|
LookieNoNookie -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/2/2012 5:08:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:
While the plan does cut tax rates, it is "revenue neutral." The reduction in tax revenues from lower rates will be made up for by some combination of increased economics and - and this is the part that most critics ignore - the plan also calls for getting rid of most, if not all, loopholes, carve outs, or whatever you want to call them.
You are not making any sense. Can you cite one example from history where cutting taxes helped reduce the national deficit? Its never happened. The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. Raising taxes on the wealthy won't kill the economy either, that's a myth.
Have a quick peek at the tax revenues and expenditures on the OMB website. It's interesting to note that of Bush's 8 years in office, 5 had higher revenues than any of Clinton's years. No hogwash. Them's the facts.
And, this thread wasn't about reducing the deficit. It was about cutting tax rates and remaining revenue neutral.
To address your smoke and mirrors, I'll show you that there are only three ways to reduce the deficit.
1. Increase taxes to the point that spending is less than revenues.
2. Decrease spending to the point that it's less than revenues.
3. Some mixture of the first 2.
Since you have not said anything about spending, I am going to have to assume you don't know about spending. You see, when you take the amount coming into government and the amount going out of government, you plug it into an intense mathemagical equation called, "subtraction," you get to see if you've spent more than you've brought in. There are two variables. Revenues, as I've said, have gone up and have continued to go up (Obama's "worst" revenue year was better, I think, than Clinton's best. It's not a revenues issue. It's a spending issue. Revenues are up, but spending is ridiculously up (and, that means Bush and Obama are both to be blamed for this.
quote:
Clinton controlled spending (unlike Republican Presidents) and increased taxes. He's the only President in our lifetime to run a balanced budget. Every Republican at the time said his policy would ruin the US economy.
The most important achievement in political economy in the Clinton yeas was reducing the federal deficit. Just before his inauguration Clinton held an economic summit in Little Rock, at which academic, business executives, and financiers one after another moaned about how huge federal borrowing to cover debt was making capital too expensive to allow industry to grow. One year later Clinton had rammed through a tax-and -budget bill that turned a chronic deficit into a surplus.
The anti-deficit drive was controversial within the Democratic Party, because Clinton seemed to be truckling to financial markets rather than spending more for education and health. It was bitterly resisted by the Republicans; every single Republican member of Congress voted against the new taxes in the plan. It was an enormous gamble on Clinton's part: he had Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The historical judgment has to be that it paid off, for Clinton, and, of vastly more importance, for the country.
--James Fallows
LMAO!!
Clinton controlled spending?!?
Clinton balanced the budget?
Unless you are incorrectly going to claim that Clinton's tax policies created the internet, you can't credit his tax policies for a balanced budget. He was lucky to be in office when the internet phenomenon hit. That's all Clinton did to balance the budget.
Gawd...you're fucking beautiful :)
(But again, I must raise the point: Facts....confusing....conjecture, understandable. Accusatory data based on hyperbole....absolutely the way we should all vote).
|
|
|
|
