Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

[Deegan]

Nah. We should just eliminate income, dividend and cap gains taxes (but not SS taxes, the working folks pay that after all) and borrow everything. Stick the next generation. That would be the fulfillment of the Republican dream.

Sheesh, does your hatred have no end?:shock:

And speaking of S.S, there will not be any for the next generation, who's fault is that?:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

Read the article in the NYT, thanks to tax cuts and increased revenue 100 billion was sliced off the deficit...........You just don't want to give the Bush Administration credit for anything, its as simple as that.........

OK. $100 billion was sliced off the "deficit" supposedly. That knocks it down to "only" $300 billion. Yay Bush. Wonderful.

In 2000 there was a $236 billion surplus, using Republican accounting. So its only $536 billion worse. That's impressive.

 

[Navy Pride]

Nah. We should just eliminate income, dividend and cap gains taxes (but not SS taxes, the working folks pay that after all) and borrow everything. Stick the next generation. That would be the fulfillment of the Republican dream.

That might bother a couple of the biggest liberals in this country in Gates and Soros..........Talk about the rich..........

 

[zymurgy]

Kind of a misleading title.

The deficit is going to grow larger again this year, maybe not as large as some feared, but it is still growing.

 

[Iriemon]

Sheesh, does your hatred have no end?:shock:

And speaking of S.S, there will not be any for the next generation, who's fault is that?:roll:

The great folks who brought you these huge deficits for the past 25 years that have ripped off $2 trillion from *our* SS trust fund.

 

[Iriemon]

Sheesh, does your hatred have no end?:shock:

LOL -- I guess my sarcasm doesn't.

 

[Navy Pride]

OK. $100 billion was sliced off the "deficit" supposedly. That knocks it down to "only" $300 billion. Yay Bush. Wonderful.

In 2000 there was a $236 billion surplus, using Republican accounting. So its only $536 billion worse. That's impressive.

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?

 

[Navy Pride]

Kind of a misleading title.

The deficit is going to grow larger again this year, maybe not as large as some feared, but it is still growing.

You wish...........

 

[Iriemon]

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?

That is exactly what I am saying. A responsible, moral, decent person would pay his bills, and not just run up a huge debt for his kids to have to deal with.

 

[Navy Pride]

The great folks who brought you these huge deficits for the past 25 years that have ripped off $2 trillion from *our* SS trust fund.

Cop out........Democrats ripped of SS from 1954 to 1994 when they were in the majority........Both parties are gulity here.............

 

[Navy Pride]

That is exactly what I am saying. A responsible, moral, decent person would pay his bills, and not just run up a huge debt for his kids to have to deal with.

So you would not have paid for 9/11/01, 2 wars or the billion for hurrican Katrina?

 

[zymurgy]

You wish...........

"the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago"

Its still a deficit. If the national debt was shrinking we would call it a surplus.

 

[aquapub]

For those of us who watched liberals trash the economy under Reagan, only to find the tax cuts dramatically increasing revenues, this is not a surprise at all. :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

Cop out........Democrats ripped of SS from 1954 to 1994 when they were in the majority........Both parties are gulity here.............

There was no trust fund for the future until SS was amended Congress signed by Reagan in 1983 increasing taxes so a trust fund would be built up for the boomers retirements.

There were deficits under Clinton, but he inherited a $340 billion deficit from Bush1 that was eliminated by the time he left office. He left Bush2 a responsible fiscal government that was balanced and in order, for the first time in decades. Which lasted about 2 months after Bush took office.

No, both parties are not equally guilty here, nice try. We can see who the big borrowers have been:

On budget deficits (-) or surplus.

1980 -72.7
1981 -73.9 <-Reagan
1982 -120.0
1983 -208.0
1984 -185.6
1985 -221.7
1986 -237.9
1987 -169.3
1988 -194.0
1989 -205.2 <-Bush
1990 -277.8
1991 -321.5
1992 -340.5
1993 -300.4 <-Clinton
1994 -258.9
1995 -226.4
1996 -174.1
1997 -103.3
1998 -30.0
1999 1.9
2000 86.6
2001 -33.3 <-Bush
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4
2005 -493.6

 

[Deegan]

There was no trust fund for the future until SS was amended Congress signed by Reagan in 1983 increasing taxes so a trust fund would be built up for the boomers retirements.

There were deficits under Clinton, but he inherited a $340 billion deficit from Bush1 that was eliminated by the time he left office. He left Bush2 a responsible fiscal government that was balanced and in order, for the first time in decades. Which lasted about 2 months after Bush took office.

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:

 

[Iriemon]

So you would not have paid for 9/11/01, 2 wars or the billion for hurrican Katrina?

How does the Govt pay for things?

 

[zymurgy]

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:

True.

And Bush doesn't get a pat on the back for increasing the national debt either, which this thread is trying to do.

 

[Iriemon]

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

What of it?

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

That's right, taxpayers did it. Under Clinton taxpayers balanced the budget and actually paid for what the Govt spent. Tomorrow's taxpayers will have to pay for the debt Bush is running up. Give him a pat on the back for that.

 

[Deegan]

True.

And Bush doesn't get a pat on the back for increasing the national debt either, which this thread is trying to do.

I'm not defending him for that, he is not the conservative I thought he was, just trying to put this in perspective here. The point is, the government wants to spend all they want, and the more we give them, the more they will spend.

 

[zymurgy]

What of it?



That's right, taxpayers did it. Under Clinton taxpayers balanced the budget and actually paid for what the Govt spent. Tomorrow's taxpayers will have to pay for the debt Bush is running up. Give him a pat on the back for that.

Not just that but Bush ran his campaign under the premise the surplus was owed to the people.

Of course it works well when people like Navy Pride can read an article and not realize the national debt is still growing.

 

[zymurgy]

I'm not defending him for that, he is not the conservative I thought he was, just trying to put this in perspective here. The point is, the government wants to spend all they want, and the more we give them, the more they will spend.

If true, how did the Clinton goverment generate a surplus?

Like it or not, a surplus did exist which means they stopped spending short of tax revenues.

 

[Iriemon]

For those of us who watched liberals trash the economy under Reagan, only to find the tax cuts dramatically increasing revenues, this is not a surprise at all. :mrgreen:

Actually, in inflation adjusted terms, revenues were down for 4 years after the Reagan tax cuts. Eventually they went up, in part because of economic growth and in part because he recognized what was going on and passed a bunch of tax increases. Still, the national debt increase 300% from 1981 through 1992.

 

[Deegan]

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

 

[Deegan]

If true, how did the Clinton goverment generate a surplus?

Like it or not, a surplus did exist which means they stopped spending short of tax revenues.

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

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not defending him for that, he is not the conservative I thought he was, just trying to put this in perspective here. The point is, the government wants to spend all they want, and the more we give them, the more they will spend.

Actually, history teaches the opposite is true. Spending rose faster in the 80s and 00s when taxes were lower. Spending rose more slowly in the 90s when taxes were higher.

It makes some sense. If taxes are low, people don't care as much about govt spending, because problem only 10% have any idea about the Govt debt and maybe 2% know the difference between a debt and deficit.

But they know when their taxes go up. And if they have to pay more taxes, they are going to pay more attention to what the govt is spending the money on.