- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No.
Tip O'Neill was a Democrat. All the socialist programs are Democrat inventions, and all of them violate the Constitution and should not therefore exist in this country.
"Both" wars? The United States now has three wars to contend with.
However, since military spending is constituitonal, it's last on the list of what should be cut from the US budget.
Not one "socialist safety net" program passes constituitonal muster and 100% of them should be axed.
And Mayor Snorkum sees your envy of the wealthy who pay far far more in taxes than you do.
And since the right isn't doing it either it's also a violation of their agenda.
Then you remain right where the upper class put you. Continuing to bear the burden of their tax cuts in ever increasing National debt in hopes that someday the wealth will trickle down enough to actually create jobs. But its's only been 30 years. These things probably take while right?
The Republicans are not going to scrap programs that their only large constituency depends on to keep them from living on the street. Without the elderly voting block, Republicans don't get elected to office.
So your thinking that is a possibility is delusional.
Actually, it's the Republicans who aren't doing it. The Republicans are to the "right" as orange is to purple. Not a lot of overlap. Far too many leftists in the GOP. Look at McCain and Bush, for example.
Are we talking state level or federal level??
If we increase the GDP that will increase tax revenue. Raising tax rates is not the only way to increse revenue. If an increase in tax rates hurts our GDP then we're not gaining.Balanced budget of course, anyone who says tax cuts at this point is just delusional. What I've found from all these debates is that most people screaming for Bush's tax cuts were not the ones who benefited from it. The ones who believe that Obama "raised their taxes" in fact got a tax break from Obama. People delude themselves into thinking they are somehow in the top 1% of the population that earns more than $250k per year. They almost never do. They're lying to themselves and to others, just like "Joe the Plumber."
We actually need to raise taxes to pay off the debt, plain and simple. Spending needs to be cut IN HALF or more, and stay that way permanently.
Well what if cutting taxes sparked higher productivity and output? - Higher GDP. Tax revenue is going to be about 18% of GDP so that's where they put their focus. If higher tax rates increased the GDP somehow then that's what would happen.Why on Earth would the GDP increase due to Bush's tax cuts?
Why on Earth would the GDP increase due to Bush's tax cuts?
If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive. Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.I just don't see how Bush's tax cuts lead to "higher productivity and output." All I saw was disasterous malinvestment and the pending collapse of our economic system. This idea that cutting the taxes of the superwealthy somehow causes them to invest the money back into the country is a myth -- that never happened. I'd like to see some evidence that the Bush tax cuts did absolutely anything useful for our economy in the first place. Otherwise, they should have been made to expire.
If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive. Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.
GDP & Tax, on average, has a history of increasing year to year no matter what the tax policy is. Why is Bush's tax policy special when it likely would have happened anyway?
What's special is that he pushed the cuts and that it increased revenues.
More revenue came in than otherwise would have. Tax revenues stay more constant than always increasing. As a percentage.
GDP & Tax, on average, has a history of increasing year to year no matter what the tax policy is. Why is Bush's tax policy special when it likely would have happened anyway?
This is why I am asking, revenues tend to increase over time as the economy expands, regardless of tax policy (again, on average, we do have recessions from time to time)
So, you are saying a higher percentage of taxes were paid, compared to GDP, than in earlier times?
Good luck getting a straight answer from any conservatives here. I've asked this question before, and most of them resent the whole premise of government paying for the services it provides. :roll:
If people have to pay fewer taxes it can spur them to invest more and be more productive.
sazerac said:Our tax revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. 2004 brought in more than 2003. 2005 more than 2004. We spent a whole lot of money on wars which added to our deficit. Our tax revenues are really up to our economy more than anything.
As bad as our politicians are, at least we have a law that they must balance the budget.I have no doubt that we would owe many trillions of dollars otherwise.
Revenues don't tend to increase by percentage of GDP. They tend to be a constant percent of the GDP. So if you can increase the GDP you will collect 18 % of the additional monies.
There's lots of ways this can happen. It can happen by cutting taxes. It can happen by raising taxes. It can happen by invention or favorable weather.
If you had to pick one or the other, which one is more important?
Why didn't it, then? Why did they continue to outsource and not re-invest in America if that is the case?
These two statement are contradictory. First you attribute it to the tax cuts then say it has more to do with the economy than anything. Which is it?
I personally don't see any evidence that Bush's tax cuts did anything you claim, in theory or in reality.
Our economy didn't really "grow" either, we didn't begin producing more. If anything speculation increased tremendously during that period, not actual growth. GDP is a poor reflection of economic reality in my opinion, especially in America. How can 70% of an economy be based on consumption? If people increase consumption, which therefore "grows" the economy, how is that a good thing?
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?