produced a 30% increase in revenue.

That’s 30% over the first six years of his adminstration, a period of time during which Reagan was wildly raising taxes to try to offset the revenue shortfalls resulting from his 1981 tax cuts…Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, etc....don‘t take my word for it:


Reagan and Taxes

Nation Review - The Nation's Leading Conservative Journal
By Bruce Bartlett, former Domestic Policy Advisor to President Reagan

… Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp.


2) -DIXIE: "Clinton raised the TMR by .6% in 92..3? and it produced a $20 billion decrease in revenues."

Please don’t lie. Clinton wasn’t even in office until 1993. His Economic Plan was passed in 1993, and revenues went up the following year in 1994 by 9%.. Which is a rate increase in one single year nearly as great as Bush has accomplished in six years in office (13% revenue growth 2001-2006). This data is from President Bush’s OWN white house website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

Even if we accept your lie that Clinton was in office in 1992 (he wasn't), the rate increase in revenue from 92 to 93 was still up 3%. There is no record of total revenue going DOWN from 92-93 or 93-94, which means you were lying.


3) -DIXIE: “I would like to see them dropped to 30%, because I believe this would produce insane revenues. History bears this out.”…

-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."

The actual data, from Bush’s OWN whitehouse webiste proves you wrong. Way wrong:

Bush cut taxes by $1.7 Trillion, and revenue ONLY increases by $887 billion over the ten year cycle that the tax cuts are in effect.

In other words:
-Bush’s tax cuts = $1.7 trillion from 2001 through 2010
-Revenue increase: = only $887 billion from 2001 to 2010.

i.e., A revenue SHORTFALL of 813 billion dollars!. Not only does Bush's tax cut NOT "solve" a revenue problem/shortfall (as Dixie asserted)....it makes the problem WORSE!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


3) -DIXIE: “I would like to the (TMR dropped) , because I believe this would produce insane revenues. History bears this out.”


Nope.

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan (had to raise taxes - some of largest tax increases in history - see National Review article above): 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...7/pdf/hist.pdf
 
Last edited:
It virtually ALWAYS grows year to year because of population growth and growth in the economy, regardless of tax policy...The actual data show that Bush’s cut in the TMR was the worst possible way to “answer” a problem/shortfall in revenue.

This is totally incorrect. When Bill Clinton raised the TMR from 39% to 39.6%, the total revenues, despite economic and population growth, decreased.

There are several key problems to the argument you are trying to form. First of all, you are trying to compare the Clinton economy with the Bush economy, and make determinations on tax rates, based on comparison of the overall growth in the revenues, which you also argue, are determinate upon population growth and economy. You are also trying to compare total tax revenues instead of revenues from the TMR taxpayers. Whenever I try to make the point about tax decrease causing an increase in revenue, you point to the same argument you used to prove Clinton's economy was better.

Look... It's really simple... you have all the official government data there in front of you... go look at it! Find the amount of revenues collected the years after a raise in the TMR, and compare them with the revenues collected from the TMR in the years preceding the raise, and see if I'm not telling you the truth! Whenever we have raised the TMR, we have produced less revenue from TMR taxpayers. Whenever we have lowered the TMR, we have produced more revenue from TMR taxpayers. Economics change, population grows, this is a constant that has absolutely no bearing on the argument, because it is present regardless of whether revenues were higher or lower. This is why it's pointless for you to continue pointing to percentage of growth under Clinton vs. Bush policy, because the economy changed and the population grew. What you should look at, is dollars collected in revenue from TMR taxpayers, as a percentage of the GDP. Consistently, they are higher when tax rates are lowered than when tax rates are increased.

If this were something that happened sometimes, or even most of the time, an argument might be made to contradict the principle, there might be some reasonable explanation, like the growth in the economy or population. That's not the case here, this is something that has happened historically, every time we've done it! Lower the TMR...Produce more revenue! Raise the TMR...Produce less revenue!

Your problem is, you're stuck in Liberal La-la-land, and do not want to entertain common sense. You are too busy scrounging up links to government documents, which you believe make your case. You're too busy gulping the koolaid from the left, to rationalize what is being said here, and hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong about something.

Step back away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, then go see if you can find the numbers on revenue from the TMR taxpayer, preceding and following TMR tax increases and cuts, and show us the results! Quit playing your cute little shell game with the numbers, and hoping no one notices what you're doing, we are all on to you!
 
Bush cut taxes by $1.7 Trillion, and revenue ONLY increases by $887 billion

Key word again... INCREASES!

He cut the tax rate, and INCREASED the revenue! You said it yourself, your own numbers show it and bear it out! This is historically what has happened since 1911, when the TMR was introduced. You simply can't claim that a small increase is no increase, but a loss. That flies in the face of reason and honesty. And I am even letting you get away with comparisons of total revenue, instead of comparing the revenues from the TMR taxpayer, which was even more significant in growth.

I stand behind the statement you keep reposting, until you can prove it wrong, which you've not done as of yet.
 
Also during a recession. At first there was a drop in revenue during the recession years, now there is an increase overall. This isn't magic, and it can't all be because of population increase. If revenues actually lowered because of a lower marginal tax rate, including when Kennedy lowered taxes, I'd agree but they don't.

Revenue is not where we need to focus, we need to focus on spending. I can't stress this enough. The spending is out of control, and it doesn't matter which party is in power... The best we have done was to project a surplus when Rs had the Congress and a D was in the President's office. It was all magic though stolen from the "Social Security Lockbox" (remember that term?)...
 
DIXIE: '"Key word again... INCREASES!He cut the tax rate, and INCREASED the revenue!"


Please stop dodging, and trying to lie your way out of your ORIGINAL ASSERTION: which was that tax cuts are "the best way" to solve revenue shortfalls, and that they produce "insane" revenues. Both points are false based on the White House's OWN budget numbers:


-DIXIE: “I would like to see them dropped to 30%, because I believe this would produce insane revenues. History bears this out.”…

1) Nope. Not “insane” at all. In fact, revenue increases due to Bush’s tax cuts are FAR from “insane”. They are anemic. And they make “the revenue problem WORSE (see point #2 below).

*Growth in revenue, first six years of President's term:

-LBJ: 44% growth in revenue
-Nixon: 33% growth
-Reagan (had to raise taxes - some of largest tax increases in history - see National Review article above): 30% growth
-Clinton: 27% growth
-GW Bush: 13% growth in revenue.


-DIXIE: "and IF we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would be, to DROP the TMR, not increase it! That would produce more revenue in taxes, as history has proven over and over again."

2) Bush cut taxes by $1.7 Trillion, and revenue ONLY increases by $887 billion over the ten year cycle that the tax cuts are in effect. (white house link already provided)

In other words:
-Bush’s tax cuts = $1.7 trillion from 2001 through 2010
-Revenue increase: = only $887 billion from 2001 to 2010.

i.e., A revenue SHORTFALL of 813 billion dollars!. Not only does Bush's tax cut NOT "solve" a revenue problem/shortfall (as Dixie asserted)....it makes the problem WORSE! (White House link already provided)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top