Across the board tax cuts increase revenue, prove me wrong

Are you sure that you want the roring 20's Jack? have a little read of this article

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w29roaring20depress.htm

 

added to favorites Steve, will read tonight

 

OK

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-republican-lies-about-bush-tax-cuts

Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

But even that cost is one Republicans refuse to pay. As Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told Chris Wallace three weeks ago:

"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

Three days later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) explained how his party miraculously turns bulls**t into gold:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

It's no wonder, as Ezra Klein joked, that If a Democrat said something like that, "He'd be laughed out of the room."

But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half -- 48 percent -- of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

this is even better, it's from MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/

 

Heres one from your home state
http://hoosieraccess.com/2010/09/05/proof-that-the-bush-tax-cuts-increased-revenue/

 

from the treasury dot gov.........read the last cpl paragraphs about the W tax cuts.........scroll down
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

 

Mr Meon, if proven wrong, I will publicly admit to being a moron If you are proven wrong, will you simply admit to being wrong? Note the year 2007 in the US Government chart below......record revenue.

Below is a formatted version of the data displayed in the chart.

Total Revenue
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2015 Year GDP-US
$ billion Total Revenue -total
$ billion
1995 7414.7 2569.63 a
1996 7838.5 2761.53 a
1997 8332.4 2848.51 a
1998 8793.5 3219.15 a
1999 9353.5 3381.37 a
2000 9951.5 3706.47 a
2001 10286.2 3833.89 a
2002 10642.3 3330.71 a
2003 11142.1 3764.08 a
2004 11867.8 3932.09 a
2005 12638.4 4306.69 a
2006 13398.9 4763.17 a
2007 14077.6 5237.39 a
2008 14441.4 4767.09 a
2009 14258.2 4352.52 g
2010 14623.9 4448.29 g
2011 15299 4913.55 g
2012 16203.3 5339.24 g
2013 17182.2 5670.91 g
2014 18192.6 6011.83 g
2015 19190.4 6267.52 g
Legend:
a - actual reported
g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com
b - budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget
e - out-year estimate in US fy11 budget



It is from government.com thingy, here is the link:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php

 

I've got an idea. Let's look at recent history. In the last 10 years, the tax cuts that have been in place have served to create the largest deficits in US history. No matter how much we cut spending, we'll never come close to paying off the deficit before my grandchildren's grandchildren graduate from college. The Bush Administration did something unprecedented in US history; they ran 2 wars and didn't raise taxes and in fact passed the largest tax give away to the uppermost 2% of the population. Continuing the tax cuts will add 700 billion to the deficit and pad the bank accounts of almost exclusively millionaires and billionaires. At a time when poverty in this country is at 1960 levels and 1 out of every 7 people lives in poverty, do the wealthiest of the wealthy really need more money? If 10 years of tax cuts haven't created jobs and most jobs are created by small businesses anyway, why is it in this country's best interest to give the wealthy anything?

 

This is probably a more realistic assessment of your question.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/yes_tax_cuts_increase_the_defi.html

There are a couple of weird arguments that come up when you talk about tax cuts. One is that "tax cuts do not cause deficits. Spending does." This is pretty easy to test: If we cut taxes this year but leave spending unchanged, will anything happen to deficits next year? The answer, of course, is yes. They will go up. Fast.
Now, you could say that tax cuts don't have to cause deficits, and that's true. But then they need to be accompanied by spending cuts equal to their size. (The same goes for spending increases, of course, which can be offset by tax increases.) But the GOP is not proposing spending cuts equal to the size of the Bush tax cuts (and, to be fair, President Obama is not proposing spending cuts equal to the size of his reduced extension of the Bush tax cuts). So these tax cuts will increase the deficit by $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.
For awhile, conservatives tried to dodge the need to propose spending cuts -- which are, after all, terribly unpopular -- by saying that the tax cuts would do the work for you: Since revenues were going down, spending would simply follow at some later point, like night comes after day. But as William Niskanen, former chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, has argued, that theory wasn't just wrong. It was disastrously wrong.
"My study finds that there was a strong negative relation between the federal spending percent of GDP and the federal revenue percent of GDP from 1981 through 2005, even controlling for the unemployment rate," writes Niskanen. So when you look at the numbers, the reality is that when revenue went up, spending went down. And when revenue went down, spending went up. When Congress is being fiscally irresponsible, it simply is fiscally irresponsible, and it both cuts taxes and increases spending. And then when it needs to be responsible again, it cuts spending and increases taxes.
What's worse, Niskanen said, is that this belief has robbed the budget of its traditional guardians. "An increased belief in the 'Starve the Beast' assertion has substantially reduced the traditional Republican concern for fiscal responsibility," he continued, "leading to a pattern of tax cuts, increased spending, and increased deficits."
In the absence of offsetting spending cuts, tax cuts increase the deficit. And when a party is fooling themselves and their supporters into believing otherwise, they are embracing a theory that has been proven to increase the deficit. They are as much pro-deficit spending as they are pro-tax cuts.

 

Moen, I will digest your posts later, I am unable to now with my time restraints.......I owe you a fair read. I promise an honest reply. I love to learn if I am wrong....I dont think I am, but if I am..........

You all have a great weekend. I am going camping at 5 am tomorow and putting my new ( used ) boat in the water for the first time......and no TomC it is not a yacht..it is a 21 foot fiberglass bassboat.

 

Have a good time Jack! I hope to learn something too. What I am realizing mostly is that if you (not YOU but you generically) tell half the story, about economics its easy to believe either argument. So what else is new eh?

 

BO's dithering on whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts just speaks further to his inexperience & lack of backbone. What it is doing is advancing the lack of confidence & uncertainty that permeates our economy. Will he or won't he? What will my tax liability be 3 months from now? Who knows? Just like the future effects of BOcare, stimulus spending, etc...no one knows what's in store.

 

View attachment 92 Hey Jack? Catch any of these?

 

Jack don't mess around. This is more his style!

 

Are you trying to say his style is a couple of bottom feeders? LOL! You have to go Walleye fishing some time.

 

Never had much luck with that perch. Now yellow perch is a different story.

BTW, the #2 walleye perch lake in the state is about 1.5 miles from my home. Never even seen one caught there.

 

should have not checked my email this morning......got called into work :-(

 

Here is an interesting adjunct to your proposed tax cut. Listen to Dick Morris's analysis (the first 2.5 minutes). I think it rings pretty true.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4341641/why-obama-remains-popular-in-europe

 

Right Morris! Everybody in Europe likes Obama because secretly they want to be communists. The only thing Europe lacks is the Right wing hate machine churning out lie after lie that gullible people are too lazy to research for themselves. Keep watch Fox rlm! Now there is a source of truth.

I know that politicians have to refrain from saying how stupid the average American voter is but I'll respect the next guy/gal that stands up and tells the truth about the people that actually believe idiots like O'Reilly and Morris. The Right wing attack on the education system in this country has finally paid dividends.

 

I will have you know I got these views from the most left wing college in the nation - or at least once it was.