It's Time To Learn Why High Taxes Kill Us

[willum14pb]

And here's a great place to start the lesson that I've been explaining now since forever:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._revenues.html

October 16, 2008
Tax Rates vs. Tax Revenues
Erroll Ivery
When a politician says they're going to raise your taxes, what they really mean is they're going to raise tax rates. Lost on the minds of Democrats and Barack Obama is the fact that an increase in federal tax rates does not necessarily mean an increase in federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, history reveals just the opposite is true.

In 1961 when John F. Kennedy became President, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Kennedy lowered the top rate to 70%, and more revenue came into the federal treasury from the top wage earners than under the 91% rate. Why? For the same reason that more revenue is often raised at department stores sales than when merchandise is at the regular price. More people execute transactions more often, which increase revenue, even though items are being sold for less. When tax rates are lowered, more people execute transactions that generate tax revenue more often than execute them at higher tax rates. Why? At the lower tax rate, the transaction represents a better value to the taxpayer. They get to keep more income per tax generating transaction, but the increase in the number of transactions generates more revenue for the government. The goal of tax policy should be to generate more tax transactions and the way to do that is to have the equivalent of a tax sale!

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal tax rate was still 70%. Reagan lowered the top rate to 50%, and then to 28%, and at every reduction of the top marginal rate, revenues to the federal government from top wage earners increased!

Seven years after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, we still hear the phrase "Bush tax cuts for the rich" despite a 2005 joint IRS / Congressional Budget Office report revealing the top 5% of income earners saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income under the Bush tax rates than the Clinton tax rates. Yes, their share of income rose, but their share of taxes paid rose faster because of the attractiveness of executing tax-generating transactions at Bush's lower rates more often.

The Democrats desire to punish financial success as if it is always undeserved. Punishing success is more important than allowing more revenue to come to the federal government because of financial success. Democrats need scapegoats to make the enemy of the middle class through class warfare rhetoric. To admit that lower tax rates are a win-win situation for tax payers at every income level and for the government would eliminate the need for scapegoats to use to rally the middle class against the rich, and thus largely eliminate the need to vote for Democrat socialists.

The Democrats need to raise tax rates on the rich for political reasons, because economically it makes no sense if the goal is to increase revenues.

TRUTH.

[Alan®]

LOL you should go look at my thread and see what proverbial cat was let out of the bag tonight.

[willum14pb]

LOL you should go look at my thread and see what proverbial cat was let out of the bag tonight.

i saw

i dont understand how people support this guy..

[Alan®]

i saw

i dont understand how people support this guy..

I don't either. What Obama runs is merely propaganda and the mindless mainstream American voter is buying into it.

I had an epiphany this week and I think ultimately it comes down to this. The average American right now like McCain has been saying "is hurting and their mad and their frustrated". And so like the most of the rest of us do we look for someone to blame. Obama has essentially given them that person to blame: Anyone who runs a business, or makes any kind of good money is essentially to blame.They are the ones to blame for them struggling because they are evil, greedy people with absolutely no regard for those that they are employing.

And of course Tony, and Paul and whoever are going to come in here and say that I am full of complete and utter bullshit but you know what its the truth. I sat in my U.S. history class and was the ONLY person who thought that what Obama was proposing was complete bull shit. My history professor said 2 things to me.

1. That the sole purpose of taxes was to "Redistribute Wealth"
2. Why should I care about anyone who makes over $250K? That since I don't I should unite with him and the rest of my class mates and vote democrat until I make that kind of money .

He put up some stupid graph quite similar to this one

That is completely contradictory to everything that Obama has been saying. The one that my history professor put up said that according to OBAMA'S ADVISORS that anyone making between $237-$613K would see a 7K DECREASE in taxes. I called the bullshit flag and told me that I was wrong because what I was reading was acurate because it came from his advisors. IT was literally like talking to a brick wall. Even though he saw the debate the night before and heard for months about how Obama would be raising taxes on anyone over $250k. I asked him to prove Obama's claim that 98% of businesses don't make at least $250K and guess what? He couldn't prove it. Much like Obama hasn't proven it yet.

The simple fact of the matter is that people are struggling right now and they are looking for someone to blame and Obama has given it to them and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker without any concrete proof of facts or evidence to support his claim. And that is the only reason why Obama is going to win this election.

[willum14pb]

The simple fact of the matter is that people are struggling right now and they are looking for someone to blame and Obama has given it to them and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker without any concrete proof of facts or evidence to support his claim. And that is the only reason why Obama is going to win this election.

[ironchef]

Because they're followers, and braindead leaches of the mainstream media. Don't get me wrong because McCain isn't terribly much better, but say no to Obama!

[willum14pb]

Im just waiting for the liberals to arrive and say my cited source isn't reputable and tell me i don't do research. They think i just post these things without finding the factual evidence behind it first. lololol.

[Vteckidd]

what we need to really do is go to the FAIR TAX. That would eliminate all this arguing.

A recent survey done by Forbes, they asked 100 top CEOs of Japanese companies:

If the USA Went to the fair tax what would you do?

20% said they would move SOME of their operation to the US
80% said they would move their ENTIRE OPERATION TO THE US

why arent we really looking at doing it?

[willum14pb]

what we need to really do is go to the FAIR TAX. That would eliminate all this arguing.

A recent survey done by Forbes, they asked 100 top CEOs of Japanese companies:

If the USA Went to the fair tax what would you do?

20% said they would move SOME of their operation to the US
80% said they would move their ENTIRE OPERATION TO THE US

why arent we really looking at doing it?

[-S Double C-]

Cause we got a bunch of idiots running this country^^^END OF THREAD!

[ironchef]

I think theres 2 big issues with this election.

A) There is a proliferation of these "Joe Six Packs"; uneducated, retarded people going out and voting.
B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards as our only choices?

[Alan®]

B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards are our only choices?

LOL. Werd

[BanginJimmy]

B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards as our only choices?

Because no one that really is qualified and has the level of professionalism, honor, and integrity to run the country the correct way will ever put up with the constant slander from their opponent, the probing of their friends and family by the media, and all of the other BS that goes along with the job. Not to mention the paycut.


Do a realistic study of the increase in mudslinging campaigns and you will see a corresponding decrease in the quality of the canidates.

[TIGERJC]

circle jerk going on in here. I am not even going to agrue about it anymore, b/c I already voted 2-3 weeks ago

[stephen]

And here's a great place to start the lesson that I've been explaining now since forever:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._revenues.html



TRUTH.

i know you're expecting people to dis-credit your source or whatever...so i'll just dis-credit you with facts.

1. a lot of your right-wingers like to talk about "reaganomics" without even having a full understanding as to what REALLY happened. yes...reagan cut EVERYONE'S TAXES....but HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 6 TIMES. not to mention, the last time he raised taxes, he raised PAYROLL TAXES FOR CORPORATIONS...YES HE TAXED THE HARDWORKING BUSINESSES!

2. true, obama wants to tax the "wealthy," but the increase will be the same PERCENTAGE as it was under reagan and clinton...

3. let me explain, YET AGAIN, how the bush tax cuts effect the middle class more than the wealthy. the problem within the past 8yrs is wages haven't changed, government spending has increased, and lastly...INFLATION. people don't seem to understand that the cost of living is an INCREASING NUMBER. $1 won't get you what it used to get 8yrs ago...and we all know that. when someone makes $30k for 8yrs, how do you think that affects their savings? as the cost of living goes up (roughly 3% every year), that's less money they have to save...right? now take someone who makes $300k a year. they're able to maintain money for their savings, and they can also invest into hedge funds. hedge fund aren't affected by inflation. these same folks have more tax avoidance possiblities. this is why people say tax cuts benefit the "rich." it's not the fact that it "intentionally" leaves one group out...they just have MORE TO GAIN, while the lower income ppl still suffer THE SAME PROBLEM.

4. if decreasing taxes has BEEN SOOO GREAT, then how come under reagan we the country was in such severe debt, and the same under bush? not to mention, when reagan increased taxes on the wealthy (his final year in office), the government gained MORE REVENUE than under his INITIAL TAX CUT.

anyhow...you folks need to just go out and vote...get it all out of your system.

[willum14pb]

i know you're expecting people to dis-credit your source or whatever...so i'll just dis-credit you with facts.

1. a lot of your right-wingers like to talk about "reaganomics" without even having a full understanding as to what REALLY happened. yes...reagan cut EVERYONE'S TAXES....but HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 6 TIMES. not to mention, the last time he raised taxes, he raised PAYROLL TAXES FOR CORPORATIONS...YES HE TAXED THE HARDWORKING BUSINESSES!

2. true, obama wants to tax the "wealthy," but the increase will be the same PERCENTAGE as it was under reagan and clinton...

3. let me explain, YET AGAIN, how the bush tax cuts effect the middle class more than the wealthy. the problem within the past 8yrs is wages haven't changed, government spending has increased, and lastly...INFLATION. people don't seem to understand that the cost of living is an INCREASING NUMBER. $1 won't get you what it used to get 8yrs ago...and we all know that. when someone makes $30k for 8yrs, how do you think that affects their savings? as the cost of living goes up (roughly 3% every year), that's less money they have to save...right? now take someone who makes $300k a year. they're able to maintain money for their savings, and they can also invest into hedge funds. hedge fund aren't affected by inflation. these same folks have more tax avoidance possiblities. this is why people say tax cuts benefit the "rich." it's not the fact that it "intentionally" leaves one group out...they just have MORE TO GAIN, while the lower income ppl still suffer THE SAME PROBLEM.

4. if decreasing taxes has BEEN SOOO GREAT, then how come under reagan we the country was in such severe debt, and the same under bush? not to mention, when reagan increased taxes on the wealthy (his final year in office), the government gained MORE REVENUE than under his INITIAL TAX CUT.

anyhow...you folks need to just go out and vote...get it all out of your system.

I don't think I'm done with your flawed logic and incorrect statistics yet. Here's a snippet from a great article dissecting the criticism of supply side economics:

Federal tax revenue did in fact increase during the Reagan years, as no less a liberal authority than Media Matters acknowledged:

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only () from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...326130059.aspx



Hear that stephen? Someone's numbers are wrong. These numbers explain that even when adjusted for inflation, a tax cut in the top marginal rate from 70%, to 50%...to 28%..."only" resulted in an increase from 1.077 trillion to 1.236 trillion dollars! Only! How did an increase in tax revenues take place by cutting taxes 66%? Hm? I've explained that clearly already.

Your "facts" attempt to claim that tax revenues shrunk in constant dollars during Reagan's term. I just showed you evidence that your numbers are incorrect. Where is your link citing the source of your numbers/facts?

Mine are from the Office of Management and Budget through the Heritage Foundation.

Some facts, and perhaps the reason your source was able to fool you (was it taking these numbers as a whole of GDP?):

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.


HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 <---bad, and a consequence of Democrats attempting to laden Reagan's tax cut bill with enough Pork to get Reagan to veto his own bill. That was during the argument over Line Item Veto, an argument broached over this very issue. Reagan understood - as I do, and you don't - that lowering taxes creates enough economic vitality to pay for nearly anything.

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 <---again bad, and Democrats are to blame. Imagine our growth had spending not been so insane!


Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)

That should put this issue to rest for you. You have fallen victim to a liberal economist fucking with the numbers to attempt to besmirch the sound concepts within supply side economics.

[stephen]

I don't think I'm done with your flawed logic and incorrect statistics yet. Here's a snippet from a great article dissecting the criticism of supply side economics:

Federal tax revenue did in fact increase during the Reagan years, as no less a liberal authority than Media Matters acknowledged:

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only () from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...326130059.aspx



Hear that stephen? Someone's numbers are wrong. These numbers explain that even when adjusted for inflation, a tax cut in the top marginal rate from 70%, to 50%...to 28%..."only" resulted in an increase from 1.077 trillion to 1.236 trillion dollars! Only! How did an increase in tax revenues take place by cutting taxes 66%? Hm? I've explained that clearly already.

Your "facts" attempt to claim that tax revenues shrunk in constant dollars during Reagan's term. I just showed you evidence that your numbers are incorrect. Where is your link citing the source of your numbers/facts?

Mine are from the Office of Management and Budget through the Heritage Foundation.

Some facts, and perhaps the reason your source was able to fool you (was it taking these numbers as a whole of GDP?):



That should put this issue to rest for you. You have fallen victim to a liberal economist fucking with the numbers to attempt to besmirch the sound concepts within supply side economics.

you and your blog sites are still only telling HALF THE STORY. here, maybe i'll put it a little more clear for you:

REAGAN INCREASED TAXES SIX TIMES, INCLUDING TAXING PAYROLL FOR CORPORATIONS

want another blog site to prove it????
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

a few EXPLANATIONS of his tax increases:

TEFRA - tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 - United States federal legislation designed to increase tax revenues through a variety of means such as restrictions on the tax deductibility of certain investments, including some life insurance and pension products, and the elimination of distinctions in tax law applicable to partnerships and sole proprietorships.

THAT'S RIGHT...RESTRICT TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN INVESTMENTS...INCLUDING INCREASING TAXES ON SSSMMMAAALLLL BUSINESSES! ALSO THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE (DURING PEACE-TIME) IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

highway revenue act of 1982 - temporarily increased the United States gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents through September 30, 1988.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO YOU...

1983 - raised 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.

OH MY, THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE AN A$$-BACKWARDS WAY OF DOING WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO DO...AND ACCORDING TO YOUR "CHARTS" IT RAISED QUITE A BIT OF REVENUE

tax increase on DEFRA - the deficit reduction act of 1984 (also reformed again in 1986) - basically was an attempt to reduce "tax loopholes" and put caps on tax exempt private activity bonds.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - COBRA - yeah, you may have heard of COBRA...it's that ridiculously priced healthcare plan that you can get after you leave a job. while it's supposed to be beneficial...you pay your premiums and your employers premiums...not to mention, it's not tax deductible. IT GENERATES REVENUE FOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

omnibus buget reconciliation act of 1987 - also raised taxes YET AGAIN and is related to the COBRA plan.

so there you have it...REAGAN CUT TAXES TRUE...BUT HE GENERATED REVENUE BY INCREASING TAXES! if you an your fellow "bloggers" want some other sites to follow...let me know.

[willum14pb]

you and your blog sites are still only telling HALF THE STORY. here, maybe i'll put it a little more clear for you:

REAGAN INCREASED TAXES SIX TIMES, INCLUDING TAXING PAYROLL FOR CORPORATIONS

want another blog site to prove it????
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

a few EXPLANATIONS of his tax increases:

TEFRA - tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 - United States federal legislation designed to increase tax revenues through a variety of means such as restrictions on the tax deductibility of certain investments, including some life insurance and pension products, and the elimination of distinctions in tax law applicable to partnerships and sole proprietorships.

THAT'S RIGHT...RESTRICT TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN INVESTMENTS...INCLUDING INCREASING TAXES ON SSSMMMAAALLLL BUSINESSES! ALSO THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE (DURING PEACE-TIME) IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

highway revenue act of 1982 - temporarily increased the United States gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents through September 30, 1988.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO YOU...

1983 - raised 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.

OH MY, THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE AN A$$-BACKWARDS WAY OF DOING WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO DO...AND ACCORDING TO YOUR "CHARTS" IT RAISED QUITE A BIT OF REVENUE

tax increase on DEFRA - the deficit reduction act of 1984 (also reformed again in 1986) - basically was an attempt to reduce "tax loopholes" and put caps on tax exempt private activity bonds.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - COBRA - yeah, you may have heard of COBRA...it's that ridiculously priced healthcare plan that you can get after you leave a job. while it's supposed to be beneficial...you pay your premiums and your employers premiums...not to mention, it's not tax deductible. IT GENERATES REVENUE FOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

omnibus buget reconciliation act of 1987 - also raised taxes YET AGAIN and is related to the COBRA plan.

so there you have it...REAGAN CUT TAXES TRUE...BUT HE GENERATED REVENUE BY INCREASING TAXES! if you an your fellow "bloggers" want some other sites to follow...let me know.

Your link no workie:

1) None of those tax increases were instigated by Reagan. Not one. All were carry-ons by Democrats. Reagan wasn't working with a Republican Congress...remember? Reagan, in his negotiations with Congress, was promised spending cuts in return for the passage of these increases.

2) Cutting income tax rates 66% dwarfs those taxes.

3) My numbers are not from a blog. They are from Heritage.org, and the OMB.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993.

In short, the Dems in Congress promised the moon, and delivered what they always did.

Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions. But he didn't repudiate his efforts to get Reagan to raise taxes.

James Baker now realizes that you needn't raise taxes if you promote a healthy economy. Healthy economies generate plenty of revenue, even if the rates drop.

[stephen]

Your link no workie:

1) None of those tax increases were instigated by Reagan. Not one. All were carry-ons by Democrats. Reagan wasn't working with a Republican Congress...remember? Reagan, in his negotiations with Congress, was promised spending cuts in return for the passage of these increases.

2) Cutting income tax rates 66% dwarfs those taxes.

3) My numbers are not from a blog. They are from Heritage.org, and the OMB.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993.

In short, the Dems in Congress promised the moon, and delivered what they always did.

Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions. But he didn't repudiate his efforts to get Reagan to raise taxes.

James Baker now realizes that you needn't raise taxes if you promote a healthy economy. Healthy economies generate plenty of revenue, even if the rates drop.

lol, STOP READING BLOG SITES, THEY'RE TELLING YOU WRONG!!!! RESEARCH THE 97TH 98TH 99TH AND 100TH CONGRESS.

pulled from this link:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/his...s/partydiv.htm

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

since you want to point partisan fingers...note the year when reagan's congress was majority democrat...that's the 100th (87 - 89). now look at the chart that 1sicklex put up...do you see the last two red bars under reagan? notice how drastically the budget deficit dropped??? yeeeaaah...that'd be the years he picked up a democratic congress...

[blackshine007]

Ron Paul FTW!!!





























Wait, this isn't about Ron Paul. My bad (walks away shaking head)

[flak_monkey]

This thread contains too much semen.

[tony]

All I point to is this:

We've had tax cuts since Bush's term and look where we are now. If tax cuts work so well I think things wouldn't be as bad as they are.

wow, an argument in which I don't mention the candidate I support or oppose.. an anomaly as far as the Election Section goes.

[ironchef]

All I point to is this:

We've had tax cuts since Bush's term and look where we are now. If tax cuts work so well I think things wouldn't be as bad as they are.

wow, an argument in which I don't mention the candidate I support or oppose.. an anomaly as far as the Election Section goes.

Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.

[tony]

Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.

The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.

[ironchef]

The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.

The deficit increased under Bush not cause of tax cuts, but because of the retarded wasteful spending by Bush, particularly in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[willum14pb]

The deficit increased under Bush not cause of tax cuts, but because of the retarded wasteful spending by Bush, particularly in Iraq/Afghanistan.

it's funny, he fails to see the realism that during both terms of these presidents, there was war going on. IT's like he just throws out facts and replaces them with bias. The economy sucks cuz we lowered taxes!!! it has nothing to do with pork barrel spending and wasteful money on war efforts! YOu're right tony, we're 9 trillion+ in debt because we lowered taxes. LOL. Has NOTHING at ALL to do with spending trillions on the war.

[willum14pb]

The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.

that "boom" was due to the housing bubble, but after all the sub prime mortgages weren't getting paid and people's rates started adjusting everything went under, because banks/stock markets/government funded institutions all had their hand in things they shouldn't. Again, the tax cut had nothing to do with the decline of our economy. housing prices should go up with inflation, however, the exact opposite happened and everyone got too greedy. Failure to regulate these companies and it's obvious cause for the subsequent meltdown led to our shitty economy. That's been PROVEN. CNN/CNBC/FOX you name it, they all agree. It's irrefutable.

[ironchef]

that "boom" was due to the housing bubble, but after all the sub prime mortgages weren't getting paid and people's rates started adjusting everything went under, because banks/stock markets/government funded institutions all had their hand in things they shouldn't. Again, the tax cut had nothing to do with the decline of our economy. housing prices should go up with inflation, however, the exact opposite happened and everyone got too greedy. Failure to regulate these companies and it's obvious cause for the subsequent meltdown led to our shitty economy. That's been PROVEN. CNN/CNBC/FOX you name it, they all agree. It's irrefutable.

To add to that, theres no single party responsible for this mess. Everyone has an equal share of the blame, republicans, democrats, wall street, main street, you name it.

[willum14pb]

Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.

hahahaha, i was going to say it, but you beat me to it.

[1SICKLEX]

The problem is not tax revenue. The government collects TRILLIONS in Revenue.

The problem is SPENDING. The government has the fiscal policy of a 12 year old with an unlimited credit card.

We need to control spending.

[Alan®]

The problem is not tax revenue. The government collects TRILLIONS in Revenue.

The problem is SPENDING. The government has the fiscal policy of a 12 year old with an unlimited credit card.

We need to control spending.

Yea and obama will really control that

[1SICKLEX]

Yea and obama will really control that

Did Obama rape you or something? I am not claiming he will. I do believe he will do a better job than McCain and our current administrations blatant disregard to the Constitution and Fiscal Policy.

ANYONE can do better than the budget now. Bush's polices have America with the worst budget year for year and the highest deficit in history. McCain agrees with this freelance spending.

For instance the war in Iraq isn't even included in the budget.

You do realize the last time we had a balanced budget and surplus was under Bill Clinton. Do both parties credit, they WORKED TOGETHER to make it happen!!!

BUsh took a surplus and turned it into a fock America party.

[1SICKLEX]

There should be a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to have at least have a balanced budget if not a surplus.

Knowing both parties worked together in the 1990s and made it happen, I know we can do it.

The bums in office now have NO FISCAL POLICY!!

I'm not sure how anyone can argue with this graph. Its ridiculous.

[Vteckidd]

There should be a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to have at least have a balanced budget if not a surplus.

Knowing both parties worked together in the 1990s and made it happen, I know we can do it.

The bums in office now have NO FISCAL POLICY!!

I'm not sure how anyone can argue with this graph. Its ridiculous.

In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

[1SICKLEX]

In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

No I'm looking at it all. I am bi-partisan. You see Carter didn't create any mess. Like Obama he inherited it. From who? Lets see Nixon and his VP Spiro, the only President and VIce-President to resign. Then Ford became president and didn't fix a damn thing. Then Carter became president but America was too deep in doo doo for him to fix anything in 4 years. The FEd should NOT have raised interest rates under Carter, that was a huge mistake.

Its clear who spends money when they get in office there and its not all war. Reagan didn't have any major war. Oh, "Star Wars"

[stephen]

In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

saying that it's "fairness" because bush had to deal with 9-11 and iraq is stretching it a bit. 9-11...ok i understand, that's what caused our first recession, not clinton. iraq, well we've argued this for days, but it's pretty much a given that we don't need to stay there, and PERHAPS shouldn't have gone in the first place...should've done the job in afghanistan. clinton didn't cause our current situation either...it's our current piss poor government, WHICH INCLUDES BUSH. i mean he IS the president...it's his job to LEAD AND PROTECT us. to say that something that happened under his watch was not his fault either proves his complete lack of competence, or un-willingness to do his job right.

as far as economic growth is concerned (i hope you'll understand this a little better than the OP) under reagan, well...i've said it time and time again...yes he cut taxes, but he also increased taxes in all other areas by significant amounts to make-up for it.

reagan didn't spend money due to lack of jobs...come on man...majority of his spending came from his "cold war" fight. that's what gave us the surplus of jobs. you said it in another thread, that war increases jobs...right? that's also where he got crazy on spending.

[Vteckidd]

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

AHEM

[IndianStig]

good shit i see in this thread+reps to some of you

[Vteckidd]

HAHA if you think Carter was a great president, you got alot of convincing to do

[1SICKLEX]

HAHA if you think Carter was a great president, you got alot of convincing to do

I didn't say he was a great president. I said he inherited a mess, a complete and utter mess. The 1970s had the oil crisis, stagflation, NY almost went bankrupt and American confidence in the government was at an all time low following the Vietnam War, Watergate and Ford pardoning Nixon.

I agree he was not a strong president and maybe was too "good" to be president.