• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit



we wont have to worry about that. there will NEVER be a dem to defend this nation properly. they will cut defense to balance the budget.

and I challenge you to find one post where I have EVER criticized Bill Clinton on his work with the deficit. (except the fact that rather than cut spending, he raised taxes to do it)

im no where near the partisan hack you are.....I can assure you.

I see the good in anyone, no matter the party.
 
ProudAmerican said:
I believe the strawman part comes in where any normal person realizes cutting the to 1% isnt exactly the same thing that the current administration did.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right.
Straw, man.
 

If you are a thinker, then what you realize is that cutting taxes does not necessarily result in increased tax revenues. You will realize that for that to happen, the marginal extra economic growth produced by the tax cuts must exceed the marginal decrease in tax revenues caused by the decrease in the tax rate.

And if you agree with that, then you realize the question is open as to whether cutting rates from 39% to 33% would increase tax revenues.
 

Well according to the article if the tax revenue continues to increase we'll actually be able to start paying down the debt this year all without the government stealing half of my pay check while simultaneously sending us into another recession and perpetuating the cycle.
 

I agree I doubt I could find a post criticizing Clinton on the deficit. What is there to criticize? The dude came in facing a $290 billion deficit and turned it into a $236 billion surplus (using Republic funny accounting). What is there to criticize about that? That is not a basis for criticism, but a basis for praise and is almost a miraculous achievement.

But I have have noticed your objective and moderate tone on analyzing Clinton's performance in other areas, so you may have a point.
 
Last edited:

That was an annual surplus not a cumulative one we were still 6-trillion in debt at the end of the Clinton administration.
 

Gill said:
Not true!

1995 - $34,076
1996 - $35,492
1997 - $37,005
1998 - $38,885
1999 - $40,696
2000 - $41,990
2001 - $42,228
2002 - $42,409
2003 - $43,318

Median household income per the Census Bureau
Click to expand...

SD, I'm sure, was referring to real (inflation adjusted) median income, not actual. Actual increases are meaningless in actual wealth or purchasing power if they do not keep up with inflation.

Which has been the case in the past 5 years. Actual median incomes have gone up, but inflation adjusted income is actually down:

Year: Actual median income - 2004$ median income

2004 44,389 44,389
2003 43,318 44,482
2002 42,409 44,546
2001 42,228 45,062
2000 41,990 46,058
1999 40,696 46,129
1998 38,885 45,003
1997 37,005 43,430
1996 35,492 42,544
1995 34,076 41,943

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

2005 inflation adjusted median income is actuall about 4% worse than it was than in 2000, despite the economic growth and soaring corporate profits. Which is why lots of folks think the economy is stinky.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That was an annual surplus not a cumulative one we were still 6-trillion in debt at the end of the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...

Sure. Still, an amazing achievement considering the huge deficits he started with.
 

Twice now, Republican "supply-siders" have promised us that they could cut taxes and that it would cause revenues to grow and there wouldn't be any deficits. Twice now these tax cuts have failed to create any extra growth, and caused revenues to fall billions of dollars resulting in deficits in the hundreds of billions. Twice now, Republicans have been proved wrong.

Revenues are way lower than projected and our deficit picture annual is $500 billion worse than it was.

Now, if the Republicans could *ever* show a modicum of fiscal responsibility, there might some day be exciting news about the economy.
 

Twice now, Republican "supply-siders" have promised us that they could cut taxes and that it would cause revenues to grow and there wouldn't be any deficits. Twice now these tax cuts have failed to create any extra growth, and caused revenues to fall billions of dollars resulting in deficits in the hundreds of billions. Twice now, Republicans have been proved wrong.

Revenues are way lower than projected and our deficit picture annual is $500 billion worse than it was.

Now, if the Republicans could *ever* show a modicum of fiscal responsibility, there might some day be exciting news about the economy.
 
If you are a thinker, then what you realize is that cutting taxes does not necessarily result in increased tax revenues.
Click to expand...

a thinker would also conclude that since 2003, that does necessarily seem to be the case.

But I have have noticed your objective and moderate tone on analyzing Clinton's performance in other areas, so you may have a point.
Click to expand...

thank you.
 
aquapub said:
...Revenues are way higher than projected ...
Click to expand...

I guess that depends upon what projections you are talking about:

CBO projections for revenues as of the date indicted versus actual revenues.

Year Jan01 Jan02 Aug02 Actual
2001 2,135 1,991 1,991 1991.2
2002 2,236 1,983 1,860 1853.2
2003 2,343 2,070 1,962 1782.3
2004 2,453 2,206 2,083 1880.1
2005 2,570 2,342 2,244 2153.9

Revenues certainly aren't "way higher" than these projections.

Source:
Jan 01: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2727&sequence=1
Jan 02: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3277&sequence=0
Aug 02: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3735&sequence=2&from=0
 
Navy Pride said:
I use to watch NPR but can't anymore its full of left wing personalities likt Bill Moyers..........
Click to expand...

WOW - how uninformed can you get. Listen carefully; NPR is on the radio. Unless you're staring at your radio, you're not watching NPR. :roll:

BTW- NP PBS has a great new special I think you would actually like. Bill Moyers - Faith and Reason.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
If it's true that increasing taxes increases revenue why not raise taxes to 99% the same logic (or lack therof) applies.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that raising taxes to some level couldn't have the effect of making revenuess decline at some point.

The claim I am refuting is that lowering taxes necessarily increases revenues. I think we all now agree on that point.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and a 6-trillion dollar debt.
Click to expand...

$5.7 trillion more accurately. But you are right, it was already pretty huge and needed to be paid down, which was why we needed those surpluses.

But it is now $8.4 trillion. Almost a 50% increase.
 

I don't think the article is claiming that the Govt will be starting to pay down the debt this year. It is already up almost $500 billion in 9 months.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How does the annual deficit of 92 have any impact what so ever on the annual deficit of 2000?
Click to expand...

It shows that Clinton took a Govt that was spending $290 billion (using funny accounting) more than it took in every year and gave Bush a Govt that was taking in $236 billion more than it spent. A dramatic and unparalled improvement.
 
hipsterdufus said:
All of those events could have been avoided too if Bush had made different decisions. It's hardly a valid excuse.
Click to expand...
IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!! The mantra of the pathetic minority of the left that thinks that President Bush is tha cause of all evil. He's the reason their cat boxes are over-flowing, he's the reason that it didn't snow on Christmas Eve, he's the reason that "My Fair Brady" is a TV show.
 
ProudAmerican said:
can I see a show of hands of Democrats that want a tax increase that have voluntarily given to the government during tax time and ear marked their gift as "payment to help the ridiculous debt George Bush has created"
Click to expand...
HEAR HEAR!!!! I'm waiting for Soros to donate 10 or 20 billion to the gov't.
 
ProudAmerican said:
a thinker would also conclude that since 2003, that does necessarily seem to be the case.
Click to expand...

No, a thinker would not conclude that. A thinker would conclude that since the tax cuts were passed in '01-03, and you are comparing how revenues have done with the tax cuts to how they did without, the only valid comparison is to compare the revenue performance with what it was doing and expected to do before the tax cuts, which was 2000.

Revenues fell by hundreds of billions of dollars in '01-03 the years the tax cuts took effect. A thinker would not say that because they improved in 2004-06, when there were no further tax cuts, that proves that revenues are doing better because of the tax cuts.
 
This is what happens when you higher an idiot to do a presidential job. Charm doesn't get the job done, Intellect does.:boom
 

I don't think he's the cause of all evil. His administration is the cause of the $2.7 trillion extra debt incurred, and the out of control deficits, and the Iraq war, and the Prescription Drug Company Enhancement Act of 2001, among other things; but not all evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…