Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

[ProudAmerican]

Excluding charity? What is this, another trick question? Do you to support send extra $ to the Govt to support the Iraq war?

ABSOFREAKINLUTELY.

If the government would take checks earmarked specifically to fight the war on terror, I would certainly volunteer to send extra.

Im not hypocritical like that.

 

[Iriemon]

A) Clinton inhereted the peace dividend a luxury which Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 did not have.

B) If Clinton had gotten his own way spending would have skyrocketed and you know it, the Reps had to shut down the entire federal government for the longest time in history so as to get that balanced budget to which you now give Clinton credit for.

Right, it was all because of the fiscally concerned, responsible Republicans who have so tightly kept the reigns on spending.

LMAO!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Right, it was all because of the fiscally concerned, responsible Republicans who have so tightly kept the reigns on spending.

LMAO!

Truth hurts:

Record-breaking federal shutdown ends

Clinton meets key GOP demand
with latest budget proposal

January 6, 1996
Web posted at: 11:55 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history is over.


President Clinton cleared the way for a complete lifting of the 22-day partial shutdown Saturday by bowing to a key Republican demand: submitting a seven-year balanced budget plan scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

A continuing resolution that would permit the full re-opening of the government was then signed into law by Clinton. The temporary spending measure is good through January 26, giving negotiators 19 days to settle on a final budget.

The Republican-led Congress approved the legislation Friday, which provided for the reopening of all closed agencies and departments of government, but only if Clinton presented a balanced-budget plan scored by Congressional economic numbers.

Some Republicans said the plan contained too much spending and actually increased taxes, but Republicans conceded it would eliminate all deficits over seven years using figures provided by the CBO. Throughout the previous negotiations, Clinton had resisted using CBO forecasts, saying they were too pessimistic.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/budget/01-06/pm/index.html

And lest we not forget that Bush inhereted a recession and his tax cut proposals were not enacted until his second year in office.

 

[Stinger]

Truth hurts:

As you, I and others have said for the longest time. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to balanced budgets and proposed nothing and supported nothing that brought them about. He request more spending than congress authorized and chastized Republicans for not spending more. He fought the tax-cuts that finally got the economy going and vowed to undue wel-fare reform.

The deficit now ans as predicted as a percent of GDP or government spending, the true measures, is NOT at a record level and continues to fall. But will they give Bush credit not only because "he was at the helm" as they do Clinton but because he actually did something?

No

 

[mpg]

Right, it was all because of the fiscally concerned, responsible Republicans who have so tightly kept the reigns on spending.

LMAO!

That's no worse than giving the credit to Clinton. In reality, neither one of them desserves much credit. There are plenty of other factors aside from the government.

 

[Iriemon]

Truth hurts:

You forgot this part:

"the Clinton plan would cut taxes over seven years by $87 billion, much below the GOP's $240 billion proposal."

So much for the Republicans balancing the budget.

[/quote]And lest we not forget that Bush inhereted a recession and his tax cut proposals were not enacted until his second year in office.[/QUOTE]

His first tax cut was passed within months of taking office, and made partially retroactive thru the $300 prebates.

And what about the "recession"?

3/27/01: "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." – President Bush

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22339

 

[Iriemon]

As you, I and others have said for the longest time. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to balanced budgets and proposed nothing and supported nothing that brought them about. He request more spending than congress authorized and chastized Republicans for not spending more. He fought the tax-cuts that finally got the economy going and vowed to undue wel-fare reform.

Clinton and Dems had the balls to pass a tax increase in '93, over the opposition of every single Republican, that generated the revenues that balanced the budget.

What gutsy thing have the Republicans done to balance the budget? they just pander pander pander borrow borrow borrow.

The deficit now ans as predicted as a percent of GDP or government spending, the true measures, is NOT at a record level and continues to fall. But will they give Bush credit not only because "he was at the helm" as they do Clinton but because he actually did something?
No

Operating deficits have been in the $1/2 trillion range for the past 4 years in a row and will be again this year. Not quite post war records (Reagan gets that award) but pretty close.

But considering the guy inhereted a surplus budget, arguing that he's doing a great job because the deficits aren't the worst all time percentage wise is pretty lame, IMO.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

You forgot this part:

"the Clinton plan would cut taxes over seven years by $87 billion, much below the GOP's $240 billion proposal."

So much for the Republicans balancing the budget.

what? It was the spending that was the real issue and Clinton wouldn't have cut taxes one cent had not the Congress shut down the government until Clinton came up with a balanced budget proposal.

His first tax cut was passed within months of taking office, and made partially retroactive thru the $300 prebates.

They didn't get enacted until 2001 buddy.

And what about the "recession"?

3/27/01: "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." – President Bush

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22339

The economy had already softened by 2001 I suspect he meant that if it got any worse and I doubt he could have envisioned something so detrimental to the economy as 9-11.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

what? It was the spending that was the real issue and Clinton wouldn't have cut taxes one cent had not the Congress shut down the government until Clinton came up with a balanced budget proposal.

Not according to your article -- the Republicans were trying to shove huge tax cuts down his throat, which would have scotched any chance for a balanced budget.

They didn't get enacted until 2001 buddy.

Which was the first year Bush was president, pal.

The economy had already softened by 2001 I suspect he meant that if it got any worse and I doubt he could have envisioned something so detrimental to the economy as 9-11.

How was 9-11 so detrimental to the economy?

 

[Blitz]

Bush is only using this tax cut crap for politics. This is no great feat. We will spend about 100 Billion this month alone in Iraq. I guess there went his tax cut in one month huh? Not to mention he's leaving out some things such as future costs of this war and others he's planning, Pork spending, and a weapons system upgrade that only works 20% of the time. Give me a break!!:blastem:

 

[26 X World Champs]

where did you get this "factual" information?

Here you go friend....tell us what crow tastes like?

Ex-Aide Recounts Terror Warnings
Clarke Says Bush Didn't Consider Al Qaeda Threat a Priority Before 9/11

By Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 25, 2004; Page A01

President Bush's top counterterrorism adviser warned seven days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks that hundreds of people could die in a strike by the al Qaeda network and that the administration was not doing enough to combat the threat, the commission investigating the attacks disclosed yesterday.


Richard A. Clarke, who served as a senior White House counterterrorism official under three successive presidents, wrote to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 4, 2001, urging "policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier," according to a summary of the letter included in a commission staff report. Clarke also cites the same plea in his new book.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

nope. it was a legitimate response. we are now fighting the same group in Iraq that hit us on 9-11. looks like it was sound strategy to me.

WOW! I just can't grasp someone drinking the KOOL-AID so much as to write and to believe that the Insurgents in Iraq had anything to do with 9-11! That is so frickin' outrageous! You keep asking others to back up their claims and then you turn around and write that the Iraqis are responsible for 9-11! :damn

I know it's summer time so maybe you need to come in and spend some more time in an air conditioned room because you seem to be suffering from heat exhaustion!

there is no more corruption in the current administration than in any other administration. and if there is, the reason is simple. you cant have war/hurricane corruption when you refuse to fight wars and dont have any major hurricanes to deal with.

:spin: WOW - AGAIN! Wasn't it the GOP whose Contract With America was supposed to remove corruption from Government while balancing the budget and reducing spending....exactly which of those has been accomplished under Spastic Bush?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Not according to your article -- the Republicans were trying to shove huge tax cuts down his throat, which would have scotched any chance for a balanced budget.

How did you possibly gleam that? The Reps wanted a proposal for a balanced budget, Clinton refused, Congress shuts down the Fed government, Clinton caves and presents the proposal.

Which was the first year Bush was president, pal.

I meant to say late 2001.

How was 9-11 so detrimental to the economy?

Oh I don't know maybe because the WTC was the hub of the global economy. Remember that it wasn't only our economy that tanked following 9-11 but ours did rebound the quickest thanx to the tax cuts.

 

[Blitz]

Your tax cuts are so overrated.:beatdeadhorse

 

[26 X World Champs]

Twice now, we have witnessed aggressive pro-growth administrations drastically cut taxes for the small businesses who create most of the jobs. Both times, Democrats portrayed them as, "tax cuts for the rich," told us they wouldn't get us out of recessions, and that our budget couldn't handle any tax cuts. Twice now, Democrats have been proved wrong. Revenues are way higher than projected and we are a full year ahead of schedule in reducing the deficit by half. Now if Congress will pass a line item veto and commit to fixing the broken Social Security system like Bush wants, this exciting economic news will be sustainable.

Yeah Bush is doing such a great job that this year's deficit is the FOURTH LARGEST EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA!

$300 Billion deficit and you're unable to criticize Bush for the crap job he's doing! As anyone ever spent like Bush spends? Has Bush EVER veteod one spending bill?

For all of you who despise Democrats for their spending how can you possibly now support Bush? You're all full of $hit, sorry!

 

[26 X World Champs]

I use to watch NPR but can't anymore its full of left wing personalities likt Bill Moyers..........

Dude! Navy Pride uses LSD! You're one tripping Vet! I'm dying to know how you "WATCH" NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO?

Here's a picture of NP with LSD - Notice how much he has? :rofl

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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

Wow, you would have a point if it were not for inflation.:roll:

The numbers simply do not lie:

Income is in 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.

Median Household Income Decline under Bush:

Median Household Income in 2004: $44,389
Median Household Income in 2003: $44,482
Median Household Income in 2002: $45,062
Median Household Income in 2001: $46,058


Median Household Income Increase under Clinton:

Median Household Income in 2000: $46,129
Median Household Income in 1999: $45,003
Median Household Income in 1998: $43,430
Median Household Income in 1997: $42,545
Median Household Income in 1996: $41,943
Median Household Income in 1995: $40,677
Median Household Income in 1994: $40,217
Median Household Income in 1993: $40,422

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Employment Rate under Bush:

2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%

Employment Rate under Clinton:

1993: 6.9%
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

It's called Class Warfare. Under Bushonomics, statistically, unless you are in the top income bracket, you are getting screwed. Especially compared to the Clinton years.

Comparing the post-tax cuts Bush economy to the pre-tax cuts Clinton economy is like comparing a dime to a dollar.

 

[26 X World Champs]

That said it is irrefutable that cutting taxes does not increase revenures.

Dude! You're the MAN! How right you are! Me thinks you're a closet Democrat.....

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Oh I don't know maybe because the WTC was the hub of the global economy. Remember that it wasn't only our economy that tanked following 9-11 but ours did rebound the quickest thanx to the tax cuts.

How much did the economy tank after 9-11?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

How did you possibly gleam that? The Reps wanted a proposal for a balanced budget, Clinton refused, Congress shuts down the Fed government, Clinton caves and presents the proposal.

You're wrong, BOTH Clinton and Congress wanted a balanced budget. Clinton wanted to do it over a slightly longer time frame, without cutting education funding, and Newt wanted to cut education to balance the budget faster.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

You're wrong, BOTH Clinton and Congress wanted a balanced budget. Clinton wanted to do it over a slightly longer time frame, without cutting education funding, and Newt wanted to cut education to balance the budget faster.

Oh ya then when did Clinton ever propose a plan for a balnced budget?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Oh ya then when did Clinton ever propose a plan for a balnced budget?

Amnesia? Too blindly biased against Clinton to actually recall his RECORD? Well let's look at a transcript from President Clinton's Weekly Radio Address from April 27th, 1996. Read it and maybe your selective amnesia will be cured?

Look how far we've come. A year ago, many in Congress insisted we could only move toward a balanced budget by imposing extreme measures and walking away from those commitments. I knew that wasn't true, and I was determined to hold the line. So now we aren't going to break our promise to put 100,000 new police officers on the street. We aren't going to stop enforcing antipollution laws and risk severe damage to our environment. We aren't going to abandon our effort to shrink class size and raise teachers' standards, to keep kids in school safe and make college more affordable. We aren't going to abandon our commitment to AmeriCorps, our national service program, which also helps young people pay for college as they serve in their communities.

But here's what we are going to do: We are going to cut the deficit for the 4th year in a row. This is the first time that has happened in almost 50 years, since Harry Truman was President. We're on the way to a balanced budget. The deficit this year will be less than half of what it was when I took office. And now we've got to finish the job.

Earlier this year I proposed a plan to balance the budget, and Congress' own economists have certified that plan will balance the budget in 7 years. Republicans in Congress have their own balanced budget plan. If you laid my plan and their plan side by side, you would find enough cuts in common to both plans to balance the budget and provide a tax cut for working families. So the ingredients for a balanced budget are clearly at hand.

Source:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52732
Wait a minute! Not only a balanced budget but a TAX CUT too? Can't be! He's a tax and spend Democrat! Just ask Navy Pride...he'll tell you that President Clinton only pretended to be a moderate and that in truth he was a damn Liberal!

How can that be if he proposed to balance the budget AND do tax cuts?

Hmmm...let's review this record of tax cuts a bit:

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

Source: http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

 

[The-Technocrat]

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:

" A 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion [in gross domestic product [...]. “If new revenues equaled as much as 20% of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury’s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion.” [...] That’s a lot of money. But how does it compare to the size of the president’s tax cuts?

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, using conventional analyses, says making the president’s tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would generate by prompting more hours of work, more savings and investment and more efficient use of resources.

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]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Amnesia? Too blindly biased against Clinton to actually recall his RECORD? Well let's look at a transcript from President Clinton's Weekly Radio Address from April 27th, 1996. Read it and maybe your selective amnesia will be cured?

Source:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52732
Wait a minute! Not only a balanced budget but a TAX CUT too? Can't be! He's a tax and spend Democrat! Just ask Navy Pride...he'll tell you that President Clinton only pretended to be a moderate and that in truth he was a damn Liberal!

How can that be if he proposed to balance the budget AND do tax cuts?

Hmmm...let's review this record of tax cuts a bit:

Source: http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

Please do try and follow along Clinton proposed nothing of the sort until congress shut down the Federal government for the longest period in u.s. history until Clinton would give into their demands of a balanced budget proposal. Notice that speech is from April '96 and the Reps shutdown the government in January '96. He was dragged kicking and screaming to cut taxes and spending by a Republican congress.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Please do try and follow along Clinton proposed nothing of the sort until congress shut down the Federal government for the longest period in u.s. history until Clinton would give into their demands of a balanced budget proposal. Notice that speech is from April '96 and the Reps shutdown the government in January '96. He was dragged kicking and screaming to cut taxes and spending.

Excuse me but you wrote:

Oh ya then when did Clinton ever propose a plan for a balnced budget?

So don't now try to weasel out of what you wrote. Clinton most definitely proposed a balanced budget AND he achieved it.

Bush could be President for the next 100 years and he would never balance the budget. Has there ever been a President who before becoming a politician had so many personal business failures as Bush did?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Excuse me but you wrote:

So don't now try to weasel out of what you wrote. Clinton most definitely proposed a balanced budget AND he achieved it.

Bush could be President for the next 100 years and he would never balance the budget. Has there ever been a President who before becoming a politician had so many personal business failures as Bush did?

He proposed nothing until he was forced to by the Republican congress ... again context matters do try and follow the conversation will you?