- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The-Technocrat said:Yes. Cutting taxes has the potential to increase revenue, but not always; the major fact behind it is when the taxation rate is higher than the optimal level. That's really the only major case in which revenue increases when you decrease taxes. The revenue won't magically go up the more you lower taxes.
Spending is also an issue. If you want to spur the economy and raise revenue, you need to cut spending on pork and other frivolous projects, as well sa cut down on military action. All of that is very expensive and counterproductive to increasing revenue.
You also cannot confuse cause and correlation in this situation. Just because taxes go up, does not mean they are going up because of X or Y reason presented. I am reading through the rest of the thread right now, though to see.
There is some interesting information to look at. For example, according to this source [the wall street journal online]: there are some problems people are not looking into when they blindly "hoorah" in favour of taxcut plans.
Wall Street Online
Centre for Budget and Policy
1. For instance: Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves?. No, they don't. Other's pay for them later. According to whitehouse reports, the Treasury indicates that "Treasury long-run analyses of the effects of President Bush’s tax cuts “may ultimately” raise total national output of goods and services by 0.7%." but not everyone thinks this is going to be enough.
Incidentally, The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities comments:
Reading the fine print in government taxation programmes is a prerequisite. The government often thinks in the short-term and does what sounds good now instead of thinking later, especially with Bush at the helm of the ship of state.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:He proposed nothing until he was forced to by the Republican congress ... again context matters do try and follow the conversation will you?
]Conservative Republicans these days have this notion that you can have double digit increases in the defense budget, and somehow offset that by cutting the National Parks budget. It's like trying to offset the costs of a new bass boat by drinking slightly cheaper beer.
And, as is the norm, nothing is mentioned about cutting spending on welfare/entitlements.The-Technocrat said:Spending is also an issue. If you want to spur the economy and raise revenue, you need to cut spending on pork and other frivolous projects, as well sa cut down on military action. All of that is very expensive and counterproductive to increasing revenue.
Clinton admitted in 1995: "People in this room are still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. Well, it might surprise you to know I think I raised them too much, too."
Bill Clinton promised to cut taxes while campaigning in 1992.
In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes by a record $241 billion over five years.
In 1994, Clinton again tried raising taxes with his nationalized health care plan.
In 1995, Bill Clinton admits he raised taxes "too much."
In 1996, Bill Clinton vetoed tax cuts.
In 1997, Clinton finally accepted tax cuts at Republican insistence.
Gill said:Clinton himself said that his tax hike was excessive:
Clinton was extremely lucky. He inherited a rising economy from Bush I and handed off a tanking economy to Bush II. And the entire time in office, he ignored the corporate scandals and the dot com hysteria that was taking place. Why? Because the false numbers inflated the economic numbers and in turn, made him look better.
I will repeat what many have already said in this thread: No conservative is happy with Bush's reckless spending.Hoot said:I won't dispute anything you said, but Clinton was a fiscal conservative compared to Bush. Clinton expected us to pay for our spending.
SouthernDemocrat said:He never proposed a single budget with over 3% discretionary growth and he vetoed every attempt by Republicans in congress to cut taxes back in the 90s. Had the Republicans in congress had their way, the deficits of the 80s would have continued to unabated throughout the 90s. You still have the same Republican congress today as you had in the 90s, the difference is that you no longer have Clinton in the Whitehouse.
Conservative Republicans these days have this notion that you can have double digit increases in the defense budget, and somehow offset that by cutting the National Parks budget. It's like trying to offset the costs of a new bass boat by drinking slightly cheaper beer. If it were not for Moderate Republicans and Moderate Democrats in the 90s, we would have never had a balanced budget.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh ya then when did Clinton ever propose a plan for a balnced budget?
Goobieman said:And, as is the norm, nothing is mentioned about cutting spending on welfare/entitlements.
Federal welfare programs take up almost 60% of the budget. Untill you address the spending on these programs, and their unabated growth, you will never, ever have a long-term solution to deficits.
hipsterdufus said:February 2, 1998
Because entitlement programs didnt grow 1993-2000 like they did 2001-2006, Clinton didnt have a war to fight, and Clinton didn thave a recession to deal with.hipsterdufus said:Clinton and the GOP Congress proved that we could have a balanced budget without destroying entitlement programs.
Interesting. I saw a little while ago that we have spend 315B in Iraq thru June 2006. Thats less than $2B/week.We are spending 3-5 billion a week in Iraq with no fiscal oversight and no end in sight.
Goobieman said:Because entitlement programs didnt grow 1993-2000 like they did 2001-2006, Clinton didnt have a war to fight, and Clinton didn thave a recession to deal with.
Remember that entitlment programs are not budgeted like other spending, where a set amount is allocated and then spent -- the money is just spent w/o regard for where it comes from, and it is spent w/o regard for any other budgetary concerns; it is spent because by law it must be spent.
Interesting. I saw a little while ago that we have spend 315B in Iraq thru June 2006. Thats less than $2B/week.
In any event -- compare that to over $29B/week we spend on entitlements, and then tell me where the decifits come from.
Sure about that?SouthernDemocrat said:The problem with your assertion is that a larger percentage of deficits in general revenue today are funded out of current surpluses in payroll taxes than was the case in the 90s.
Or for cutting spending on luxuries like entitlements.Moreover, if you have a war to fight, then you have to fund it either way. The war in Iraq is an argument against cutting taxes, not for cutting them.
Goobieman said:Sure about that?
Seems to me that with the huge increase in entitlement spending, that surplus is getting smaller and smaller. I can look it up, I suppose.
Or for cutting spending on luxuries like entitlements.
Ah - the love it or leave it argument. Nice.SouthernDemocrat said:Here in America we have decided long ago that we are going to provide a safetynet for our seniors and less fortunate. We have decided as a nation that it is our moral obligation just like it was our moral obligation to end child labor and slavery. That will never change. You might as well get used to it, or find another nation that shares your views. Either way, we have to fund these obligations.
Goobieman said:Ah - the love it or leave it argument. Nice.
Note that none of this creates an argument that entitlement spending cannot be cut.
Cutting entitlements by 15% since FY2000 would shave $1 trillion off the debt
Cutting entitlements by 20% would eliminate the deficits since FY2000
SouthernDemocrat said:Lets see here, on one side you have people who say that they believe that we should have a Social Security and Medicare System, and they pay the taxes to fund those obligations through payroll taxes.
On the other side, you have people who want to spend hundreds of billions on a social experiment in Iraq, but they don't want to pay for it, instead they simply want those who do actually pay for the programs that they want to accept cuts in those programs.
Goobieman said:Not sure how any of this addresses what I said.
Why can't entitlement spending be cut to address fiscal issues?
In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.SouthernDemocrat said:You are a all for a war, but you don't to pay for it out of your pocket, instead you want to cut entitlement spending, that is actually being paid for by those who will benefit from it. We should not pay for wars out of surpluses in payroll taxes.
How is it that fair?
(bhal blah blah)
Goobieman said:In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Why can't entitlement spending be cut to address fiscal issues?
Goobieman said:In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Why can't entitlement spending be cut to address fiscal issues?
SouthernDemocrat said:You need to get a calculator if you think that welfare spending would pay for the war in Iraq.
Goobieman said:First, you arent aswering my question.
In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Why can't entitlement spending be cut to address fiscal issues?
Second, cutting 10% off entitlement spedning would EASILY pay for the war in Iraq.
Entlitlment spending, per FY
FY2003 $961.4B (pro-rated)
FY2004 $1346.2B
FY2005 $1446.1B
10% of that total comes to $375.3B - and that doesnt include FY2006.
Goobieman said:First, you arent aswering my question.
In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Why can't entitlement spending be cut to address fiscal issues?
Second, cutting 10% off entitlement spedning would EASILY pay for the war in Iraq.
Entlitlment spending, per FY
FY2003 $961.4B (pro-rated)
FY2004 $1346.2B
FY2005 $1446.1B
10% of that total comes to $375.3B - and that doesnt include FY2006.
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?