Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

[zymurgy]

I just hate this blame game, it solves nothing, and just has us all on a wild goose chase!

The unfortunate truth is our national debt has gotten worse under so called conservative watches.

Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2.

You might not like the blame game, but understanding the truth is important.

Conservatives have failed their supporters.

 

[zymurgy]

There were a whole lot of taxes paid in that time, some of it was mine, I should know.

that's fine.

But these are your words: the government wants to spend all they want, and the more we give them, the more they will spend.

The government under Clinton spent less then the government under Bush, even though the Clinton government received more to spend.

So in actuality what you said is dead wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

I just hate this blame game, it solves nothing, and just has us all on a wild goose chase!

That's a good point, and you are correct that does not address the problem.

But there is a fundamental issue to be understood at the core of the debate. A lot of conservatives are under the misconception that cutting tax rates automatically increases tax revenues. That may be true under very high tax rates (per Laffer curve) but is historically not at a 39% rate. But as long as there is that wide-spread belief that is true, there will be wide spread antagonism against raising taxes (not that there isn't antagonism to that anyway) to pay for what the Govt spends. And as long as that is the case, and as long as we have a Govt that is too wimpy to cut spending 25%, the Govt will continue to bleed red.

 

[Deegan]

The unfortunate truth is our national debt has gotten worse under so called conservative watches.

Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2.

You might not like the blame game, but understanding the truth is important.

Conservatives have failed their supporters.

The man just showed you, up 300% from 81 to 92, who is it that was in power then.........., that's right, the Dems! You're right, truth is important.

 

[Iriemon]

The man just showed you, up 300% from 81 to 92, who is it that was in power then.........., that's right, the Dems! You're right, truth is important.

Ha ha yeah, it was the Democratic tax cuts in the 80s that cut the marginal rates and the Democratic military build up that drove the SU into collapse.

 

[zymurgy]

The man just showed you, up 300% from 81 to 92, who is it that was in power then.........., that's right, the Dems! You're right, truth is important.

The veto power is more powerful then you give credit.

And like Iremon said, you don't get it both ways. Either Reagan is to be credited with the collapse of SU, or the democrats are.

 

[Deegan]

Ha ha yeah, it was the Democratic tax cuts in the 80s that cut the marginal rates and the Democratic military build up that drove the SU into collapse.

Under conservative leadership, namely Reagan.

 

[Iriemon]

Under conservative leadership, namely Reagan.

The Dems had a majority of Congress, but it was the Republicans along with a handful of Dem "boll weevel" (or whatever they were called) reps that joined them that passed the tax cuts in the early 80s.

 

[Navy Pride]

So did 9/11, two wars, and the worst natural disaster in 100 years, but that is of no consequence huh?

Clinton didn't balance the budget, tax payers did that, he hardly deserves a pat on the back for extorsion.:3oops:

The Republican congress balanced the budget.........Clinton just signed the bill to do it........

 

[zymurgy]

The Republican congress balanced the budget.........Clinton just signed the bill to do it........

says the guy that thought this deficit was a surplus.

 

[Blitz]

First of all the Soviet Union collapsed almost near the end of 1991 nearly the begining of 1992. Regan was long gone before that and Bush senior was in office. We took credit for the internal combustion that took place in the soviet Union. We didn't win anything. It was just a moral booster that didn't work on individuals like me. Thank God some of the Dems were still the majority in office. If they had let Regan have his way it would have been his way or a nuclear war that would have truely materialized. Regan may have stood up to Goby but Goby wasn't interested or even threatend by Regan's tough stance. Goby like president Kennedy new what kind of an appocolipse would result if Regan pushed him around. Goby also new that he had buit to many nukes, most which he could not keep up the cost to maintain. If we had gone to war it would have been 2000 to every 1000 of our nukes. NOT GOOD!!!! So this time, knowing that he had taken his economy and people to the brink, Goby played the bigger man and folded. Death would have been immanant. Today, Russia is going slowy but surely back to its old ways with hardliners starting again to lead the way. This time if they get back up to par they may not cave this time, they might consider going all the way regarless of the potential appocolipse. Watch, you will see in time.:bolt

 

[Navy Pride]

How does the Govt pay for things?

With revenues and taxes, but make no mistake about it the government has no money....Its the peoples money and we pay to much in income tax.........Even the NYT agrees that the revvenue from corporations is why there was such a big cut in the deficit..............We need to cut taxes more and cut spending....I run my house on a budget and so should the government..............


Democrats have never seen a tax increase they did not love.......That is their answer for everything..........

 

[hipsterdufus]

From today's NYTimes


But then, wasn't Bush the one who kept on cutting corporate taxes?

I was hoping someone here would pick up on this story.

I had to laugh when I saw this. The NYT has their but so far up the Bush admin's as s, they should do a colonoscopy while they're at it.

Corporate revenues still aren't where they were in 2000. A fact that most in this debate have missed.

So with all this extra revenue the deficit will shrink a whopping 18 billion to 300 billion this year. :roll:

The Supply Siders keep saying "tax cuts work" OK - so cut them to ZERO and see how we do.

Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.

"The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan."

One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth.

The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Over the past decade, tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/w...7a78590f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

 

[Navy Pride]

says the guy that thought this deficit was a surplus.

Are you 12 years old? I am not responding anymore to your stupid infantile posts..they are ridiculous.........

 

[Iriemon]

The Republican congress balanced the budget.........Clinton just signed the bill to do it........

The tax increase passed by the Dems in 1993 coupled with careful controll of spending balanced the budget. The Republicans wanted to cut taxes (per contract with America) which would have thrown us back into deficits, but Clinton vetoed or threatened to veto their efforts.

I used to give the Republicans some credit for holding spending down in the 90s, but they showed their true colors with a Republican president starting in '01, didn't they? Now I believe it was Clintons veto power that held the line in that Dept.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Tax cuts work, no matter what tax and spend Liberals say......

NP, this administration is borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor while giving tax cuts to the top 1% of the population. The Estate Tax Cut that they're trying to pass effects only the top .027% of the people.

How, in your right mind, can you call Dem's "tax and spend" while we are in the midst of the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history!

It's truly mind boggling...

 

[Iriemon]

With revenues and taxes, but make no mistake about it the government has no money....Its the peoples money and we pay to much in income tax.........

That is exactly right, so when you say:

Yeah and that was prior to 9/11/01, 2 wars and the biggest nautral disaster in the history of this country............Are you saying we should not pay for those things?

I agree with you 100%. If the Govt wants to spend a bunch more money, we should pay for those things, with revenues and taxes. That is the right thing to do. That is the moral, responsible thing to do. Reagan knew it; Bush knows it; and your grandfather knew it, if you don't. Not by borrowing and expecting future taxpayers to pay for the costs of *our* Govt. That is wrong, and immoral.

It never ceases to amaze me that I have to argue with "conservatives" about this basis, fundamental principle.

 

[Iriemon]

Corporate revenues still aren't where they were in 2000. A fact that most in this debate have missed.

I agree with your points, except corporate tax receipts were $278 billion in 2005, versus $207 billion in 2000; that is both an actual and real increase.

 

[ProudAmerican]

That's right, taxpayers did it. Under Clinton taxpayers balanced the budget and actually paid for what the Govt spent.

this is code for "the government never cut spending, it simply broke the backs of the working man to continue its spending"

i love how the left always worries about our children paying for the governments spending, but never gives a damn about the current generation doing it.

i have news for you......ME paying outrageous taxes is just as shitty as my children doing it.

 

[Navy Pride]

The tax increase passed by the Dems in 1993 coupled with careful controll of spending balanced the budget. The Republicans wanted to cut taxes (per contract with America) which would have thrown us back into deficits, but Clinton vetoed or threatened to veto their efforts.

I used to give the Republicans some credit for holding spending down in the 90s, but they showed their true colors with a Republican president starting in '01, didn't they? Now I believe it was Clintons veto power that held the line in that Dept.

Hey make no mistake about it.....I think Bush has spent like a drunken sailor.....Unfortunately you will never find a candidate that you agree with 100% on the issues... I back Bush becasue of his stand on the war on terror and his social conservatives views.......

I can tell you if Kerry the biggest Liberal in the Senate was elected it would have been 10 times worse............

 

[Navy Pride]

That is exactly right, so when you say:

Yeah and that was prior to 9/11/01, 2 wars and the biggest nautral disaster in the history of this country............Are you saying we should not pay for those things?

I agree with you 100%. If the Govt wants to spend a bunch more money, we should pay for those things, with revenues and taxes. That is the right thing to do. That is the moral, responsible thing to do. Reagan knew it; Bush knows it; and your grandfather knew it, if you don't. Not by borrowing and expecting future taxpayers to pay for the costs of *our* Govt. That is wrong, and immoral.

It never ceases to amaze me that I have to argue with "conservatives" about this basis, fundamental principle.

The problem with your scenario is if you raise taxes democrats just spend more on failed social programs..............

 

[Navy Pride]

NP, this administration is borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor while giving tax cuts to the top 1% of the population. The Estate Tax Cut that they're trying to pass effects only the top .027% of the people.

How, in your right mind, can you call Dem's "tax and spend" while we are in the midst of the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history!

It's truly mind boggling...

hips, that is just left wing talking points and you know it...........Like I said I don't agree with the spending going on under Bush but if your boy Kerry was in there it would be 10 times worse............

 

[Iriemon]

The problem with your scenario is if you raise taxes democrats just spend more on failed social programs..............

Ha ha like the Drug Company Profit Enhancement Act of 2001?

 

[Iriemon]

hips, that is just left wing talking points and you know it...........Like I said I don't agree with the spending going on under Bush but if your boy Kerry was in there it would be 10 times worse............

Sure. the right-wing talking points said the same thing about Clinton in 1993.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sure. the right-wing talking points said the same thing about Clinton in 1993.

three words.........1994 Republican Congress......