quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

the details behind the hyperventilating rhetoric are that borrowing 2.3 Trillion more from China wont sit right with Rand Paul, nor will McCain vote for it, so ....how many republican senators are retiring?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is a change in your replies DS. I have history and the facts behind me, therefore I am not being partisan at all and simply wonder where all of this fiscal conservatism is. Debt in 2001 $5.6 trillion. Debt on 2008 $13 trillion.
No tax cuts ever increases revenue unless you lower cap gains which Bush did and as I've stated before, results in a short term windfall on those gains, now realized because of the discount. Those mere billion$ in that 'windfall' put no dent into the trillion$ of borrowing.
Even in a lecture delivered by a writer for National Review, asked how is it that people should vote for repubs because they were small govt., fiscally sound ? When in the last 40 or more years have these people when in power, ever shown us that they are small govt., fiscal conservatives ?
They haven't and still aren't.

Are you saying the OMB.gov History Budget spreadsheet isn't facts? Your response to the increase in revenues is to point out that the budget deficit increased. I acknowledged that spending saw and "incredible increase," which helps explain why the deficit went up even though revenues went up.
If you're going to pivot to deflect from the actual discussion, I'd rather know now so I can just ignore your responses.

My source was the US Treasury so I guess our sources conflict or without a link to that OMB.gov, I can't tell.

Lazy much?

As I mentioned before, I posted the link to the Historical spreadsheet earlier in this thread. Here is in Post #80, and I even included Total revenues from 2000-2009!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk
you made the extraordinary claim. you cite.
I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same.

No....YOU Cite!!
(NO!!! YOU cite!!!).
NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves).

Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions?

It seems that anytime someone disagrees with someone's opinion, they've suddenly lost the ability to do their own homework.

Everyone wants a blue ribbon for showing up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
how many of you qualify for the tax cut for private jets????

To see the details beyond the hyperventilating rhetoric: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/this-business-tax-problem-is-disrupting-the-gop-s-overhaul-push

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
And as pointed out in your numbers, tax revenue went immediately down as both links show, tax revenue didn't return to pre-cut levels until 2005. (treasury has 2006) So NO, tax cuts do not lead to higher federal tax revenue. It's like taking a pay cut and expecting a higher take home.
One is hardly disingenuous simply by not buying into 40 years of repub excuses why their math doesn't work. Oh it was this or it was that. With the right of those 40 years, it's always somebody else's fault or some economic aberration while showing no such deference to anything that follows the same course from the lefties.
Especially when it comes to policies that do effect the economy. Historically under dems, the economy has performed by every single measure several times better than when under repub govts. Want a recession...vote repub.
Also, Reagan raised taxes in 82 and in the soc. sec. 'reform' of 83...tripled payroll taxes that never landed on soc. sec's bed but was used instead to shave the deficit but not eliminate it. So just how again did either policy and of tax reduction especially, increase federal rev. and create jobs ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Also, Reagan raised taxes in 82 and in the soc. sec. 'reform' of 83...tripled payroll taxes that never landed on soc. sec's bed but was used instead to shave the deficit but not eliminate it. So just how again did either policy and of tax reduction especially, increase federal rev. and create jobs ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
And as pointed out in your numbers, tax revenue went immediately down as both links show, tax revenue didn't return to pre-cut levels until 2005. (treasury has 2006) So NO, tax cuts do not lead to higher federal tax revenue. It's like taking a pay cut and expecting a higher take home.
One is hardly disingenuous simply by not buying into 40 years of repub excuses why their math doesn't work. Oh it was this or it was that. With the right of those 40 years, it's always somebody else's fault or some economic aberration while showing no such deference to anything that follows the same course from the lefties.
Especially when it comes to policies that do effect the economy. Historically under dems, the economy has performed by every single measure several times better than when under repub govts. Want a recession...vote repub.
Also, Reagan raised taxes in 82 and in the soc. sec. 'reform' of 83...tripled payroll taxes that never landed on soc. sec's bed but was used instead to shave the deficit but not eliminate it. So just how again did either policy and of tax reduction especially, increase federal rev. and create jobs ?

Not taking into account other potential effects, is certainly disingenuous.

Do you think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Also, Reagan raised taxes in 82 and in the soc. sec. 'reform' of 83...tripled payroll taxes that never landed on soc. sec's bed but was used instead to shave the deficit but not eliminate it. So just how again did either policy and of tax reduction especially, increase federal rev. and create jobs ?

Neither policy increased federal revenue OR created jobs.

However, Reagan's Obama-style Stimulus package, focused on defense, did both!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not taking into account other potential effects, is certainly disingenuous.
Do you think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues?

Well certainly not as much as the policies of borrow and spend starting with Reagan. If anything, during a recession, it is risky work plus I recall Greenspan telling the congress that if they cut taxes he would recommend rate hikes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not taking into account other potential effects, is certainly disingenuous.
Do you think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues?

Well certainly not as much as the policies of borrow and spend starting with Reagan. If anything, during a recession, it is risky work plus I recall Greenspan telling the congress that if they cut taxes he would recommend rate hikes.

So, yes, you do think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues. Now, you assign all blame for the reduced revenues at the beginning of Bush43's Presidency on his tax cuts, but ignore the economic doldrums that happened after the dotcom bubble burst, and then again after 9/11.

You are nothing more than a partisan shill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

well, in continuing along partisan shill lines, look at Kansas and the absolute disaster there, with their taxes. then turn your attention to california where they were raised, and lets compare economies, and how much deficit was cleared in each as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not taking into account other potential effects, is certainly disingenuous.
Do you think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues?

Well certainly not as much as the policies of borrow and spend starting with Reagan. If anything, during a recession, it is risky work plus I recall Greenspan telling the congress that if they cut taxes he would recommend rate hikes.

So, yes, you do think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues. Now, you assign all blame for the reduced revenues at the beginning of Bush43's Presidency on his tax cuts, but ignore the economic doldrums that happened after the dotcom bubble burst, and then again after 9/11.
You are nothing more than a partisan shill.

Enough

quote:

As of W taking office, the fiscal 2000 budget was looking at a $132 billion surplus. $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years.
So tell me what it was that hurt revenue again ? In fact W used the surplus and even got Greenspan's blessing that time specifically to justify 2001 tax cuts.
Then in 2003 came up with the supply-side bullshit again and even at war, cut corp. taxes.
For the last time, the reduction in tax revenue thanx to these tax cuts, took the budget immediately into deficit and tax revenue did not return to pre-cut levels until 2006 according to Treasury. So 2001-2008 $8 trillion in new debt.
Now a real conservative (and real conservative legislators) not some charade of elitist and corporate whores, would not have even asked for this and even then, congress would've voted it down. Will the real conservatives ever stand up ? No, there are none.
Some will state going back to as far as Nixon and I agree, the so-called conservatives have n e v e r...e v e r...legislated for either small govt. or fiscal responsibility.
So for any 'disingenuousness' look to those who for 40 or more years and now, who call themselves small govt. fiscally responsibility conservatives as worse...pathological liars.
In fact, the right and the repub elected officials of the time, were such hyper-partisans, they railed against Kennedy's tax cuts claiming all sorts of calamities were in store. What happened ?
Kennedy did a whole lot more with govt. then just tax cuts...to get the economy moving after Eisenhower left him a recession. All Kennedy really did on taxes, was reduce brackets and lower the top rates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not taking into account other potential effects, is certainly disingenuous.
Do you think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues?

Well certainly not as much as the policies of borrow and spend starting with Reagan. If anything, during a recession, it is risky work plus I recall Greenspan telling the congress that if they cut taxes he would recommend rate hikes.

So, yes, you do think economic doldrums will have an impact on tax revenues. Now, you assign all blame for the reduced revenues at the beginning of Bush43's Presidency on his tax cuts, but ignore the economic doldrums that happened after the dotcom bubble burst, and then again after 9/11.
You are nothing more than a partisan shill.

Enough

Oooooh. Or what?

quote:

As of W taking office, the fiscal 2000 budget was looking at a $132 billion surplus. $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years.
So tell me what it was that hurt revenue again ? In fact W used the surplus and even got Greenspan's blessing that time specifically to justify 2001 tax cuts.
Then in 2003 came up with the supply-side bullshit again and even at war, cut corp. taxes.
For the last time, the reduction in tax revenue thanx to these tax cuts, took the budget immediately into deficit and tax revenue did not return to pre-cut levels until 2006 according to Treasury. So 2001-2008 $8 trillion in new debt.
Now a real conservative (and real conservative legislators) not some charade of elitist and corporate whores, would not have even asked for this and even then, congress would've voted it down. Will the real conservatives ever stand up ? No, there are none.
Some will state going back to as far as Nixon and I agree, the so-called conservatives have n e v e r...e v e r...legislated for either small govt. or fiscal responsibility.
So for any 'disingenuousness' look to those who for 40 or more years and now, who call themselves small govt. fiscally responsibility conservatives as worse...pathological liars.
In fact, the right and the repub elected officials of the time, were such hyper-partisans, they railed against Kennedy's tax cuts claiming all sorts of calamities were in store. What happened ?
Kennedy did a whole lot more with govt. then just tax cuts...to get the economy moving after Eisenhower left him a recession. All Kennedy really did on taxes, was reduce brackets and lower the top rates.

What lowered receipts? Do you not remember the dotcom bubble burst? Do you not remember the hit the economy took from that? Do you not remember the hit the economy took from 9/11? Right there are two solid reasons (among others) that revenues took a hit.

How you can fucking argue that revenues didn't rise afterwards, I don't know. I linked to the Historical Tables kept by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that detail the annual revenues and expenditures. You still argued.

It matters not what Kennedy did. We're arguing about Bush's tax cuts. Kennedy's activities are meaningless to that discussion.

Btw, revenues in for FY2005 were higher than in FY2000 (which was Clinton's highest revenue year) and FY2001. Aaaand, they haven't been lower than FY2000 since FY2004. Revenues under Bush43 hit bottom for FY2003 ($243B less than FY2000, btw).

The tax breaks did have an immediate reducing effect. I do not dispute that. But, the tax breaks did also have a longer term effect, which you won't see immediately.

Enough? Only if it's enough for you to admit you're a partisan shill (regardless of the puke Ron spouts in your defense). If not, continuing proving it. It's not going to hurt me at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeekingMnD
its not happening right now, his growth is hurricane cleanup, and you will have a impossible task to connect the cause and effect of Trump and god.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

We shall see, won't we.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't give a fuck about all of the extraneous bullshit.

quote:

So while I do not come here to throw out names and insults and having the facts and the math behind me, if anybody is the partisan shill DS...it is you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't give a fuck about all of the extraneous bullshit.

Right. Why should you consider things that have an effect when it doesn't fit your agenda? Thanks for playing.

quote:

So while I do not come here to throw out names and insults and having the facts and the math behind me, if anybody is the partisan shill DS...it is you.

Riiight. You only have the "facts" and math behind you that you accept and want to use. When people bring up facts and math that don't jibe with yours, you stick to only yours. You blame the increase in the deficits on tax cuts, even when the facts and math show revenues increased. You acknowledge and are critical (rightly so, imo) of the increased spending under Bush43, but the deficits are from tax cuts.

I support tax cuts, as I'd much rather the people control where their money gets spent than to have government spend it where it wants. I am critical of Bush43 over his incredibly spending increases (and had he not spent like fucking crazy, the revenues he saw would have done wonders for the deficit and debt). You blindly trot out the Democrats plans with no regard to any facts except the ones that fit your agenda.

You're a partisan shill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't give a fuck about all of the extraneous bullshit.

Right. Why should you consider things that have an effect when it doesn't fit your agenda? Thanks for playing.

quote:

So while I do not come here to throw out names and insults and having the facts and the math behind me, if anybody is the partisan shill DS...it is you.

Riiight. You only have the "facts" and math behind you that you accept and want to use. When people bring up facts and math that don't jibe with yours, you stick to only yours. You blame the increase in the deficits on tax cuts, even when the facts and math show revenues increased. You acknowledge and are critical (rightly so, imo) of the increased spending under Bush43, but the deficits are from tax cuts.
I support tax cuts, as I'd much rather the people control where their money gets spent than to have government spend it where it wants. I am critical of Bush43 over his incredibly spending increases (and had he not spent like fucking crazy, the revenues he saw would have done wonders for the deficit and debt). You blindly trot out the Democrats plans with no regard to any facts except the ones that fit your agenda.
You're a partisan shill.

Your links and my links show tax revenue going down for 3-4 years and had not risen to pre-cut until fiscal 2005 from OMB and 2006 per the US Treasury. You tell me I'm a shill when you and the great theorizers claim to be able to cut something and increase it at the same ?

quote:

Yes you inflate a beach ball, push it down underwater and from fatigue you slowly let is rise. It took 5 years for it to surface again.

quote:

Still, the theory is cut taxes to create jobs. Many analysts will insist that no matter the tax cut whatever it did, it did not increase GDP or create jobs.
So the theory and the revenue projections are becoming one of history's greatest amalgamation of extreme, political, self-serving...bullshit. I could easily charge you and the whole supporting right wing and those who directly benefit from the revenue cuts with being math shills, academic shills without a shred of logic behind the idea, the very concept that cutting revenues...increases revenues.

quote:

But if you borrow say oh...about $8 trillion and start a couple of wars, then yes, you can hire a few people and increase GDP and from a recession, that GDP is still underwater. But does it justify the huge debt ? NO !! Does it come close to paying off that debt ? NO !!

quote:

If you are as 'conservative' as you claim, then you know, govt. does NOT cut taxes until they CUT spending. ALL of it will be somebody's taxes that the future will deal with.
Thanks mainly to such repub partisan, self-serving, intellectual dishonesty, our children I swear...will spit on our graves.
Get over it DS, the whole fucking theory simply does not add up, or subtract up, or yes, even divide up.