lastly tax reciepts have been going up since the mid seventies through recessions, boons, tax increases/decreases. its intellectually dishonest to claim that bush's tax cuts increased revenue. this info is public, i don't know how bush supporters get off making these claims. for 30 years, 71-01 tax revenue goes up
I can't claim bush tax cuts increased revenue, but I can say the tax revenue did go up after the bush tax cuts. I don't think anybody can make a definitive claim on the causation of tax rates and revenue.
so wait, now we're not talking about tax cuts? tax cuts were implemented in 01? were they not, and even if you want to change your argument midstream and tell me to give up, did tax revenue go up in 03, NO. talk about lying, they don't even catch back up to 01 levels till 05. Give up dude
dude, if you want to bow out the debate that's cool, i'm not going to be a jerk and rub it in, but don't join the peanut gallery when you need someone to take up your slack.
The big bush tax cut was the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which went into effect on 2003, it would be disingenuous to judge it by the first year of implementation. If would be like blasting Obama's economic stimulus package on the tanking 2009 economy data. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I think I understand what you mean, govt. spending can create jobs Clinton borrowed little compared to Bush and Pres Obama Borrowing doesn't create a surplus either, budget surpluses can be created though by cooking the books on the social security trusts anyways you cannot borrow your way out of debt and it doesn't matter because we aren't going to Look for the record I am pretty pessimistic when it comes to republicans and democrats and I do not endorse Bush or Obama as far as their economics
no it isn't the same, some tax cuts go into effect immediately link on 01 tax cuts from June 2002 Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade. By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers. Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005. In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation. For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place. Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now. As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
i am glad that you've brought this up, yet another rhetorics spinned by Clinton critics to discredit him. all the revenues brought in to the US treasury affect the federal budget. that includes social security taxes; including such revenue source is in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. on the flip side, not counting the expenditures associated with the Iraq war (against the Federal Budget), as W's administration did and called for by McCain's campaign, is a deviation from Generally Accepted Accounting principle---cooking the books. btw, even after excuding the War expenditure and including revenue collected for social security taxes, W still generated 8 consecutive years of HUGE budget deficits.
I'm trying to back-pedal us out of debt adoo, that's how you do it. or you do car washes or you cut spending or you raise taxes or you monetize the debt or some sweet combination you are confusing balancing the budget with borrowing money the budget is something politicians use to guess how much they will spend, it is considered balanced when it equals what they guess they have to spend how much the govt. actually spends and borrows is a completely different number the govt. has been borrowing from the Social Security trust funds for quite awhile now to cover their spending, whenever there is more in the trust funds than is currently going out in payments it can be borrowed by the govt. - in other words the money that is supposed to be sitting there for the baby generation retirement party is being borrowed and the Govt. owes it back just like all its other debt, but this is considered off book debt so it looks like we are doing better than we really are and Social Security is in a heap of trouble. I am not bashing Clinton's economic policy, it was just as bad as Bush and so far Obama- (correct this - BUSH was by far the worst!) Although I don't see where Obaba edit again- or Obama (either one) has much choice. sink or drown are not good options
you need to study up on how the govt. borrows from social security I agree with you about Bush, one of my least favorite presidents; I only wish he was the problem or Obama or Clinton or Reagan I don't see them making too much difference for good, thus I am the sour puss on politics here.
One more thing here- If I knew what to do I would post it. I don't know that much about economics but I understand the simple things like borrowing money and not being able to pay it back (I know, it's obvious I don't know economics) So, ask me something about Jesus Christ.
yeah! i had another joke, but didn't want it to sound offensive to you cause i got mad respect for ya.
