Tax cut dont increase revenue

bravo said:
President Ronald Reagan signed tax cuts into law and while it took some time, these tax cuts arguably stimulated a doubling in total tax revenues (from five hundred billion to one trillion dollars).[2] Don Lambro of the Washington Times credits the Reagan tax cuts with the eventual surpluses of the 1990s

Tax cuts increase revenue?
Tax cuts pay for themselves?

Two entirely different things.....
one has nothing to do with the other...
Click to expand...

Folks, finally I might have found another mensa? We have a winner, sorry no, cake is not the prize Beefy?

That is 100% correctamondo, Ronal Reagan was responsible for the economic boon of the 90's, and it was LBJ's economic policies that were responsible for the recession of 1991, while Bush I was President. Further moore, it was Clinton who is responsible for the bad economy under Bush II, this time it's personal MoFu, and just wait when the Bush II, this time it's personal MoFu economy finally kicks in sometime in 2010 a Democrat will be President and try and take credit?
 
wow desh is near retarded, but funny.
Who could make this shit up. Clinton didn't overspend as bad as Reagan so he cut the debt. Lofl
 
Topspin said:
wow desh is near retarded, but funny.
Who could make this shit up. Clinton didn't overspend as bad as Reagan so he cut the debt. Lofl
Click to expand...

Spinner where have you been, I told you that you have been appointed as my manfriday and general stepinfetch it, and I have not seen you since? Let me put this in words you might understand...when RJS speaks, people listen?
 
its your education or lack of that's uncomforable. But I do think you deserve a cookie for realizing at 67 that your a person. Good job gramps.
 
The right-wingers are misrepresenting the budget/debt situation. There WERE budget surpluses. That does NOT mean that spending didn't eventually exceed budgeted amounts. There is a such a thing as SUPPLEMENTAL spending, you know, the thing the Bush Admin has used, year-in-year-out, to try to keep a few hundred billion off their HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of deficit spending every year.

By the way, if you think 2000 didn't have a budget surplus, then you need to remove EVERY DAMNED member of Congress who was active in 2001, as said surplus was given as the reason why we got a so-called "tax-rebate" (which was a fucking fraud, as no one actually got a rebate).

I have to wonder if any of you are even old enough to remember said activity. if you are, you don't seem to have a fucking clue as to what transpired.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
The right-wingers are misrepresenting the budget/debt situation. There WERE budget surpluses. That does NOT mean that spending didn't eventually exceed budgeted amounts. There is a such a thing as SUPPLEMENTAL spending, you know, the thing the Bush Admin has used, year-in-year-out, to try to keep a few hundred billion off their HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of deficit spending every year.

By the way, if you think 2000 didn't have a budget surplus, then you need to remove EVERY DAMNED member of Congress who was active in 2001, as said surplus was given as the reason why we got a so-called "tax-rebate" (which was a fucking fraud, as no one actually got a rebate).

I have to wonder if any of you are even old enough to remember said activity. if you are, you don't seem to have a fucking clue as to what transpired.
Click to expand...

So its "right-wingers" fault that people believe those in Congress claiming a surplus? Bush and Gore were both claiming surpluses in their run for President and wanted to both have tax cuts and new spending with the supposive surplus. Good hype AC.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
The right-wingers are misrepresenting the budget/debt situation. There WERE budget surpluses. That does NOT mean that spending didn't eventually exceed budgeted amounts. There is a such a thing as SUPPLEMENTAL spending, you know, the thing the Bush Admin has used, year-in-year-out, to try to keep a few hundred billion off their HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of deficit spending every year.

By the way, if you think 2000 didn't have a budget surplus, then you need to remove EVERY DAMNED member of Congress who was active in 2001, as said surplus was given as the reason why we got a so-called "tax-rebate" (which was a fucking fraud, as no one actually got a rebate).

I have to wonder if any of you are even old enough to remember said activity. if you are, you don't seem to have a fucking clue as to what transpired.
Click to expand...

So its just a euphamism for underestimated budget?
 
Desh said:
Heres the deal Clinton did not run up the credit card Reagan did and there was substancial debt ( off budget ) that they had no control over. They kept the increase from beig as big as it would have been.

If he had continued Reagan methods the debt would have been higher at the end of his term.

This means he did pay some of it down.
Click to expand...

No Desh. He did not pay down debt. The national debt under Clinton INCREASED by 1.6 trillion dollars. Coincidentally, the same amount it increased under Reagan. Saying that the debt "could have been bigger" is idiotic, because of course it "could have been bigger" just as it also "could have been smaller". That is why we look at ACTUAL numbers.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
The right-wingers are misrepresenting the budget/debt situation. There WERE budget surpluses. That does NOT mean that spending didn't eventually exceed budgeted amounts. There is a such a thing as SUPPLEMENTAL spending, you know, the thing the Bush Admin has used, year-in-year-out, to try to keep a few hundred billion off their HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of deficit spending every year.

By the way, if you think 2000 didn't have a budget surplus, then you need to remove EVERY DAMNED member of Congress who was active in 2001, as said surplus was given as the reason why we got a so-called "tax-rebate" (which was a fucking fraud, as no one actually got a rebate).

I have to wonder if any of you are even old enough to remember said activity. if you are, you don't seem to have a fucking clue as to what transpired.
Click to expand...

Who? Damo? Myself?

Neither of us have said there weren't BUDGET surplusses. We are simply trying to tell you that a BUDGET number does not necessarily reflect what ACTUALLY happened.

That said, you are correct in stating that the idiots (in both parties) in DC used these trumped up budget surplusses to justify their pet spending projects. (including the tax cuts)

Bottom line though.... anyone can create a budget that shows a surplus and looks just spiffy.... it is sticking to the budget that is the hard part....and the one that the politicians have been unable to do for over 40 years.
 
Superfreak said:
Who? Damo? Myself?

Neither of us have said there weren't BUDGET surplusses. We are simply trying to tell you that a BUDGET number does not necessarily reflect what ACTUALLY happened.

That said, you are correct in stating that the idiots (in both parties) in DC used these trumped up budget surplusses to justify their pet spending projects. (including the tax cuts)

Bottom line though.... anyone can create a budget that shows a surplus and looks just spiffy.... it is sticking to the budget that is the hard part....and the one that the politicians have been unable to do for over 40 years.
Click to expand...



My understanding is that the only problem with the surpluses from a deficit reduction perspective is that the interest on the deficit increased more than the amount of the budget surpluses. That is, there was a budget surplus of X but the interest on the debt increased at X + Y. Hence, you have a budget surplus for a few fiscal years (98-00) but a net gain in debt.

No?
 
what i remember vividly is the first surplus of something like 40B in 98 and both sides of government trying to figure out how to spend this winfall..

Republicans wanted tax cuts
Dems said they wanted to save social security

But instead they blew it on other shit.
 
Chapdog said:
what i remember vividly is the first surplus of something like 40B in 98 and both sides of government trying to figure out how to spend this winfall..

Republicans wanted tax cuts
Dems said they wanted to save social security

But instead they blew it on other shit.
Click to expand...


The Republicans got their wish with the Bush tax cuts.
 
Dungheap said:
My understanding is that the only problem with the surpluses from a deficit reduction perspective is that the interest on the deficit increased more than the amount of the budget surpluses. That is, there was a budget surplus of X but the interest on the debt increased at X + Y. Hence, you have a budget surplus for a few fiscal years (98-00) but a net gain in debt.

No?
Click to expand...

That is one way to look at it. But in reality, you could take any one of the expenses and say that it was "expense x" that pushed them over the amount of budgeted surplusses.

Bottom line is that the total actual expenses exceeded the actual revenues.... hence, the debt increased.

Side note: the surplusses still reduced the DEFICIT. Had revenues not come in at the levels they did, then the DEBT would have been increased by a larger deficit. ie... in 2000 the debt would have increased by MORE than 18 billion.

I think it is the difference between debt and deficit that people are getting confused on.

The debt is the cummulative amount of money our government owes. It is changed each year by a deficit (increase in debt) or a surplus (a decrease in debt). The deficit/surplus is determined by the ACTUAL results... not the budgeted expectations.
 
Maybe no one is really confused and you just think they are?

It gives you a chance to use words like Cunt and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top