S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Since you were wrong, does it matter?
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
BTW…this took about 3 seconds of googling. I didn’t read the whole thing because it doesn’t interest me much, but you might want to give it a read:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
J
jomoco
Guest
Can any of the pro-tea partiers here answer my question, rather than side step it, or change the subject?
Thanks,
jomoco
R
rlg94086
Guest
I was wrong about the spending on the wars at 1.26 Trillion versus the increase in debt more than 7 times that amount? That was my main point. As I said, it was lost in your diatribe about tax policy.
My follow-up to him regarding revenue increasing after the tax cuts was also true. I realize you prefer to win an argument about my extremely minor point where I said that increasing taxes does not necessarily increase revenue and decreasing taxes does not necessarily decrease revenue. By all means, you can feel victorious in winning a minor argument while completely ignoring the main points. You the man!
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Once again, I never said that the Clinton tax increases caused the economy to boom. What I said was when Clinton raised tax rates in 93 federal tax receipts went up. In 1993 when Clinton took office, federal receipts were $1,154.3 billion, and total receipts went up every year until 2001. So you won’t find evidence that raising tax rates causes revenue to go down in the Clinton years.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Actually that sentence is not the one that is wrong, it is the one after it that I have highlighted in bold.
You claim that tax increases often are followed by revenue losses, yet when pressed you cannot come up with any examples. You claim that tax decreases are followed by tax revenue increases, but you use data from the Bush tax cuts where you are clearly proven wrong. So it is not true that often it is the opposite.
J
jomoco
Guest
Tea partiers need no facts, historical precedent, or logic.
Or they would admit that it is historically true that prior to 03 America had invariably raised taxes during active shooting wars to pay for them, each and every one of them.
They(the tea party) are on the wrong side of fact based American history. Which is why they’ll lose this election, in my opinion.
Not that obama’s any better mind you, just a bit less worse, so far.
jomoco
Or they would admit that it is historically true that prior to 03 America had invariably raised taxes during active shooting wars to pay for them, each and every one of them.
They(the tea party) are on the wrong side of fact based American history. Which is why they’ll lose this election, in my opinion.
Not that obama’s any better mind you, just a bit less worse, so far.
jomoco
R
rlg94086
Guest
Actually, the delay in increased revenue on the Bush tax cuts doesn’t prove me wrong…especially since the revenues did increase after the 2nd cut in 2003. However, as I said, I will give you the win on the minor point. Yea, you! :clapping: :yeah_me: :bowdown2:
R
rlg94086
Guest
I admit it!!! Your moot point is correct. I would give you an award too, but I already gave one to stinkcat…maybe next time.
J
jomoco
Guest
Okay, we’re making progress.I admit it!!! Your moot point is correct. I would give you an award too, but I already gave one to stinkcat…maybe next time.
But my humble question remains unanswered.
What changed so suddenly in 03 to ignore both logic, and historical precedent?
Are we less in debt now, or then?
What has changed that makes the tea party mantra of lowering taxes and deregulating industries any more rational now than it was in 03?
We tried it, and our natnl debt has doubled?
Shall we stay this new neo-conservative tea party course, or return to what has worked for us historically during both rep and dem presidencies?
Which of the two has a successful record historically?
jomoco
S
SamH
Guest
I wasn’t aware it was worth addressing.
R
rlg94086
Guest
It’s not.
R
rlg94086
Guest
If the debt only increased 1.26 Trillion since 2001, you would have a point.Okay, we’re making progress.
But my humble question remains unanswered.
What changed so suddenly in 03 to ignore both logic, and historical precedent?
Are we less in debt now, or then?
What has changed that makes the tea party mantra of lowering taxes and deregulating industries any more rational now than it was in 03?
We tried it, and our natnl debt has doubled?
Shall we stay this new neo-conservative tea party course, or return to what has worked for us historically during both rep and dem presidencies?
Which of the two has a successful record historically?
jomoco
Our debt issue is not war-related. The increases due to Iraq and Afghanistan are less than 14% of the total increase in debt during that time.
J
jomoco
Guest
Then let’s put the pertinent question into more simplistic terms.If the debt only increased 1.26 Trillion since 2001, you would have a point.
Our debt issue is not war-related. The increases due to Iraq and Afghanistan are less than 14% of the total increase in debt during that time.
Has lowering taxes and deregulating industries ever been successfully used before in our history to win a war?
Has this tea party policy ever been successful anywhere, at any time, in any country?
jomoco
R
rlg94086
Guest
I don’t know. Personally, I just want to keep taxes where they are and cut spending.
The thread is actually about taxing wealthy more, so we’ve been pretty far off topic for a while. I don’t even think they have a Tea Party group in Europe.
S
SamH
Guest
Has raising taxes and heavily regulating industries ever been successfully used before in our history to win a war?
J
jomoco
Guest
Not at all my friend.I don’t know. Personally, I just want to keep taxes where they are and cut spending.
The thread is actually about taxing wealthy more, so we’ve been pretty far off topic for a while. I don’t even think they have a Tea Party group in Europe.
The very wealthy were taxed at up to 90% individually, and corps upwards of 52%, historically.
I know these are discomforting facts for tea partiers to digest, but they are historical facts nonetheless.
And deep down in their minds somewhere, I think most tea partiers knows these facts are true, and choose to ignore them.
jomoco
R
rlg94086
Guest
What is it with you and the Tea Partiers? Just because they hold a different view doesn’t mean they are “ignoring facts” and having difficulty “digesting” history. They may very well know history and have a different conclusion based on the facts.
Do you really think it would be a good idea for the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy and increase corporate taxes at this time? Seriously? As you can see in my signature, even Obama doesn’t agree with that…or at least he didn’t.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It seems to me that regardless whether this country has historically raised taxes in other (and far bigger) wars, that does not mean that would have somehow made a significant difference in the deficit in the case of the current ones, as the above would seem to indicate.If the debt only increased 1.26 Trillion since 2001, you would have a point.
Our debt issue is not war-related. The increases due to Iraq and Afghanistan are less than 14% of the total increase in debt during that time.
No matter what, though, the tax take, both from individuals and corporations, increased until 2008-2009. Since its peak in 2007, tax take has decreased just short of $400 billion, yet the spending has increased about $1.1 trillion. We ought to look at both, but it’s difficult to persuasively say that raising taxes on those earning more than $200,000 will fix the problem, since the big end of the gap is created by spending, and the Obama tax increases won’t come anywhere near filling the gap. If one stopped all wars immediately and taxed high earners as Obama wants to do, it still won’t.
And it has to be remembered that Obama is at least making noises about reducing taxes on some portion of the middle class as well.
With regard to both corporate income tax and individual income tax receipts, and in the absence of better correllative information, it would seem that the lack of income is a big part of the problem, not tax rates, because the tax take increased significantly even after the Bush cuts.
Why is there a lack of income? Well, consumer spending is blamed for much of it, but that isn’t terribly persuasive because consumer spending actually spiked upward in 2009, dropped like a stone in the same year and has returned to approximately the pre-recession range in the early 2000s since then. Consumer spending is not necessarily the end-all and be-all of economic wellbeing, precisely because some people do spend money, just as they did in the Depression. Unemployment is at 9.1 percent, which means that employment is at 90.9 percent. Some is undoubtedly demographic, since, after about age 55, people become net savers rather than net borrowers for spending, and that has been true for a very long time. As the baby boomer bulge goes into the older age categories, that was inevitable.
So, unemployment then? Well, it hasn’t changed much since it spiked upward shortly after Obama took office. Yes, corporations, large and small, are sitting on money they might otherwise spend. But why wouldn’t they? Nobody knows what his taxes will be after 2012. Nobody knows what his energy costs are going to be. Nobody knows what the regulatory environment will be. Nobody knows what interest rates are going to be. Nobody knows what his employee health insurance costs will be. All anybody in business can think is that none of those factors is going to be favorable under this administration. So why hire? Why expand?
But even if employment increased to the 2007 level, and tax receipts increased correspondingly, it still wouldn’t be enough to fill the gap, which would still be close to a trillion dollars. Spending has to be reduced, it seems to me, or we just don’t get out of the stagflation we’re in.
There is little chance of that happening, just as there is little chance of this administration reversing (convincingly) its threats to employment. The only solution seems to be a change in administration, and probably the senate as well.
Yes, the Republicans have disappointed in the past. We all know that. But never on a scale like this, and they do not threaten any of the adverse actions this administration threatens.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Unfortunately, I think that you are quite right. The idea of cutting spending and making government smaller doesn’t seem to have any appeal in Europe, left or right. People take to the streets to demand more from government, not less.I don’t know. Personally, I just want to keep taxes where they are and cut spending.
The thread is actually about taxing wealthy more, so we’ve been pretty far off topic for a while. I don’t even think they have a Tea Party group in Europe.
It is only American values that actually take pride in independence from any government largesse, that asks not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
And really, In America, it is only older Americans that drive such a movement. Young Americas follow the old hippies and look forward to their entitlements.
Someone should actually tell them that the money will be spent by about the time that the last baby-boomer smokes his last reefer, but that just does not seem to register with a generation that seems intent on killing the goose that lays the golden eggs so that they can harvest the motherlode right now.
- Status