DesideriScuri -> RE: Taxmageddon 100 Days Away, Look Out Middle Class!!! (9/23/2012 5:23:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen This is complete nonsense. These tax cuts were meant to end years ago and simply return to rates that were in effect during the 90's when the economy boomed. When they do all end the deficit will decline quite a lot and that should make the newly minted deficit hawk cons happy, unless of course that was simply having to do with a Democratic President. You really believe that huh??? Fact: the rates will return to thoe from the late 90's. Fact: the economy grew at historic rates during the 90's. Fact: the deficit is primarily a result of these tax cuts. Fact: cons didn't complain about the deficit and debt when these tax cuts were passed and for the remainder of W's term. Fact: the President is a member of the Democratic Party What is there to need to believe in? Are you seriously putting out there that the tax rates of the late 90's was what caused the historic growth of the economy back then? Did the economy grow in the mid-00's? Did we have low unemployment in the mid-00's? The tax cuts were not what caused Bush to run deficits. His jacked up spending is what caused him to have deficits. Look at the fucking tax revenues from those years. Clinton's best revenue year was 2000 when he brought in close to $2.025T. Four of Bush's years were worse than that, and for were much better than that. And, if memory serves, one of the top 3 Bush revenue years would make up the difference for all 4 years of his that revenues were less than Clinton's best. I have to put this out there though.... I am using 2001 - 2008 #'s. If you want, we can talk about 2002-2009 #'s for Bush, but it will only change my argument a little. Do you know that Obama's revenues have never been lower than Clinton's? That Clinton's best year (2000 and, yes, it was $2.025T) is the 8th best all-time? That the last 7 years have all been better? The estimates on the OMB's spreadsheet I am looking at shows revenues rising to the point that 2013 will be the new record high. If the 2012 estimate is accurate, according to this spreadsheet, 2012 will be a mere $99B from the all time high. I don't care what you think of the wars because it is meaningless. Obama's lowest spending year was 2010, at $3.456T. Clinton's highest spending year (2001) was $1.862T. That's an increase of 86%! It's not the Bush tax cuts that are causing the deficits and increasing debt. It's the runaway spending. The Top 10 tax revenue years: 2007 - $2.567T (Bush) 2008 - $2.523T (Bush) 2006 - $2.406T (Bush) 2011 - $2.303T (Obama) 2010 - $2.162T (Obama) 2005 - $2.153T (Bush) 2009 - $2.104T (Bush/Obama?) 2000 - $2.025T (Clinton) 2001 - $1.991T (Clinton/Bush?) 2004 - $1.880T (Bush) You can blame some of Obama's spending on the was Bush started, but that will be dropping out with the war in Iraq ended and the continued drawdown of fighting in Afghanistan. Yet, by the estimates, Obama's spending continues to go up, and up. Where, oh where, is the deficit/debt problem proven to be on the tax cuts?!? Where?
|
|
|
|