• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems starting to panic

What you fail to understand is the CBO does have numbers, they do have history, they have formula, and can provide a real estimate, which they did, and which you have shown a total of zero evidence to contradict.

Have a good night :)

Seriously Redress. He's right, you're wrong, he doesn't need to prove anything other then his own inherent coolness. Besides, he can't hear you over the sound of how awesome he is. Don't bother trying to argue with he who refuses to accept anything but self proclaimed victory.
 
Seriously Redress. He's right, you're wrong, he doesn't need to prove anything other then his own inherent coolness. Besides, he can't hear you over the sound of how awesome he is. Don't bother trying to argue with he who refuses to accept anything but self proclaimed victory.

Moderator's Warning:
Don't do this. It is baiting.
 
What you fail to understand is the CBO does have numbers, they do have history, they have formula, and can provide a real estimate, which they did, and which you have shown a total of zero evidence to contradict.

Have a good night :)

So tell me how does a chart that shows numbers from 2001-2005 accuractly reflect the affects of the Bush tax rate cuts that went into effect in July 2003? Where in that chart does it show actual Tax revenue before and after the Bush tax cuts? Estimates do not trump actual numbers which the Treasury provides.
 
So tell me how does a chart that shows numbers from 2001-2005 accuractly reflect the affects of the Bush tax rate cuts that went into effect in July 2003? Where in that chart does it show actual Tax revenue before and after the Bush tax cuts? Estimates do not trump actual numbers which the Treasury provides.

None of that challenges in any way the charts validity. You keep saying stuff that does nothing to change anything. Do you dispute that it is possible to estimate the tax revenue lost from a tax cut?
 
None of that challenges in any way the charts validity. You keep saying stuff that does nothing to change anything. Do you dispute that it is possible to estimate the tax revenue lost from a tax cut?

It is possible to estimate anything but estimates are just that a prediction that may or may not come true. Most estimates are done mathematically and do not take into account individual behavior. $1000 in revenue at 10% tax rate is $100. $1000 at 9% tax rate = $90 and liberals say we lost $10 in tax revenue. Fact is that extra $10 went into the economy in some way and when combined with the other taxpayers that got a cut created greater demand and thus more taxpayers.


Actual facts show that govt. revenue was down in 2003 and afterwards the tax revenue went up, corporate, income, and excise taxes. How do you explain that?
 
It is possible to estimate anything but estimates are just that a prediction that may or may not come true. Most estimates are done mathematically and do not take into account individual behavior. $1000 in revenue at 10% tax rate is $100. $1000 at 9% tax rate = $90 and liberals say we lost $10 in tax revenue. Fact is that extra $10 went into the economy in some way and when combined with the other taxpayers that got a cut created greater demand and thus more taxpayers.


Actual facts show that govt. revenue was down in 2003 and afterwards the tax revenue went up, corporate, income, and excise taxes. How do you explain that?

revenue went up, but not to the previous level. in fact, the bush tax cuts did not "pay for themselves" as he claimed.
 
revenue went up, but not to the previous level. in fact, the bush tax cuts did not "pay for themselves" as he claimed.

Prove it using Treasury Numbers. I posted those numbers but you ignored them. Stop using basic math and ignoring human behavior. Jobs went up after the rate cuts thus new taxpayers were created. Stop buying what the liar in chief is telling you. Growing revenue isn't an expense. Tax cuts aren't an expense, the tax revenue is yours before you give it to the govt.
 
I have a question for you conservative. The cost of extending the tax cuts has been around $1.8 trillion give or take a few bill. No offsets mind you, just take the money and run.

If you happen to be among those with incomes above $450,000 per year, that would be around $60,000 apiece. If you make above $1 mill your running money comes to $150,000.

Hhmm…lets take a peek at what the middle-class, or what’s left of it gets to run with. Whoopee ,a bit over $1 grand, wow!! Where shall we spend all of this dough?:roll:

Now lets take a look at who gets hit the hardest (In conservative ville ) during the current bush-mini depression. Those making up to $450,000 per year had six plus years where they could stick $60 G in the ole mattress. Don’t imagine they will be gnawing on neckbones with their beans just yet. Those poor folk trying to make ends meet above the $1 mill mark?:shock: I guess they will have to scrape by with the ole Bentley for another year as well…. so sad.

Now tell me again how you happen to be so concerned with the budget; when you try to justify keeping this tax cut in place, in the worst recession since-your hero Hoover, the first trickledown hero? Tell me how you justify the interest cost alone that will be $3.9 trillion through 2018,if this these tax cuts stay in place? :confused:
 
Prove it using Treasury Numbers. I posted those numbers but you ignored them. Stop using basic math and ignoring human behavior. Jobs went up after the rate cuts thus new taxpayers were created. Stop buying what the liar in chief is telling you. Growing revenue isn't an expense. Tax cuts aren't an expense, the tax revenue is yours before you give it to the govt.


9-27-06tax-f1.jpg


Here, prove these CBO numbers wrong and not just that you don't like them.:2wave:
 
I have been dealing with people for 35 years, employed thousands so I believe I have a better understanding of human behavior than you and the facts support me. We aren't anywhere near the economic conditions of the Great Depression but we have a President that is doing his best to get us there. Keep supporting the empty suit in the WH and keep ignoring the money he is spending and the harm he is doing.

I asked a question of Donc and got a typical liberal leftwing answer, so how about you, first during the Great Depression how long did an unemployed worker get unemployment benefits. Get back to me when you figure that one out.

now tell me where the money comes from to pay for those benefits? As for knowing what everyone else needs, I do know that they don't need this and in part why jobs aren't going to be created.

ObamaCare

You and your ilk have been duped by this empty suit and compaigner in chief. He is making you look foolish and destroying the private sector.

This will be my last post of the day, night all.

Having a misconception for 35 years is not a positive. How long you've been doing something, especially if based on a misperception is not a strength.

As for unemployment benefits, during the grerat depression much of it was suffered without help. People were starving. Veterans camped out on the WH lawn. Baptist minister begged the government for more help as they could not handle the numbers of needy. So, your question really has no meaning here.
 
I have a question for you conservative. The cost of extending the tax cuts has been around $1.8 trillion give or take a few bill. No offsets mind you, just take the money and run.

If you happen to be among those with incomes above $450,000 per year, that would be around $60,000 apiece. If you make above $1 mill your running money comes to $150,000.

Hhmm…lets take a peek at what the middle-class, or what’s left of it gets to run with. Whoopee ,a bit over $1 grand, wow!! Where shall we spend all of this dough?:roll:

Now lets take a look at who gets hit the hardest (In conservative ville ) during the current bush-mini depression. Those making up to $450,000 per year had six plus years where they could stick $60 G in the ole mattress. Don’t imagine they will be gnawing on neckbones with their beans just yet. Those poor folk trying to make ends meet above the $1 mill mark?:shock: I guess they will have to scrape by with the ole Bentley for another year as well…. so sad.

Now tell me again how you happen to be so concerned with the budget; when you try to justify keeping this tax cut in place, in the worst recession since-your hero Hoover, the first trickledown hero? Tell me how you justify the interest cost alone that will be $3.9 trillion through 2018,if this these tax cuts stay in place? :confused:

I reject your statement that tax cuts are costs to the govt, since the rate cuts increased govt. revenue. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever believe that I would have to convince people that it is better keeping more of what you earn than giving it to the govt. to waste. Any tax rate cuts that grows revenue has a positive impact on the budget. People like you are just too brainwashed to get it.
 
9-27-06tax-f1.jpg


Here, prove these CBO numbers wrong and not just that you don't like them.:2wave:

I have proven that the numbers are wrong by giving you access to the checkbook of the United States. Apparently you can't read the numbers there. You and this economist need to get a room because he has you all screwed up. You are indeed a lost cause. Serves no purpose to give you actual numbers since you ignore them. I cannot seem to get you or anyone else to answer a very basic question, how did govt. revenue grow AFTER the tax rate cuts in July 2003?
 
Having a misconception for 35 years is not a positive. How long you've been doing something, especially if based on a misperception is not a strength.

As for unemployment benefits, during the grerat depression much of it was suffered without help. People were starving. Veterans camped out on the WH lawn. Baptist minister begged the government for more help as they could not handle the numbers of needy. So, your question really has no meaning here.

Exactly, most of it was done without help, now we have given people 99 months of unemployment benefts and that is about to be extended. How long should unemployed people be paid by the taxpayers? This isn't the great depression but "your" President is trying to get us there.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, most of it was done without help, now we have given people 99 months of unemployment benefts and that is about to be extended. How long should unemployed people be paid by the taxpayers? This isn't the great depression but "your" President is trying to get us there.

Better question: How much corporate welfare is enough for you guys???
 
Better question: How much corporate welfare is enough for you guys???

Define Corporate welfare? Do you realize, probably not, that it is money earned by corporations that is given back to corporations after it is sent to D.C.? didn't think so. The Federal Govt. doesn't send money to the corporations, they give tax credits off of revenue earned.

Why aren't you thanking President Obama for over 16 million unemployed Americans, 3 trillion added to the debt, higher taxes for all Americans, a stimulus plan that only stimulated debt, a healthcare plan that will do nothing to improve quality or access, and all those lies to the American people. Obviously educationally challenged liberals cheer Obama
 
Better question: How much corporate welfare is enough for you guys???

I really love how people for the bankrupt state of California tell others how wrong they are and how great Obama is. Absolutely amazing, you people cannot get your own state in order yet cheer someone who is trying to spread California misery equally to everyone else.
 
I have proven that the numbers are wrong by giving you access to the checkbook of the United States. Apparently you can't read the numbers there. You and this economist need to get a room because he has you all screwed up. You are indeed a lost cause. Serves no purpose to give you actual numbers since you ignore them. I cannot seem to get you or anyone else to answer a very basic question, how did govt. revenue grow AFTER the tax rate cuts in July 2003?

You have in no way, shape or form shown you know even remotely as much about the economy as the CBO. Constantly repeating things unrelated to the chart to prove it wrong is hysterical, but not effective. If you cannot refute the chart, just admit it. Saying that you have given numbers that don't disprove the chart is not disproving the chart.
 
You have in no way, shape or form shown you know even remotely as much about the economy as the CBO. Constantly repeating things unrelated to the chart to prove it wrong is hysterical, but not effective. If you cannot refute the chart, just admit it. Saying that you have given numbers that don't disprove the chart is not disproving the chart.

You are right, I have no interest in the chart but I do have interest in the checkbook of the United States. The question is why don't you? How do you explain that tax revenue increased every year AFTER the Bush tax cuts after going down the year before according to that Checkbook? The chart posted is irrelevant as it goes to 2005 and ignores 2006-2007 economic growth, job creation, and revenue growth. there is no data to support the information on that chart. Where did the information come from and have you verified it by going to actual non partisan sites?

it really is easy to accept information that you support as being true but very difficult to refute actual documented data from the U.S. Treasury. There is no way that tax cuts that grew revenue created deficits, that is totally and completely impossible.

Please provide me the link to the data that went into that chart that you are touting as accurate. I want to know where the information came from and if that information is accurate or simply projections which the CBO always creates.
 
Last edited:
You are right, I have no interest in the chart but I do have interest in the checkbook of the United States. The question is why don't you? How do you explain that tax revenue increased every year AFTER the Bush tax cuts after going down the year before according to that Checkbook? The chart posted is irrelevant as it goes to 2005 and ignores 2006-2007 economic growth, job creation, and revenue growth. there is no data to support the information on that chart. Where did the information come from and have you verified it by going to actual non partisan sites?

it really is easy to accept information that you support as being true but very difficult to refute actual documented data from the U.S. Treasury. There is no way that tax cuts that grew revenue created deficits, that is totally and completely impossible.

The economy grows, almost every year. In fact, it's so rare that it doesn't that we give a period of 2 quarters in a row when the economy does not grow the name recession. When the economy grows, tax revenue most likely grows. What you are doing is assuming that the economy, doing what it almost always does, in this case only did it because of the Bush tax cuts. That is most likely false.

You still seem to that this shows the chart to be wrong, which means you have no clue what the rest of us are talking about, or no clue about economics and need to go back and take those civics courses you recommend for every one. You are digging yourself further and further into a hole, your arguments becoming almost a parody at this point.

You have failed to refute anything, and in fact, your arguments are so bad that it makes the chart look stronger and stronger the more you argue against it. You have failed in this thread to show even the least, tiny bit of knowledge about the topic of discussion. You have even failed with your initial premise here, since Dems are not panicking, and we have known for at least a year that we were going to lose seats this election, possibly alot of them. You have not shown a knowledge of politics or economics in this thread, and have said so much wrong, and defended it.
 
Redress;1058868583]The economy grows, almost every year. In fact, it's so rare that it doesn't that we give a period of 2 quarters in a row when the economy does not grow the name recession. When the economy grows, tax revenue most likely grows. What you are doing is assuming that the economy, doing what it almost always does, in this case only did it because of the Bush tax cuts. That is most likely false.

When GW Bush took office the country was in a recession, then we were hit with 9/11, tax revenue dropped in 2002-2003 according to the Treasury Dept. AFTER the tax cuts govt. revenue went back up. Why? What do you do when you get to keep more of your money? Never dreamed I would have to convince people it is better keeping more of what they earned vs sending it to D.C. to waste. Can't you do that yourself?

You still seem to that this shows the chart to be wrong, which means you have no clue what the rest of us are talking about, or no clue about economics and need to go back and take those civics courses you recommend for every one. You are digging yourself further and further into a hole, your arguments becoming almost a parody at this point.

I want to know where the data came from that went into that chart, predictions, projections, or actual data? I doubt seriously if you would ever accept a chart I posted without explaining where the data came from. This chart says it comes from the CBO. The CBO takes assumptions and directions from the Congress. There is no information to substantiate that claim other than an economists word for it. Want me to post economists that disagree about the tax cuts affect on the deficits? What makes yours more credible.

This chart says that tax cuts contributed significantly to the deficits and I asked you how that can be when the treasury shows revenue UP after the tax rate cuts of both Reagan and Bush.


You have failed to refute anything, and in fact, your arguments are so bad that it makes the chart look stronger and stronger the more you argue against it. You have failed in this thread to show even the least, tiny bit of knowledge about the topic of discussion. You have even failed with your initial premise here, since Dems are not panicking, and we have known for at least a year that we were going to lose seats this election, possibly alot of them. You have not shown a knowledge of politics or economics in this thread, and have said so much wrong, and defended it.

Actually the reality is nothing I say is ever going to change your mind. You are going to buy what you are told because of an inability to do your own research and verify the information provided. Your claims that I don't have the knowledge of politics or economics is an opinion that you have yet to back up or provide data to support. I posted data from BEA, BLS, and the U.S. Treasury. You counter with a chart that no one knows where the data came from. I think you are sorely mistaken as to which one of us lacks economics and political expertise.

The topic of this thread is Democrats starting to panic and I posted an article that substantiates that. It wasn't my claim although I did pile on with actual facts that you ignored. The truth of the matter is far too many are like you and want so badly for your empty suit to succeed implementing his socialist agenda when the reality is his poll numbers are dropping faster than your credibility. The majority in this country see the Obama lies and all his rhetoric contradicts what they see in the real world. They see the lies about inheriting a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from Bush, a lie about the stimulus plan keeping unemployment from exceeding 8%, they see almost 16 million unemployed Americans today which is much higher than it was even months after the stimulus was passed, they see 3 trillion added to the debt, they see an attempt to take over healthcare and a bill that will do nothing to improve the quality or quantity of healthcare, they see him weak on national security and this country less safe.

So, Redress, you can make all the wild claims that are normal from you about my lack of knowledge, education, or experience but all that does is put you in the same category as Obama, someone who has zero credibility.

Oh, by the way, I am sure that you will be getting a lot of back slapping and accolades for your post from the usual suspects here who also lack the ability to do their own research or even understanding basic economics and tying their own personal behavior into the current economy. I do welcome those individuals helping you find out where the data for that chart came from as well and how the CBO came up with the claim that 48% of the deficits were due to tax cuts?

The cheerleading and personal attacks will be forthcoming although I do thank you for reprimanding OC for the baiting attempt.
 
Last edited:
I really love how people for the bankrupt state of California tell others how wrong they are and how great Obama is. Absolutely amazing, you people cannot get your own state in order yet cheer someone who is trying to spread California misery equally to everyone else.

Feeling a touch defensive. Perhaps corporporations shouldn't be free to reap outrageous profits without paying back to the country that allowed them to do so. Just a thought...then again...you guys are all for giving everything to the corporations that they want. Kinda like those communities that give billionaire team owners free land, build stadiums for them, tax breaks, etc....for the "privilege" of allowing them to bring their team to town and make even more money without paying a dime to the community. I know your type.
 
Feeling a touch defensive. Perhaps corporporations shouldn't be free to reap outrageous profits without paying back to the country that allowed them to do so. Just a thought...then again...you guys are all for giving everything to the corporations that they want. Kinda like those communities that give billionaire team owners free land, build stadiums for them, tax breaks, etc....for the "privilege" of allowing them to bring their team to town and make even more money without paying a dime to the community. I know your type.

Your screen name is appropriate as apparently you do indeed live in Fantasyland. Who are you to tell anyone what an outrageous profit is? Maybe you ought to consider moving to China or the Soviet Union? Your hatred for corporations comes out of ignorance. About 50 million Americans work for corporations in this country according to the Census Bureau so are all those people evil? You seem to have a very poor grasp on economics matters and totally lack a basic understanding of free enterprise and capitalism. You don't even know your type let alone my type.

I want to thank Barack Obama for proving me right when I said he would be the most radical President in U.S. History. Jimmy Carter is standing up and cheering today as Obama has removed him as the worst President in U.S. History. Obama lies and you swoon all over him, says a lot about you.
 
Conservative:

Here is a nice chart(the temp in the URL scares me, so here is link to page: GDP Growth Rate)

dsg354_500_350.jpg


Notice that since 1947, GDP has grown in almost every single year. What that telsl us is that, most likely if you cut taxes, GDP will grow. Conversely, if you do not cut taxes, GDP will probably grow. SO saying that the GDP grew because taxes where cut is almost certainly inaccurate.
 
Conservative:

Here is a nice chart(the temp in the URL scares me, so here is link to page: GDP Growth Rate)

dsg354_500_350.jpg


Notice that since 1947, GDP has grown in almost every single year. What that telsl us is that, most likely if you cut taxes, GDP will grow. Conversely, if you do not cut taxes, GDP will probably grow. SO saying that the GDP grew because taxes where cut is almost certainly inaccurate.

the point was that the chart claimed that 48% of the deficits were caused by tax cuts and as has been proven govt. revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts and they doubled after the Reagan Tax cuts so how can tax cuts be a cause of deficits when revenue goes up? Why is it that you have a problem spending your own money, giving it to your chosen charities, and truly helping those that need it instead of sending it to the govt. to waste? I just don't get it.

You are now arguing two things, GDP growth and taxes. Do you know the four components of GDP and what percentage they contribute to the total? Figure it out and get back to me. Then and only then will you truly understand the affects of Tax cuts on GDP and thus job creation.
 
I have proven that the numbers are wrong by giving you access to the checkbook of the United States. Apparently you can't read the numbers there. You and this economist need to get a room because he has you all screwed up. You are indeed a lost cause. Serves no purpose to give you actual numbers since you ignore them. I cannot seem to get you or anyone else to answer a very basic question, how did govt. revenue grow AFTER the tax rate cuts in July 2003?

The only thing that have proved is your ability to stick your head in the sand and deny the truth. Now for your statement that Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D, the current President of the American Action Forum, and former director of the CBO needs to get a room because he has you all screwed up. “Better make that a big room, because in addition to being a former director of the CBO, he and 19 other economist make up the current “panel of advisers” of CBO.


I think I will address your lame a** assertion that when “REVENUE” grows somehow that must mean the economy is in good shape. Bernie Madeoff generated a lot of revenue but the house of cards came tumbling down. Just as the economy did with the bush tax cuts, plus a couple of wars.

Cutting taxes for the 1%, that control 90% of the wealth of a country, does not enhance an economy. Most of the time they cause a big friggin budget deficit that other countries buy, that my grandchildren will have to repay.

How in the hell can someone crow about a President that cuts taxes, while starting two wars, and has a GDP over eight years that the only one that had a lower in the last fifty years…was his father. Must be genetics eh? :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom