The US is insolvent !

Damocles said:
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?)...
Click to expand...

I've agreed with you and Beefy on this, we don't currently have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. My argument is, if we DID have a revenue problem, the answer would not be to RAISE taxes on the TMR, it would be, to LOWER them. I would not be opposed to lowering all the tax rates, and having a 30% top marginal... I think we would generate substantially more revenue... coupled with responsible budgeting, maybe we could pay down the debt?

Increasing the TMR will accomplish nothing good. The two immediate results will be, less revenues from TMR taxpayers, and less economic stimulation as a result of that. Again, as Damo says, it's not magic, this has happened over and over again in our history of taxation.

Prissy wants to play cute with the numbers, and try to compare rates of growth under Clinton and Bush, in apparent complete disregard for the 1996 tax reforms instituted by Clinton, or the difference in a robust economy with the dot com boom, compared to recession from the dot com bubble burst. He wants to say... look at the percentage of growth under Clinton, with a great economy, and Bush with a sucky economy, and how this proves higher tax on the TMR was the cause, when that is not the case at all. He will point to "anemic growth" and claim it's not growth, when it certainly IS growth, and during a time of enormous economic struggle, turmoil, and recession.

Diversion is the key element in Prissy's strategy... let's see if we can throw everyone off, by pointing to this economic factor, or that budget report. I've made a relatively simple statement here, and Damo has backed it up, as well as others. I am certain the Internet has the actual numbers of dollars paid by the TMR taxpayers, so that we can see whether I am telling the truth, and I am sure Prissy is able to find these numbers, but he is not going to post them here. He can't do that! It would blow his argument out of the water and prove me correct, and he just can't have that happen on his watch.
 
Damocles said:
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?)...
Click to expand...


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,

I just looked at the recession of 1973-74, 1981-82, and 1990-91. And there was no dropoff in revenue. Revenue went up, even during the recessions. Excpet for a tiny, one year drop from 1982-83.

There's nothing like the huge, multi-year drop in revenue experience under bush, who's revenue is just now climbing back barely above where revenue was when clinton left office. And even Bush's own projected revenue growth rate out through 2010, is the most anemic in 50 years.

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

Let's keep my statement intact, shall we? I stated that the best way to increase revenue is to decrease the TMR, which has historically produced more revenue. The worst way to increase revenue, is to raise the TMR, as this has consistently resulted in less revenue. The budget numbers show an increase in revenue following the Bush tax cuts, and you want to argue that this increase is not an increase. If the number is higher than before, you have an INCREASE, not a DECREASE. This is very simple and easy to understand, even for a brain-dead moron like Prissy, yet he keeps on trying to make an increase into a decrease, to prove his stupid point.

I want to see the total actual dollars paid in taxes by the TMR taxpayer, the year before and after a tax increase and cut were realized. This should be the most elementary and simple way to prove the point one way or another. Until I see those numbers posted, I can't accept Prissy's argument based on economies which have varying aspects, and percentage of growth rates under the various conditions of the economy. It's like showing me an onion and claiming it proves an orange is the same as an apple.
 
Cypress said:
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)
Click to expand...

I never said revenue doesn't ultimately go up, over the course of number of years. It always does regardless of tax policy. Revenue even WENT UP during some of our previous recessions....

I'm addressing your Lie, that Bush's tax cuts are the "answer" or solution to a revenue "problem/shortfall". And that they would produce "insane" revenues. These were your original assertions.


Bush tax cuts - even by the White Houses OWN projections through the year 2010 do NOT produce "insane" revenues. The actual data show they produce historically ANEMIC revenue growth, and that the revenue produced is LESS than the amount given in tax cuts

So your tax cuts make the revenue "problem" worse, and do NOT produce "insane revenue as you asserted and/or lied.
 
Last edited:
the facts are clearly on your side Cypress.... and Dixie can only counter with his bizarre form of class envy where he tells us how rich people invest from the safety of the poor white trash trailer park.

Merry Christmas, by the way!
 
maineman said:
the facts are clearly on your side Cypress.... and Dixie can only counter with his bizarre form of class envy where he tells us how rich people invest from the safety of the poor white trash trailer park.

Merry Christmas, by the way!
Click to expand...


the facts are clearly on your side Cypress....

Of course they are. I'm using Bush's OWN white house OMB budget projection numbers. Dixie's got nothing to counter that. All he can do is try to lie and spin his way out of his ORIGINAL assertions that: "Tax cuts SOLVE revenue shortfalls and problems, and produce INSANE revenues!"

And a merry christmas to you MM. And to you too Dixie.



-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."

Dixie Wrong on both counts, according to White House OMB projections and historical revenue numbers.
 
who's revenue is just now climbing back barely above where revenue was when clinton left office.

It is inherently impossible for this to occur, if your argument is correct and mine is incorrect. We have decreased the tax on TMR, and produced MORE revenue, not LESS. This actually proves my point, and refutes your own point. If you would post the total dollars in revenue from TMR taxpayers before and after Clinton raised the TMR, we would also see that the increase produced about a $20 billion shortfall in revenues from the TMR taxpayers. The overall revenues increased slightly, but this was due to other offsets in place, as well as the "retroactive" component to Clinton's policy. Why do you suppose Bill Clinton only chose to raise the TMR just over a half of a percentage point, and not a whole percent, or two, or three? It was because he knew and understood, raising the TMR, especially a dramatic raise, would create almost immediate shortfalls in revenue. He hoped to offset the relatively small shortfall of a .6% increase, with other tax revenues, mainly on business and the middle class. It choked the economy and caused a recession, in my opinion... but that's a different topic.

Go back and look at the economic prosperity generated by the Kennedy cuts in the TMR... Go back and look at the economic prosperity generated by the Reagan cuts in the TMR... It's very hard to argue that they didn't produce enormous results. Now look at the unprecedented economic pitfalls we've encountered the past 6 years, and have managed to maintain substantial economic growth and prosperity, following a reduction in the TMR... tell me that is just a coincidence! By all accounts, with all we've been through with 9/11, the total collapse of consumer confidence in corporate investment due to fraud, a recession, and two events which always cause uncertainty in the economic market, called wars... we should be in economic collapse by now, but we're not... in fact, our stock market is at a record high, consumer spending is at a record high, tax revenues are at a record high, every economic indicator is up and surpassing expectation, quarter after quarter of economic growth and prosperity... thus even MORE tax revenue!

The Bush tax cuts, mainly the reduction of the TMR from 39.6 to 36%, and redefining of TMR, has spurred tremendous economic activity and growth, as well as more tax revenue. Again, it's not a static thing, the economy. Everything plays a factor, including the influx of saved tax monies. Funny difference in what rich people do with their saved tax monies, and what middle class and poor people do.... rich people build new enterprise and create new jobs, more products, better ways to do things in the modern world... This creates even more tax revenues from the economic activity, so it's not a zero-sum gain. Not only do we reap the rewards of more tax revenue from the rich with a lower TMR, we allow them to generate the process by which we can also reap the rewards from economic prosperity of the masses.

Doing things like raising the TMR, is effectively taking action to stifle this economic growth potential. Not only will you realize a drop in revenue from the TMR taxpayer, you have also been detrimental to the process of capitalism, by which you collect other taxes. The result is less revenue and lack of economic growth, or stagnation. Again, history bears this out.
 
Your ORIGINAL argument was that Bush's tax cuts would "answer" or solve revenue shortfalls, and result in "insane" revenue growth.

Please don't try to spin your way out of those assertions:

-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 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


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


Bush has fucked up. The way he structured his tax policy resulted in anemic revenue growth.

If you want to argue about JFK's and RR tax cuts, that's another issue. On THIS issue (revenue from Bush's tax cuts) you were not only wrong, but you were WAY wrong.

JFK and RR were smarter than bush, and the way they handled their tax policies reflected this. In fact, Ron Reagan was one of the biggest tax increasers in history, once he realized that his 1981 tax cuts were causing huge revenue problems. I gave you the link to national review and Bruce Bartlett (Reagan's domestic policy advisor) that showed how, after 1981, Reagan massively raised taxes every year up until 1988.
 
Prissy, you continue to only want to look at revenue growth pecentage, and that is dependent on a number of factors, not just the amount of taxation. Are you too profoundly retarded to understand this? You are making an invalid analysis! You can't compare percentages of growth rate, because they are largely dependent on the economy of the time. The number you have to compare, is the actual dollars collected in TMR taxes, adjusted for inflation.

Unless your argument is, that keeping Clinton's 39.6% TMR would have prevented things like the economic catastrophe caused by 9/11, or the dot com bubble from bursting, you simply can't compare rates of growth for the two periods, and consider it a fair and impartial analysis. All the economic conditions and parameters were completely different, and were not static. Granted, it sounds lovely to an idiot pinhead who knows nothing about economics... it sounds brilliant to pinhead morons who just have it set in their minds that increasing the TMR is the answer to the problems, and common-sense-be-damned, they are going to do it whether republicans like it or not! But to someone who knows and understands economics, and economic principles, regardless of their political views, you sound like an economic idiot, who doesn't have the slightest clue how the economy produces tax revenue.

My viewpoint is called "Free-market economics" ...the concept that lowering taxes on TMR taxpayers, spurs economic growth and increases revenues. The alternative view is called "Keynesian Economics" which doesn't factor economic prosperity at all, is the polar opposite of Free-market Economics, and maintains you can raise taxes and pay the shortfall in revenue by running deficits if you have to, until government can regulate it. This policy fails because it doesn't allow the market to adjust, the government keeps everything regulated, and this stifles growth and prosperity, which also stifles the revenues. Both economic viewpoints understand, you can't raise the TMR without decreasing your revenues.

(Ref; Clinton raised the TMR, only a whopping .6% ....why?)

So, you are really out in left field all by yourself on this one, there is not a such thing as Idiot Economics, most people are either Free-marketers or Keynesians, and most economists understand, you can't raise the taxes on anything that isn't a necessity, and produce more of it. It never happens!

'Soak the greedy rich bastards', is a nice campaign strategy... people have been using it for CENTURIES! Unfortunately, it doesn't work in a capitalist free-market economy. It produces less tax revenue, and stifles growth in the real economy. It causes less jobs to be created and goods/services to be sold, and this produces even less revenue in the end.

Since the inception of the TMR, there have been like 8 times the rate has been raised or lowered, every time it has been raised, it has produced a decrease in revenue, except for once, where it managed to break even. It never produced more revenue. Every time it was lowered, it produced more revenues, and led to long sustained periods of economic growth and prosperity.

Those are the facts, go look them up! Taxing the rich more, does not produce more tax revenue, it never has. Lowering the taxation on the rich, seems to always spur economic activity.... hmmmmm? When people buy and sell things, guess what they have to charge and pay to the government on these transactions? ..........Geeee....duh... I dunno dix... whut? TAX!!!!
 
President Bush's Tax cuts that started in 2001 did NOTHING to generate greater tax revenues and all of the economists were BAFFLED by the fact that these tax cuts did NOT DO what they constantly boast....

Tax revenues are NOT greatly higher now because of these tax cuts...just ask the GAO or CBO.....

care
 
DIXIE: Prissy, you continue to only want to look at revenue growth pecentage, and that is dependent on a number of factors, not just the amount of taxation.

I’m only looking at the assertions YOU MADE: That Bush’s tax cuts would result in “insane” revenue growth, and that Bush’s tax cuts would “answer or solve” a revenue “problem/shortfall”.

Both assertions are FALSE, according to data from bush’s OWN white house. The amount he gave in tax cuts, is NOT made up, or paid for, from revenue growth, and the tax cuts do not create “insane” revenue growth. In fact, they are projected to result in the most ANEMIC revenue growth in the last 40 or 50 years.


1) -DIXIE: “I would like to see them dropped to 30%, 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.

*Growth in revenue for entire decade:

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

-2001-2010: A 45% growth in revenu 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



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


2) -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."


WRONG AGAIN. 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...7/pdf/hist.pdf




BTW: I've been providing post after post, based on official white house data. You've provided nothing but false assertions and ideology.


Where' your credible link that revenue dropped under the first year of Clinton, like you asserted. While you're searching for the link, keep in mind I have the ACTUAL federal revenue data, provided by the Bush white house.
 
Last edited:
Unless your argument is, that keeping Clinton's 39.6% TMR would have prevented things like the economic catastrophe caused by 9/11, or the dot com bubble from bursting, you simply can't compare rates of growth for the two periods, and consider it a fair and impartial analysis.


I took Bush's OWN revenue projections all the way out to the year 2010

Please tell me that in the year 2010, you're not STILL going to be blame 9/11 and the mild 2001 recession, for the failure of bush's tax cuts to produce "insane" revenues that will "solve" a revenue shortfall.
 
dixie: are you STILL standing by your false assertions that Bush's tax cuts produce "insane" revenue growth, and that his tax cuts will "solve" a revenue shortfall, when the White House's OWN revenue projection out to the year 2010, prove your assertions are false?

i.e., that his tax cuts actually worsen a revenue shortfall (the amount given in tax cuts, are NOT made up for in increased revenue), and that they will NOT produce "insane" revenue growth (they actually produce the most anemic revenue growth seen in half a century).
 
It is easy to make "claims" about what tax cuts have done since it cannot be proven one way or the other.
Hence my claim that tax cuts have kept meteorites from hitting my house are just as valid as Dixie's claims.
 
Tax revenues are NOT greatly higher now because of these tax cuts...just ask the GAO or CBO.....

Well... according to Prissy, they are 13% higher, and we have not raised the TMR, we've lowered it. So, either you are dillusional or stupid... which is it?
 
uscitizen said:
It is easy to make "claims" about what tax cuts have done since it cannot be proven one way or the other.
Hence my claim that tax cuts have kept meteorites from hitting my house are just as valid as Dixie's claims.
Click to expand...

Oh, it can be proven! Go find the published figures on what the TMR paid in taxes before and after a tax cut or hike. I am certain these numbers are a part of public record. It's easy to deny something you are not willing to admit, that's the deal here.
 
Dixie, yours is a faith based following. Think a little bit, I't wont be too strange of an experience....

Other factors are involved as well Dix.
 
Oh, it can be proven! Go find the published figures on what the TMR paid in taxes before and after a tax cut or hike. I am certain these numbers are a part of public record.

Indeed. I've been giving you the official government revenue statistics for the past 30 posts:

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

-Reagan cut the TMR in 1981: From 1981 to 1984, revenue growth was anemic.

-In 1983, 1984, and 1985, Reagan instituted some of the largest tax increase in history (link already provided)*, and revenue growth skyrocketed from 1984 to 1990.

-Clinton raise the TMR in 1993, and revenue growth skyrocketed from 1994 to 2000.

-Bush lowered the TMR in 2001, and revenue growth dramatically shrank for several years, and budget projections show overall anemic rate in revenue growth from 2001 out to 2010.


* Reagan and Taxes

in the National Review
by Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan Domestic Policy Advisor

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top