Tax cut dont increase revenue

[Bonestorm]

When have Democrats not called for tax increases? This is not a new position the party is taking in 2008.

2000?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is where we diverge. With Clinton you at least had an attempt to balance the budget and operate under pay-go rules. With the Republicans all bets are off. Further, the Republicans operate under the fiction that tax cuts increase revenues. With thinking like that you're never going to get anywhere ont eh deficit side of things.

True, we probably diverge a bit here. Because I understand that no President can create a bill or a budget without Congress. Budgets are created on an annual basis. The bulk of Clintons terms were with a Rep Congress. I admit freely that he did try hard to come in with an actual surplus and he damn near did it in 1999 and 2000. But he still failed (as did the Rep Congress).

As for the Reps since 2001... no question they have been a very fiscally irresponsible bunch.

 

[cawacko]

Now think about that for a minute?

Clinton reduced the Climb in his time.

I know you hate him but he at least held back the dam

He did it with a Repblican Congress that battled him every step of the way on spending. Of course many of the those same Republicans turned weak-kneed when Bush took office and let him spend to his hearts content.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'd also point out that once the budget was balances, the Republicans wanted a tax cut, not use any surplus to pay down the deficit. Maybe Al Gore's "lock box" idea wasn't a good one, but at least it made sense from a long-term perspective. Tax cuts are the Republican answer to everything.

and instead of paying down debt with the revenue surplus, Clinton and the Rep Congress simply found new ways to spend the money. Hence the deficits every year. Had they been fiscally responsible, they would have been the first since Ike to lower the nations debt fiscal year over year.

 

[Chapdog]

you guys are making my point.. why would u want to give these guys anymore money then what they get now? they have proven on both sides they will squander it.

 

[Bonestorm]

and instead of paying down debt with the revenue surplus, Clinton and the Rep Congress simply found new ways to spend the money. Hence the deficits every year. Had they been fiscally responsible, they would have been the first since Ike to lower the nations debt fiscal year over year.

Given the nature of interest calculations you know as well as I do that even with more revenues than expenditures it would take a whole hell of a lot of money to bring about a reduction in the debt in one fiscal year.

Clinton did have two budget years of "positive" revenue.

 

[evince]

He did it with a Repblican Congress that battled him every step of the way on spending. Of course many of the those same Republicans turned weak-kneed when Bush took office and let him spend to his hearts content.

The GAO and the CBO both agree that the 1993 budget reduction act signed into being without ONE single R vote get the majority of the credit for the surpluses of the 90s. Laffer gives the credit to Clinton for his polices why do you refuse to do so?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Given the nature of interest calculations you know as well as I do that even with more revenues than expenditures it would take a whole hell of a lot of money to bring about a reduction in the debt in one fiscal year.

Clinton did have two budget years of "positive" revenue.

Actually, he had 8 years of positive revenue. Unfortunately he outspent that revenue in all 8 years.... and no, not one fiscal year did he pay down the debt.

Side note, interest on the debt is included as an expense. Thus, it is most certainly included in the budget. All you have to do is not spend more than you make. Had Clinton and the Rep Congress eliminated just the pork projects in 2000, they would have been able to reduce the nations debt year over year. (They were only off by like $12billion or so)

 

[cawacko]

The GAO and the CBO both agree that the 1993 budget reduction act signed into being without ONE single R vote get the majority of the credit for the surpluses of the 90s. Laffer gives the credit to Clinton for his polices why do you refuse to do so?

Because it took more than just him to do it. Yes Clinton gets credit. The Republican Congress gets credit. And an incredible boom in the Silicon Valley gets credit as well.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The GAO and the CBO both agree that the 1993 budget reduction act signed into being without ONE single R vote get the majority of the credit for the surpluses of the 90s. Laffer gives the credit to Clinton for his polices why do you refuse to do so?

Nowhere does Laffer credit the 1993 tax increase for the surplusses. For the final time retard... the budget is created on an annual basis.

Second.... the GAO and CBO have been wrong consistently in their long term predictions.

Third, there were no REAL surplusses. They were simply projections and they were based on the premise that the economy would continue to flourish as it had in the late 90's. They did not take into account the tech/internet collapse, nor did they know about 9/11. The so called surplusses are nothing more than a spoon fed myth the politicians in DC fed to the sheep to justify increasing spending.

 

[evince]

Because it took more than just him to do it. Yes Clinton gets credit. The Republican Congress gets credit. And an incredible boom in the Silicon Valley gets credit as well.

Why would the R congress get crdit for something they FOUGHT and did not vote for?

Gore had to come in and cast a vote to break the tie the Rs fought it so hard.

That is when they told America that Clinton raised their taxes and screamed it would destroy the country. The fooled America and we had the Rs get elelcted the next time all becuse Fools fell for the sell.

Let me restate the fact that the 93ombra was passed without ONE SINGLE R VOTE. It is given the credit by the GAO and CBO as the majority reason for the surpluses.

Face facts you were had.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, he had 8 years of positive revenue. Unfortunately he outspent that revenue in all 8 years.... and no, not one fiscal year did he pay down the debt.

Side note, interest on the debt is included as an expense. Thus, it is most certainly included in the budget. All you have to do is not spend more than you make. Had Clinton and the Rep Congress eliminated just the pork projects in 2000, they would have been able to reduce the nations debt year over year. (They were only off by like $12billion or so)

I was looking at 1998-2000 (three years). In those years revenues outpaced outlays.

 

[evince]

Nowhere does Laffer credit the 1993 tax increase for the surplusses. For the final time retard... the budget is created on an annual basis.




Never said that assclown.

Second.... the GAO and CBO have been wrong consistently in their long term predictions.


This was an after the fact acessment.





Third, there were no REAL surplusses. They were simply projections and they were based on the premise that the economy would continue to flourish as it had in the late 90's. They did not take into account the tech/internet collapse, nor did they know about 9/11. The so called surplusses are nothing more than a spoon fed myth the politicians in DC fed to the sheep to justify increasing spending.

We just went through that ,keep up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why would the R congress get crdit for something they FOUGHT and did not vote for?

Gore had to come in and cast a vote to break the tie the Rs fought it so hard.

That is when they told America that Clinton raised their taxes and screamed it would destroy the country. The fooled America and we had the Rs get elelcted the next time all becuse Fools fell for the sell.

Let me restate the fact that the 93ombra was passed without ONE SINGLE R VOTE. It is given the credit by the GAO and CBO as the majority reason for the surpluses.

Face facts you were had.

Face the facts retard... no matter how many times you trot out that ignorant prediction by the GAO and CBO, it will not change the fact that it is incorrect. Or perhaps you can show how the 93 tax increase caused the tech and internet booms (that began long before 1993). Not to mention the boom in the economy as a whole (that began in 1982). Lets also not forget the simple little fact that there were NO ACTUAL SURPLUSSES. They predicted BUDGET numbers and they were WRONG.

 

[evince]

BTW Laffer doesnt agree with you

 

[Topspin]

dungshit you respond with an ultra liberal piece from the NYtimes. LOFL
your trying to be as dense as desh right.
Darla, I would never insult a gay person by comparing them to tightass SF.
I did call USC gay for not knowing who vick was.

 

[evince]

But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."


From the article

 

[Chapdog]

Why would the R congress get crdit for something they FOUGHT and did not vote for?

Gore had to come in and cast a vote to break the tie the Rs fought it so hard.

That is when they told America that Clinton raised their taxes and screamed it would destroy the country. The fooled America and we had the Rs get elelcted the next time all becuse Fools fell for the sell.

Let me restate the fact that the 93ombra was passed without ONE SINGLE R VOTE. It is given the credit by the GAO and CBO as the majority reason for the surpluses.

Face facts you were had.

broken record. we herd you. But regardless im not FOR dishing out more money to either side of a government that cant control there spending.

 

[Topspin]

your too stupid to see that while praising Clinton he's not the one saying Reagan's cuts didn't increase collections.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was looking at 1998-2000 (three years). In those years revenues outpaced outlays.

are you looking at calendar years or fiscal years?

If you look at calendar years, 1999 and 2000 show positive (I don't recall 1998 being positive, but will take your word for it).

Bottom line though, the fiscal year is the standard for measuring performance. It is the fiscal year that the annual budget is created for, not the calendar year.

Also, I believe they borrowed from the SS fund to get those numbers, but would have to go back and check to be certain.