- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.
Please review my signature again. :mrgreen:
Here is all that matters, sorry
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
How does the federal government calculate its budget? Using a unified budget. Does the unified budget include intragovernmental borrowing? No. Does the national debt include intragovernmental borrowing? Yes.
This should put to rest the myth about the Bush tax cuts cutting govt. revenue. In this article click on the IRS link to see what the various income earners paid in taxes by year.
RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases
The Wall Street ponzi schemers, that was let to run wild during the bush presidency generated a lot of taxes before they destroyed the economy didn't they? :2wave:
More garbage, th Excel spreadsheet breaks out earners by percentages and as I noted that crap and is meant to mislead. There must be dozens of reasons that revenue climbs, but the most striking one is that more people file income tax returns every year. Look it up.This should put to rest the myth about the Bush tax cuts cutting govt. revenue. In this article click on the IRS link to see what the various income earners paid in taxes by year.
RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases
So did the dot com speculators in the 90's and the savings and loans in the 80's. In a couple of years we will be talking about the bubble in US treasuries as the reason why the economy gets whacked. Blaming a president for speculative bubbles is in my view partisan nonsense to avoid talking about the real problems facing our economy.
The S&L crisis of the '80's and this one are all related to degregulation and both Bush presidencies were in power when they happened. Kind of a father son act.So did the dot com speculators in the 90's and the savings and loans in the 80's. In a couple of years we will be talking about the bubble in US treasuries as the reason why the economy gets whacked. Blaming a president for speculative bubbles is in my view partisan nonsense to avoid talking about the real problems facing our economy.
The S&L crisis of the '80's and this one are all related to degregulation and both Bush presidencies were in power when they happened. Kind of a father son act.
The S&L crisis of the '80's and this one are all related to degregulation and both Bush presidencies were in power when they happened. Kind of a father son act.
It was actually signed into law by President Clinton, but legislation was crafted by three conservative Republicans.Can you point to the deregulation that the second Bush enacted in the financial sector. Ot is this just a soundbite you heard somewhere.
Can you point to the deregulation that the second Bush enacted in the financial sector. Ot is this just a soundbite you heard somewhere.
It was actually signed into law by President Clinton, but legislation was crafted by three conservative Republicans.
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
The problem with regulation is that the major players are now global. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be regulation it’s that it has to be brought up to the twenty first century
More garbage, th Excel spreadsheet breaks out earners by percentages and as I noted that crap and is meant to mislead. There must be dozens of reasons that revenue climbs, but the most striking one is that more people file income tax returns every year. Look it up.
The question, then, is what kind of cut can put people back to work quickly?
The last 30 years offer some pretty good answers. For one thing, a permanent reduction in tax rates focused on the affluent — along the lines of those 2001 Bush tax cuts — does little to lift growth in the short term. An across-the-board, one-time cut — like the one that Mr. Bush signed in 2008 or that Mr. Obama signed last year — does more.
But the most effective tax cut for putting people back to work quickly is one that businesses and households get only if they spend money. Last year’s cash-for-clunkers program was an example. So was a recent bipartisan tax credit for businesses that hired workers who had been unemployed for months. Perhaps the broadest example is a temporary cut in the payroll tax for businesses, which reduces the cost of employing people.
Any of these steps would increase the budget deficit, obviously. But relative to the multitrillion-dollar, Medicare-driven, long-term deficit, a temporary tax cut costing a couple of hundred billion dollars isn’t significant. The more pressing problem today, by far, is the weak economy.
The great historical lesson of financial crises is that governments are usually not aggressive enough in responding. That was Japan’s mistake in 1990s, Herbert Hoover’s in the early 1930s and even Franklin Roosevelt’s in the mid-1930s.
In 2008 and 2009, political leaders looked as if they had learned this lesson. In 2010, they seem to have forgotten it.
Sometime in the next four months, Congress will have to decide what to do about Mr. Bush’s original tax cuts, because they are set to expire Dec. 31. Most Democrats favor extending the cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year. Republicans want to make all the cuts permanent, including those for households making more than $250,000.
Republicans argue that a permanent cut in tax rates is the best form of stimulus. Allowing any of the Bush cuts to expire, John Boehner, the top House Republican, said in a speech last week laying out the party’s economic agenda, is “a recipe for disaster.”
As theories go, this isn’t a bad one. You can certainly imagine how a tax increase on the affluent could hurt the economy or how a tax cut for them would lift growth. Theories aside, though, consider what has actually happened in the last three decades.
Mr. Bush signed his original tax cut in June 2001, when the economy had been losing jobs for four months. It then shed jobs for two more years. In the decade that followed the tax cut, economic growth was slower than in any decade since World War II.
If the goal is short-term stimulus, even Ronald Reagan’s much-lauded 1981 tax cut doesn’t appear to have worked. After he signed it, the economy lost jobs for 16 straight months. It didn’t start gaining jobs until after he had raised taxes, to reduce the deficit, in late 1982.
What explains this pattern? Tax rates matter, but people don’t make most decisions based primarily on their marginal tax rates. Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Reagan’s tax cuts were just not powerful enough to overcome the economic headwinds at the time.
I tried to keep up with this thread, but 54 pages...my eyes began to bleed after page 10!
Found this article today (originally published on NYTimes.com, but redistributed on CNBC.com), "Tax Cuts That Make a Difference," that breaks down the various recommendations economists have made to get our nation's economy going again, as well as provides some history as to what works and what doesn't. Here's an interesting snippet:
Read the rest, then let's discuss.
I tried to keep up with this thread, but 54 pages...my eyes began to bleed after page 10!
Found this article today (originally published on NYTimes.com, but redistributed on CNBC.com), "Tax Cuts That Make a Difference," that breaks down the various recommendations economists have made to get our nation's economy going again, as well as provides some history as to what works and what doesn't. Here's an interesting snippet:
Read the rest, then let's discuss.
<Sometime in the next four months, Congress will have to decide what to do about Mr. Bush’s original tax cuts, because they are set to expire Dec. 31. Most Democrats favor extending the cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year. Republicans want to make all the cuts permanent, including those for households making more than $250,000.>
My strategy on this part, if I was advising administration would be to keep hanging the “cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year” in front of the republicans, naturally they will appose it. TADA…comes the new year and right under the happy new year there will be this headline “REPUBLICANS SHOOT DOWN TAXCUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. :2wave:
<Sometime in the next four months, Congress will have to decide what to do about Mr. Bush’s original tax cuts, because they are set to expire Dec. 31. Most Democrats favor extending the cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year. Republicans want to make all the cuts permanent, including those for households making more than $250,000.>
My strategy on this part, if I was advising administration would be to keep hanging the “cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year” in front of the republicans, naturally they will appose it. TADA…comes the new year and right under the happy new year there will be this headline “REPUBLICANS SHOOT DOWN TAXCUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. :2wave:
Honestly, the Democrats could propose cutting taxes across the board and cutting medicare and social security and all that ENTITLEMENT spending, and the GOP would oppose it. Because the Democrats are bad, therefore what they do is bad. The GOP has already shown that they'll unanimously vote down their own ideas when a Democrat has his name on it.
Conservative
Why do you want to penalize people simply because they make more than you?
What do you think the fair share is for those evil rich people since obviously what they pay now isn't enough?
By the way, Read the following and tell me that the rich got a great deal under Bush.
I don’t like seeing the middle-class shrinking and the republican party is the main cause of said shrinking. When you look at some stats besides faux news, you come up with the following stats.
< Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. >
< In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one. >
< The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. >
< 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. >
Something between these years of, January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001.
See bolded bullet point number four above.:2wave:
Ok, tell me what legislation the Democrats have implemented the past 2 years that has been beneficial to the country? Seems that poll numbers say that the so called party of "no" did the right thing.
Why do you want to penalize people simply because they make more than you? What do you think the fair share is for those evil rich people since obviously what they pay now isn't enough? By the way, Read the following and tell me that the rich got a great deal under Bush.
RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?