Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Incisor]

Let's just say for argument sake that your statement is true. Why are bankers and rich people stashing their money overseas in foreign banks?

Because they can.

LOL, just recently? Obama?

Yes. He's as much to blame on this...well, maybe not as much since he wants to tax those profits while Conservatives don't. In fact, we did a "re-patriation" holiday during Bush where corporations could bring their cash back into the US and pay a reduced tax on it. That didn't work, and ended up costing us more than it brought in.

Why are corporations doing that?

Greed. It's the same reason why corporations don't raise worker pay. Greed.

So does it make sense to let dollars leave the country because of high US taxes and regulations?

You're starting from the premise that US taxes are high and regulations are tough. They're not. While the tax rate may be 35%, very few, if any, businesses actually pay that rate. Most of the corporations that stash money overseas don't pay taxes at all.

Of course you choose to ignore what I am talking about, the reason corporations and individuals put their money overseas

The reason is greed. And if these US companies aren't going to bring their money back, then we should force them to by taxing it. Not sure why you think that's a problem. That money is just sitting outside our economy, doing nothing.

 

[Incisor]

What you see in Seattle is a cutting of hours to make the same amount of money as before the raise. You see what you want to see and ignore reality

You sure it's about cutting hours, or people voluntarily working fewer hours? Because if it's the latter, that's significant.

 

[Incisor]

Bush's tax cuts weren't fully implemented until July 2003

Right, and as Bush said in 2004, the housing market is the proof that his tax cut policies worked. Of course, we know that the housing market was really just a sham, and that Bush was issuing so many home loans because he needed to give the illusion the economy was growing when it wasn't.

they went' down in 2001 with the Clinton recession.

The 2001 recession didn't start until March of that year, two months into Bush's Presidency. Furthermore, growth for 2001 was still positive, even with 9/11 and the First Bush Recession. So the excuse you are using isn't one that flies, since the First Bush Recession only lasted for about 8 months. That doesn't account for the next three years of revenue below 2000 levels.

Reagan not once raised FIT taxes which grew 60% during his term.

True, but he raised taxes on everything else. And when Clinton raised taxes, FIT revenue grew by 76%. So which is more? 76% or 60%?

ou don't live in Kansas but are an expert on Kansas?

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, I'm just really well-informed. Because I read a lot.

You get your information from leftwing sites.

Such as? Please...all the links that I've been providing this whole time have been non-partisan or right-wing.

tell me what is it about 4.3% unemployment in Kansas that bothers you?

The fact that incomes are so low and aren't growing despite promises they would.

 

[Incisor]

Look, your problem is this is another subject you know nothing about, REAGAN CUT FIT THREE YEARS IN A ROW and FIT REVENUE GREW 60+%.

It grew 60% after 8 years. Clinton raised taxes once and FIT revenue grew 76% after 8 years. You keep screeching about Reagan cutting FIT taxes, but the rate of FIT revenue growth was below that of Clinton. Also, Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit, whereas Clinton produced a surplus.

BTW - Obama has grown FIT revenues by 67% while reducing the deficit also by 67%.

 

[Incisor]

AS for the recession dates, the 81 recession began in July 1981 and the Reagan tax cuts were passed in August.

If so, then that's even worse. Because for the next 18 months, the recession would get much worse wouldn't recover until the end of 1982. But that's because the fed lowered interest rates and Reagan raised taxes.

 

[Incisor]

Better take that up with Treasury, debt when Reagan left office was 2.6 trillion dollars on a 5.2 trillion dollar GDP

I'm taking it up with you. Ah, so that's 50%. And you're saying Reagan increased that to 52%. So he grew debt-to-GDP. Why are you arguing that's a good thing?

Obama's debt today is approaching 20 trillion dollars on an 18.2 trillion dollar GDP?

So what was debt-to-GDP when Obama took office vs. what is it today?

 

[Conservative]

Incisor;1066422644]Knowing now what we didn't know back then? No way.

You don't know what you don't know which is the true reality. you wouldn't spend 1.7 trillion to double GDP, create 17 million jobs and create a peace dividend plus grow FIT revenue 60+%? If Obama had those numbers you would be nominating him for Sainthood. Your ignorance of economics and data is staggering. Reagan took debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion. Obama took debt from 10.6 trillion to 19.5 trillion. I guess liberal economic numbers are different in your world.

I suppose this is progress, at least you're now finally admitting the loans responsible for the collapse were the ones issued during Bush's watch. However, there is a world of difference from creating a market for something, and then creating a bubble within that market. Clinton created the subprime lending market, yes. But Bush is the one who created a bubble within that market. Subprime loans are only bad loans when the borrower doesn't pay them back. During Clinton, 5-7% of borrowers couldn't pay back. During Bush, 20-23% couldn't pay back. Bush also issued, in 3 years, 75% of the number of subprimes issued in the 10 years prior. That is a bubble.

The bubble started in the 90's with the deregulations of the banks, there wouldn't have been a bubble to burst had not Clinton signed Glass-Steagall

Exactly. But certain consumers spend more than they save. The people at the bottom of the income ladder spend money as it comes in "living paycheck to paycheck", immediately putting their pay back into the consumer economy. The wealthy did not do that when we cut their taxes in 2001. They kept their money out of the consumer economy. So you have this theory, but it doesn't play out in the real world. Not for lack of trying, though. Kansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, New Jersey...they all cut taxes using the rationale that it will increase spending and it didn't. Instead, those states saw poor growth, poor wage growth, and poor employment growth compared to the national average, and to many of their neighboring "blue" states.

Wage increases increase business costs and prices, tax cuts do not!! How do you know what the wealthy do with their money and why do you care? Only a true socialist believes the govt. can provide strong economic results through robbing Peter to pay Paul. Amazing how you pick and choose leftwing data about red and blue states. The cost of living in red states vs. blue states is irrelevant to leftwing advocates

So you do want to cut Medicare and Social Security? For what purpose again?

Had the govt. not wasted SS and Medicare money there wouldn't be a problem today. Why did LBJ put SS and Medicare on budget and create the unified budget? You really have no understanding of the taxes most people pay

 

[Moderate Right]

So now you are quoting Whoopi Goldberg as your financial beacon. Classic.

You claim to know what track is the right track, yet you can't put your argument into sensible economic terms. Just admit that you don't know the first thing about economics, and get out of the way. You add nothing to the debates.

Obviously Whoopi is an idiot for her liberal beleifs but at least she got one thing right. You egotistically think that your track is the right track just because you bring up nonsense arguments that have been debunked over and over and not even your your party's nominee believes in endless deficit spending. In fact, you should be voting for Trump because his economic plan will increase the deficit more than Hillary's. Think of all that economic growth! We have debated this stuff over and over again and you use the same old arguments over and over again. The huge majority of the real experts, not you and me, debunk MMT.

 

[Conservative]

Incisor;1066422678]Because they can.

Of course they can, what is the incentive to do so?

Yes. He's as much to blame on this...well, maybe not as much since he wants to tax those profits while Conservatives don't. In fact, we did a "re-patriation" holiday during Bush where corporations could bring their cash back into the US and pay a reduced tax on it. That didn't work, and ended up costing us more than it brought in.

Again, higher taxes without addressing spending. is that the way you operate in real life?

Greed. It's the same reason why corporations don't raise worker pay. Greed.

Why don't you invest your money into a business to pay workers what you think they are worth? You just don't get it and pass along talking points from the left. There are many people not worth minimum wage, you never hired anyone so you wouldn't know that, just lacking more credibility

You're starting from the premise that US taxes are high and regulations are tough. They're not. While the tax rate may be 35%, very few, if any, businesses actually pay that rate. Most of the corporations that stash money overseas don't pay taxes at all.

What percentage of personal income should any individual be forced to pay in terms of Federal, state, and local taxes?? You run from this issue

The reason is greed. And if these US companies aren't going to bring their money back, then we should force them to by taxing it. Not sure why you think that's a problem. That money is just sitting outside our economy, doing nothing.

You focus on private sector greed that doesn't cost you a dime and ignore public greed which costs everyone in terms of taxes, waste, fraud, and abuse. Money sitting outside our country is a drop in the bucket, what is your plan to bring it back, higher taxes?

 

[Conservative]

You sure it's about cutting hours, or people voluntarily working fewer hours? Because if it's the latter, that's significant.

Why don't you do some research and find out

 

[Conservative]

Incisor;1066422716]Right, and as Bush said in 2004, the housing market is the proof that his tax cut policies worked. Of course, we know that the housing market was really just a sham, and that Bush was issuing so many home loans because he needed to give the illusion the economy was growing when it wasn't.

what does that have to do with the federal income tax revenue that you claimed regarding Bush? It is every President's goal to increase home ownership, what President would you vote for who said the opposite? It wasn't Bush that signed on the dotted line for loans that the people couldn't afford but it was the bubble created by Clinton that caused demand and prices to rise to record levels

The 2001 recession didn't start until March of that year, two months into Bush's Presidency. Furthermore, growth for 2001 was still positive, even with 9/11 and the First Bush Recession. So the excuse you are using isn't one that flies, since the First Bush Recession only lasted for about 8 months. That doesn't account for the next three years of revenue below 2000 levels.

yes, and what legislative agenda did Bush implement that caused the recession. NBER is a good friend of people interested in actual data stating that it can be argued that the recession began in November 2000 but it is easier blaming Bush who didn't get his plan passed until July for a March recession. partisans like you always do that. Did you figure out when the 81 recession actually started yet?

True, but he raised taxes on everything else. And when Clinton raised taxes, FIT revenue grew by 76%. So which is more? 76% or 60%?

I asked you a question, Reagan cut Federal Income Taxes three years in a row and increased Federal Income tax revenue over 60%, how did that happen?

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, I'm just really well-informed. Because I read a lot.

You need to expand your reading from leftwing websites to get actual data. how you coming on determining debt as a percentage of GDP for Reagan, Bush, and Obama since revenue is being compared to GDP?

Such as? Please...all the links that I've been providing this whole time have been non-partisan or right-wing.

Any site that says that Reagan increased FIT, that the recession of 81 started in November, that tax cuts are an expense to the federal govt, that tax cuts caused a revenue drop, that Debt as a percentage of GDP is better now than under Reagan or Bush, that the housing bubble started during the Bush term

The fact that incomes are so low and aren't growing despite promises they would.

4.3% of the people in Kansas are working and that seems to be a problem for you. I find it telling that someone like you has never run a business, never employed a person, never created one job knows what the value of an employee hired by others who have

 

[Incisor]

Why don't you do some research and find out

You're the one who entered it into this debate, so you should be able to cite this stuff with no effort. I notice you do that a lot...you make a wild claim that you don't support yourself, instead telling me I need to go and do your research for you. That's not how this discussion is going to work. If you can't bother to support what it is you're saying, then all you're doing on this board is masturbating.

 

[Conservative]

It grew 60% after 8 years. Clinton raised taxes once and FIT revenue grew 76% after 8 years. You keep screeching about Reagan cutting FIT taxes, but the rate of FIT revenue growth was below that of Clinton. Also, Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit, whereas Clinton produced a surplus.

BTW - Obama has grown FIT revenues by 67% while reducing the deficit also by 67%.

LOL, still won't answer the question, REAGAN Cut FIT Taxes, how did FIT REVENUE GROW?

Let's see, Clinton had a surplus according to you but the debt according to Treasury rose 1.4 trillion during his term. How did that happen with a surplus?

Let's see, Obama cuts the deficit by 67% and the debt doubles? How does that benefit the American taxpayers?

 

[Conservative]

If so, then that's even worse. Because for the next 18 months, the recession would get much worse wouldn't recover until the end of 1982. But that's because the fed lowered interest rates and Reagan raised taxes.

That is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984, isn't it, things were worse

 

[Conservative]

I'm taking it up with you. Ah, so that's 50%. And you're saying Reagan increased that to 52%. So he grew debt-to-GDP. Why are you arguing that's a good thing?




So what was debt-to-GDP when Obama took office vs. what is it today?

pointing out your hypocrisy claiming that revenue as a percentage of GDP justifies higher taxes when the reality is debt to GDP under Reagan justifies lower taxes. How did FIT revenue grow 60% with three years of FIT tax cuts? Come on, you can do it. It will only hurt for a moment

 

[Critter7r]

Isn't expanding a good thing? Expanding is another word for jobs.

Except you missed the #sarcasm ... businesses don't expand simply because they got a tax cut, there's has to be demand to drive them to expand. We've reached the end of the rope of expanding business to grow the economy. We need to focus on demand for a while.

 

[Conservative]

Except you missed the #sarcasm ... businesses don't expand simply because they got a tax cut, there's has to be demand to drive them to expand. We've reached the end of the rope of expanding business to grow the economy. We need to focus on demand for a while.

Tell me does having more money your paycheck change your economic activity? Tell me how Reagan cut FIT taxes three years in a row and grew FIT Revenue 60+% and created almost 17 million jobs?

 

[Incisor]

You don't know what you don't know which is the true reality. you wouldn't spend 1.7 trillion to double GDP, create 17 million jobs and create a peace dividend plus grow FIT revenue 60+%?

.

Growing FIT by 60% isn't something to celebrate. Clinton grew FIT by 76% and Obama's grown it by 67%. Both did so while reducing the deficits they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, and raised taxes. Oh, and Reagan tripled the debt, which doesn't seem to matter to you why? Also, Clinton created 21 million jobs vs. Reagan's 17. And he didn't have to expand deficits to do it.

Reagan took debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion.

Right, he tripled it. He tripled the debt. He also doubled the deficit by the end of his term from where he inherited it. Why doesn't that make it into your "analysis"?

Obama took debt from 10.6 trillion to 19.5 trillion

Which is growth of 84%. So Obama didn't double the debt like Bush the Dumber did, nor did he triple the debt like Reagan did.

The bubble started in the 90's with the deregulations of the banks, there wouldn't have been a bubble to burst had not Clinton signed Glass-Steagall

There was nothing in Glass-Steagall that forced banks to lower lending standards on subprimes starting in 2004. According to Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets, the cause of the Bush Recession was the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending through 2007". You are conflating creating a market with creating a bubble within that market. Yes, Clinton created the subprime market. I won't deny that. However, the subprime market during Clinton was steady and safe. Default rates on subprimes from 1993-2003 were between 5-7%. In that time, 1.1 million subprimes were issued (110,000 a year). From 2004-6, 800,000 subprimes were issued (266,666 subprimes a year) with default rates between 20-23%. So you mean to tell me that the bubble started before the number of subprimes issued per year more than doubled?

Wage increases increase business costs and prices

Incrementally they do, sure. However, wage increases also increase revenue. More revenue = more profit. And it increases the amount of tax revenue as well, further reducing deficits.

age increases increase business costs and prices, tax cuts do not!!

What tax cuts do is starve the Treasury of revenue which forces cuts to social programs, increasing the amount out-of-pocket the majority of consumers pay for things like health care and education.


How do you know what the wealthy do with their money and why do you care?

How do I know? Because I read. Why do I care? Because when the majority of consumers struggle, everyone struggles. I don't want people to struggle. So that's why I care. Also, I'm pretty pissed that we were sold trickle-down under the promise that if we did it, the wealthy would "trickle down" on the rest of us. They didn't. So screw them.

Only a true socialist believes the govt. can provide strong economic results through robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I don't think you understand what that expression actually means.

Had the govt. not wasted SS and Medicare money there wouldn't be a problem today.

Neither SS or Medicare is problematic. So I'm not sure why you're pretending it is. And don't you want to cut entitlement spending anyway?

 

[Incisor]

even your your party's nominee believes in endless deficit spending.

No, she definitely does not.

 

[Incisor]

Of course they can, what is the incentive to do so?

Greed. It's the same reason why they outsource American jobs to China. Greed.

Again, higher taxes without addressing spending.

What spending do you want to cut?? Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you're still going to run a deficit and you've taken government demand out of the economy and didn't replace it with anything. So if you want to cut spending, it's gotta come from Medicare, Social Security, or Defense. So which are you going to cut?

Why don't you invest your money into a business to pay workers what you think they are worth? You just don't get it and pass along talking points from the left. There are many people not worth minimum wage, you never hired anyone so you wouldn't know that, just lacking more credibility

Why are you trying to make this personal? I'll invest my money in whatever company I think will provide me with the best return on my investment. And you judging someone's worth is pretty ballsy from the comfort of the anonymity this message board provides. For all we know, you could just be a self-hating poor person with resentment issues who's on the government dole. I think anyone so ready to judge peoples' worth certainly has some insecurity issues of their own they're struggling with. It's obvious that it's a matter of projection and nothing more.

What percentage of personal income should any individual be forced to pay in terms of Federal, state, and local taxes?? You run from this issue

I've answered this question before. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean one wasn't given.

You focus on private sector greed that doesn't cost you a dime

Whoa. Yes, private sector greed costs everyone. Outsourcing is a great example of private sector greed costing American workers. And "public greed"? I don't know what that even means, nor do I care.

Money sitting outside our country is a drop in the bucket, what is your plan to bring it back, higher taxes?

12% of GDP is certainly not "a drop in the bucket". If they don't bring it back voluntarily, then I would raise their taxes until all that revenue was recouped.

 

[Conservative]

Incisor;1066423234]

You don't know what you don't know which is the true reality. you wouldn't spend 1.7 trillion to double GDP, create 17 million jobs and create a peace dividend plus grow FIT revenue 60+%?

.

Growing FIT by 60% isn't something to celebrate. Clinton grew FIT by 76% and Obama's grown it by 67%. Both did so while reducing the deficits they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, and raised taxes. Oh, and Reagan tripled the debt, which doesn't seem to matter to you why? Also, Clinton created 21 million jobs vs. Reagan's 17. And he didn't have to expand deficits to do it.

ONE MORE TIME, REAGAN CUT FIT TAXES THREE YEARS IN A ROW AND GREW FIT 60% HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?? Clinton raised taxes, lost the Congress something you don't understand. Liberal argument is that cutting taxes cuts revenue, that didn't happen with either Reagan or Bush, WHY!! Come you can do it

You really don' t understand civics and economics do you?

Right, he tripled it. He tripled the debt. He also doubled the deficit by the end of his term from where he inherited it. Why doesn't that make it into your "analysis"?

Yes he did, creating 17 million jobs, doubling GDP and creating a peace dividend. That is called return on investment, a manageable debt that was squandered

Which is growth of 84%. So Obama didn't double the debt like Bush the Dumber did, nor did he triple the debt like Reagan did.

So let's see, so tripling the debt, 1.7 trillion is much worse than increasing the debt 9 trillion dollars because it is a lower percentage? You really are something, really someone the left can be proud of but not anyone who takes pride in accuracy or honest reporting

There was nothing in Glass-Steagall that forced banks to lower lending standards on subprimes starting in 2004. According to Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets, the cause of the Bush Recession was the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending through 2007". You are conflating creating a market with creating a bubble within that market. Yes, Clinton created the subprime market. I won't deny that. However, the subprime market during Clinton was steady and safe. Default rates on subprimes from 1993-2003 were between 5-7%. In that time, 1.1 million subprimes were issued (110,000 a year). From 2004-6, 800,000 subprimes were issued (266,666 subprimes a year) with default rates between 20-23%. So you mean to tell me that the bubble started before the number of subprimes issued per year more than doubled?

Lowering lending standards didn't create the bubble, nor did it cause the bubble to burst, post the data showing how many of those loans were to people who were low income and then had to dump them. You really bought the leftwing spin, didn't you?

Incrementally they do, sure. However, wage increases also increase revenue. More revenue = more profit. And it increases the amount of tax revenue as well, further reducing deficits.

Wage increases are a cost increase, tax cuts Aren't!! Profit keeps people employed

What tax cuts do is starve the Treasury of revenue which forces cuts to social programs, increasing the amount out-of-pocket the majority of consumers pay for things like health care and education

.

LOL, starving the Treasury? Are you for real? Again the revenue is a bigger issue to you than the spending. It isn't the Federal Government's role to provide social programs for people living in your states. Again you have no understanding of the taxes people pay. SS and Medicare are the only two social programs that are the responsibility of the states

How do I know? Because I read. Why do I care? Because when the majority of consumers struggle, everyone struggles. I don't want people to struggle. So that's why I care. Also, I'm pretty pissed that we were sold trickle-down under the promise that if we did it, the wealthy would "trickle down" on the rest of us. They didn't. So screw them.

Another opinion piece that you want to believe. Sorry, the majority of people struggling made bad choices that you want the taxpayer to bail them out. That isn't the way things work. If you don't want people to struggle work in your own community to help people instead of delegating that responsibility to the federal bureaucrats

Neither SS or Medicare is problematic. So I'm not sure why you're pretending it is. And don't you want to cut entitlement spending anyway?

Another naïve, poorly informed statement, both are underfunded because those bureaucrats that you love used SS and Medicare funding on items other than their intention. Please educate yourself

 

[Incisor]

what does that have to do with the federal income tax revenue that you claimed regarding Bush?

Everything. I quoted Bush, saying that the housing market was due to his tax cuts. He is the one who drew that connection. From there, it's pretty simple to devise why he took the specific actions he took from 2003-4 to loosen regulations and oversight of the housing market. If you're talking just revenues, The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts saw revenues reduced to what they were in 2000 for 4 straight years. It wasn't until 2005 that revenues reached what they were in 2000...and it took a subprime bubble to get there.

yes, and what legislative agenda did Bush implement that caused the recession. NBER is a good friend of people interested in actual data stating that it can be argued that the recession began in November 2000 but it is easier blaming Bush who didn't get his plan passed until July for a March recession. partisans like you always do that. Did you figure out when the 81 recession actually started yet?

Well, one could argue that the executive actions Bush took his first week in office had a negative effect on the economy. One could argue he could have done a stimulus of some kind (which he eventually did do that summer) earlier to prevent the recession. But it doesn't really matter because the recession in 2001 was minimal. It didn't even contract the economy overall for the year. Growth in 2001 was still positive even with 9/11 and the 8-month recession.

I asked you a question, Reagan cut Federal Income Taxes three years in a row and increased Federal Income tax revenue over 60%, how did that happen?

Over 60% after 8 years. Which is less than the 76% it increased during Clinton's 8 years, and the 67% it increased during Obama's 8 years. So what point are you trying to make? That cutting income taxes results in lower revenue growth than not cutting them?

 

[Moderate Right]

Except you missed the #sarcasm ... businesses don't expand simply because they got a tax cut, there's has to be demand to drive them to expand. We've reached the end of the rope of expanding business to grow the economy. We need to focus on demand for a while.

But, in some cases, jobs can stay put by having reasonable tax rates, instead of some corporations moving to other states and countries due to tax advantages. I'm not against demand unless you are attacking all businesses for the excesses of the one percent, which is what liberal policies do. That hurts more than it helps. To some extent, demand is always there, depending on the product and it's price. One product can be swapped for another as in computers replaced type writers.

 

[Conservative]

Incisor;1066423299]Greed. It's the same reason why they outsource American jobs to China. Greed.

Where is that socialist utopia you want? Any idea how to get those companies back into this country?


[

I]What spending do you want to cut??[/I] Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you're still going to run a deficit and you've taken government demand out of the economy and didn't replace it with anything. So if you want to cut spending, it's gotta come from Medicare, Social Security, or Defense. So which are you going to cut?

Already told you what expenses that needed to be cut but you ignored them. do your own research tired of doing it for you. You just don't get it, every dollar that goes to the Federal Govt. in the form of taxes takes one dollar out of your pocket that you could use to actually help someone in your state or local community

Why are you trying to make this personal? I'll invest my money in whatever company I think will provide me with the best return on my investment. And you judging someone's worth is pretty ballsy from the comfort of the anonymity this message board provides. For all we know, you could just be a self-hating poor person with resentment issues who's on the government dole. I think anyone so ready to judge peoples' worth certainly has some insecurity issues of their own they're struggling with. It's obvious that it's a matter of projection and nothing more.

What, you want a return on your investment but a business cannot get that? You want higher wages, higher costs, less purchasing power but want higher returns on your investment? Isn't that greed on your part.

I employed over 1200 people a year, hired many, fired many, and promoted quite a few. You think someone that steals is worth any dollar amount? How about someone show is on drugs and treats your customers poorly? How about someone who shows up late all the time? Does it really matter what some people make as you cannot pay a person with low morals enough to stem their immoral activities

I've answered this question before. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean one wasn't given.

Then point to the post because you didn't answer the question, what percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes?

Whoa. Yes, private sector greed costs everyone. Outsourcing is a great example of private sector greed costing American workers. And "public greed"? I don't know what that even means, nor do I care.

Of course liberals have no greed, you just told me about yours. What about career politicians who are all about buying votes and getting power? Of course you don't care because you want someone else to blame for the poor choices you make. Private sector greed costs you what?

12% of GDP is certainly not "a drop in the bucket". If they don't bring it back voluntarily, then I would raise their taxes until all that revenue was recouped.

You post an opinion piece and pass it of as fact, prove it with Treasury numbers

 

[Conservative]

Everything. I quoted Bush, saying that the housing market was due to his tax cuts. He is the one who drew that connection. From there, it's pretty simple to devise why he took the specific actions he took from 2003-4 to loosen regulations and oversight of the housing market. If you're talking just revenues, The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts saw revenues reduced to what they were in 2000 for 4 straight years. It wasn't until 2005 that revenues reached what they were in 2000...and it took a subprime bubble to get there.




Well, one could argue that the executive actions Bush took his first week in office had a negative effect on the economy. One could argue he could have done a stimulus of some kind (which he eventually did do that summer) earlier to prevent the recession. But it doesn't really matter because the recession in 2001 was minimal. It didn't even contract the economy overall for the year. Growth in 2001 was still positive even with 9/11 and the 8-month recession.




Over 60% after 8 years. Which is less than the 76% it increased during Clinton's 8 years, and the 67% it increased during Obama's 8 years. So what point are you trying to make? That cutting income taxes results in lower revenue growth than not cutting them?

REAGAN CUT FIT AND GREW FIT REVENUE, how did that happen??