Reagan's Budget Director Opposes Extending Bush Tax Cuts
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
Winky
Well-Known Member
Blame Bush Tax Cuts? Oh please
Sad thing is, you actually believe that?
What facts from reality do you use to support
such an apparently false assumption?
Now who’s making crap up?
That is not unlike someone that is spending
more than they are making saying:
the reason I’m going further in debt
is that I’m not making enough money!
Rather than realizing they are spending more
than they are making.
I’m still waiting on the Obarry deficit numbers.
Go on I’ve seen you cut and paste with the best of them.
Sad thing is, you actually believe that?
What facts from reality do you use to support
such an apparently false assumption?
Now who’s making crap up?
That is not unlike someone that is spending
more than they are making saying:
the reason I’m going further in debt
is that I’m not making enough money!
Rather than realizing they are spending more
than they are making.
I’m still waiting on the Obarry deficit numbers.
Go on I’ve seen you cut and paste with the best of them.
Look into JFK, Reagan & Bush2.
Tax cuts raise revenue.
Congress failed to cut spending. Neither Bush, nor Clinton nor Obama had a hand in that. Pleaase, read the Constitution.
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions
I love this guy
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Deficits increased after Reagan tax cuts, as it did under Dubya. Under JFK it's harder to see because the Vietnam war costs were monetized (hidden).
Tax-cuts are not self-financing...that is, if you cut 20% of taxes, don't expect spending to increase to the point where it will cover the 20% loss. That just doesn't happen.
Read more here if you can stomach economic-talk
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20328.html
On one of this past Sunday's morning political talk shows, I heard a congressman say that the runaway federal government spending had to stop. Congressman, sir, although the spending continues to increase, the rate of growth in that spending has slowed enormously. In the 12 months ended May 2010, the accumulated spending by the federal government totaled $3.437 trillion, enough to keep the late Senator Dirksen spinning in his grave for near eternity. Although an admittedly high level, this 12-month accumulated total federal spending was only 2.6% higher than the 12-month accumulated total federal spending for May 2009 (see Chart 1).
This is quite a deceleration in growth from the 15.3% registered for the 12 months ended 2009 vs. 2008, near the trough of the last recession. Moreover, the 2.6% year-over-year growth in the 12-month accumulated total federal outlays in May 2010 is considerably lower than the 8.4% year-over-year growth in the 12-month accumulated total federal outlays in May 2006. Why do I mention May 2006? Because at that time, the congressman's political party controlled Congress and the White House. Congressman, heal thyself!
At the same time that the growth in federal outlays has slowed dramatically, the rate of contraction in federal revenues also has slowed dramatically. The year-over-year percent change in the 12-month accumulated federal revenues in May 2010 was minus 6.6%, a slower rate of contraction than the 13.6% contraction for May 2009 (see Chart 2).
Why the slowdown in that rate of growth in federal spending and the rate of contraction in federal revenues? The economic recovery, for one thing. As the economy started to grow again in the second half of 2009, the rate of growth in government transfer payments to households, such as unemployment insurance benefits, has slowed sharply (see Chart 3). Also, as the economic recovery has set in, corporate profits and, thus, corporate tax receipts have picked up (see Chart 4). Again on the spending side, there has not been a repeat of the $500 billion+ in TARP expenditures in 2008.
On one of this past Sunday's morning political talk shows, I heard a congressman say that the runaway federal government spending had to stop. Congressman, sir, although the spending continues to increase, the rate of growth in that spending has slowed enormously. In the 12 months ended May 2010, the accumulated spending by the federal government totaled $3.437 trillion, enough to keep the late Senator Dirksen spinning in his grave for near eternity. Although an admittedly high level, this 12-month accumulated total federal spending was only 2.6% higher than the 12-month accumulated total federal spending for May 2009 (see Chart 1).
This is quite a deceleration in growth from the 15.3% registered for the 12 months ended 2009 vs. 2008, near the trough of the last recession. Moreover, the 2.6% year-over-year growth in the 12-month accumulated total federal outlays in May 2010 is considerably lower than the 8.4% year-over-year growth in the 12-month accumulated total federal outlays in May 2006. Why do I mention May 2006? Because at that time, the congressman's political party controlled Congress and the White House. Congressman, heal thyself!
At the same time that the growth in federal outlays has slowed dramatically, the rate of contraction in federal revenues also has slowed dramatically. The year-over-year percent change in the 12-month accumulated federal revenues in May 2010 was minus 6.6%, a slower rate of contraction than the 13.6% contraction for May 2009 (see Chart 2).
Why the slowdown in that rate of growth in federal spending and the rate of contraction in federal revenues? The economic recovery, for one thing. As the economy started to grow again in the second half of 2009, the rate of growth in government transfer payments to households, such as unemployment insurance benefits, has slowed sharply (see Chart 3). Also, as the economic recovery has set in, corporate profits and, thus, corporate tax receipts have picked up (see Chart 4). Again on the spending side, there has not been a repeat of the $500 billion+ in TARP expenditures in 2008.
spike
New Member
That's pretty funny.
Do you know though that there's actually people out there that believe that even though facts to the contrary are so easy to find?
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
I-, I-......
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
So let me get this straight, you want me to refute your very reliable chart from Ezra Kleins Blog?
How about this
You mean Ezra Klein that founded the Journ-O-list?
How about this
Fucking RATS, Spikes short list for news and commentary.
THE VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY.
You mean Ezra Klein that founded the Journ-O-list?
spike
New Member
Sure, give it a shot. Or the the other graphs.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Well your blog graph by the lefty conspirator was created by Ezra Klein on his PC with blind leftist faith
As for your other graph. When you confiscate 100K from an employer who produces he will have to unemploy people to pay his taxes. More unemployed people and less production makes for less taxes and more public burden.
The fact is people who move large sums of money pay much more in other taxes than you ever will.
I'm not surprised you are fooled by partisan hacks and liars. You my friend are a tool of propaganda in perfect form.
As for your other graph. When you confiscate 100K from an employer who produces he will have to unemploy people to pay his taxes. More unemployed people and less production makes for less taxes and more public burden.
The fact is people who move large sums of money pay much more in other taxes than you ever will.
I'm not surprised you are fooled by partisan hacks and liars. You my friend are a tool of propaganda in perfect form.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
You would have to be capable of intelligent thought for that to happen. And you're not.
You are a die hard commie, you'll support Obama and the commie agenda despite the destruction of our great nation. -- Why do you suppose the majority of Americans have no faith in Obama and his commie/fascist/subversive administration?
You're a well trained tool at best.
