Times are Hard

I would never ask for something for nothing.

Okay... point acknowledged... edit made.
She still represents a pretty lazy position, in my opinion! Originally Posted by MrGiz

We may not always agree but you sir are a man of honor. Nobody should have their profession made fun of especially when all of us enjoy their work so much!

I would never ask for something for nothing. Originally Posted by amusemeant

Unlike marshall. He is the forums welfare queen.

You lying stupid fuc, if tax cuts always raised revenue then we should cut it to 1% to prove your correct.

Nobody in their right mind believes that, except you and you are not normal. You are in your right mind but your right mind is that of a welfare queen. You want something for nothing. You want the impossible, roads , military and no taxes. You are what you hate...a welfare queen.

How many times did Reagan RAISE taxes. Google it. Here I did it for you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...29-503544.html

Also read just WTF the Laffer Curve is.

100% taxes = no tax revenue

0% taxes= no tax revenue

there is a point that is efficient, you are just to fucn stupid to understand that easy concept.











Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.
"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today." Originally Posted by WTF

Hey you 2faced turd, look at the tax revenue figures.....under Reagan, there were some increases after the massive tax cuts, not enough to come close to tax cuts, so the net was a large tax cut.....is it your position that Reagan didn't cut taxes?

now you dumb cock-sucker, wtf did I say? Did I not say tax cuts raise revenue EVERY TIME they were implemented.....never were they cut to 1% and never did I say that....look at the fiigures for the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts......

Who are we to believe, you or Milton Friedman?.....take your cum-oozing ass over to youtube and search Friedman and tax rates.......

how fucking convenient of you ignore facts....I'll bet you never did a search for income tax revenue to check it out

You are outta line asshole. Even for here.

Act like a man and quit picking on women and their chosen profession.

If thats is all you have , get the fuc outta here. I may not agree with half the posters POV here in this forum but at least they have the common decency to show the women some respect. Try it and see if you can't act like a man in the future. You are in your early thirties is my guess, try and act like it.



I expect this from Marshall. Originally Posted by WTF

wtf, if you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen you dumb-ass cocksucker......this is the Wild West.....go east if you're gonna whine like a little bitch........

Marshall is living proof of what he claims the laffer curve says; the more idiotic he acts, the less annoying he truly becomes. Originally Posted by Doove

you've been bitch-slapped around twice on this tax issue Doofus, still haven't had enough? We feel you earned your name Doofus, even if you don't......

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

By Michael Eden
We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again. As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts. And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit. The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.
As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth. Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.
Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.
Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.
Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.
Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. [...]
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”
A tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen. The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers. A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.
A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer. It is redistribution of wealth. It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Do you notice that “to” in the middle? It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.” It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”
What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.
That’s the first point. Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.” And the media helps them get away with it.
Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.
Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit. Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???
Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit? So why aren’t Democrats going after them?
Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit? The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.
Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit? And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit? Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?
Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire. And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person. If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference? Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”
Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended. And that sounds bad. But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period. If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion? And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street? And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].
Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason. And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone. And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.
Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits. Democrats do. Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.
Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?
Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.” But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing. Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this. He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all. Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.
And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.
And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism. Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.
[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

“But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].
For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long. Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class. And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes. In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.
Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.
Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s. From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.” And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”
And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.
Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue. In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark. Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935). See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.
FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.
It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.
Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever. Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.
Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.
So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan. Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues? Hardly:
We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts. And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.
So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue. But who paid the increased tax revenue? The poor? Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall. But that was exactly wrong. In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades. Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”
Reagan whipped inflation. Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.
This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln. Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people. Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.
Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts. And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.
Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.
Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]
Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance. They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.
For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy. Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means. Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year. And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt. Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage? But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).
As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized. We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem. The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.
Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”? Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued. As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership. And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce. “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.” So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people. Especially during a recession [End update].
We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.
Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.
The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie. And a Marxist-based lie at that.
[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:
Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).
1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).
So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.
For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).
The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%. They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.
For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).
So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS. When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money. They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed. When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing. If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.
Some articles to read:
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

read my post turd, if you dare.....all economists agree? Really? Apparently the economist you're talking about never heard of Milton Friedman........

I suspect all you commies will ignore my post and keep quoting your communist manifesto..........

you've been bitch-slapped around twice on this tax issue Doofus, still haven't had enough? We feel you earned your name Doofus, even if you don't......

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues Originally Posted by Marshall

I've pointed out that between 1960 and 2008, tax revenues decreased 6 times in those 48 years from one year to the next. Once under Nixon, once under Reagan (cut taxes), and 4 times under Bush (cut taxes). I've sourced it here.

Under no other President in that time period did they decrease from one year to the next even once. Not one. Not even under Carter.

You can post all the 2 million word pieces of propaganda you want, it's not going to change that simple fact.

So i guess we have a major disagreement on the definition of "bitch-slapped".

That one is from Kurt Vonnegut and yes dear I know what a book is and I do read. I like some of Vonnegut's work. You weren't put off by his misogyny?

IB - I know enough to look up heritage.org and see that it is a right wing funded 'information' source for many topics but it seems the main one is 'conservative' spending.The Heritage Foundation is right of center, but that does not mean that this study is wrong. After all, the Heritage Foundation has a better reputation than MSNBC. IB find me a pie or bar chart from a non partisan source if you want to talk about the real deal. I challenge you to find any chart or study that shows anything different, and while you are at it, find one on how much Congress spends on their private spa/gym - there are some things Congress doesn't want the public to know. I don't accept partisan sources from conservative funded idiot tanks. So are you admitting your own bias to listen only to sources from the left? Because, FYI, UCLA did do a study in 2005 that documented the liberal bias of most news outlets. How does heritage.org define welfare and military? I mean seriously. Wanna call me stupid? The study is 53 pages long (from cover to close), and they explain and document their findings. You wouldn't get good marks in school using that type of source on any research paper weirdo. Actually, I know that papers published by the Heritage Foundation can be used to support a point of view without it negatively impact one's grade. They've been in place for almost 40 years, and I've had occasion to cite their publications. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

Entitlements? LMFAO we should be entitled to a Gulf of Mexico that is not full of oil. Do you know how much pollution of the Gulf and in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama was caused by Katrina? We should be entitled to an Alaska without strip mining in the National Forest. We should be entitled to preserving our old growth forest that we have left. What penalties would you assign to Mt. St. Hellens for the 230 square miles of forest destroyed in Washington state in 1980? We should be entitled to a lot of things that the conservatives (who don't conserve anyhing) want to take away from us as human beings. Maybe you don't like your life, but I do. And I appreciate all those who have gone before me and have made it possible for me to enjoy my life. Those pioneers, who chopped down trees and put plow to prairie grass, are the same men and women - or their kindred - you are now deprecating for getting us to this point in life. Think about that the next time you use a fossil fuel vehicle to go to the mall to buy a new pair of synthetic or leather heels.

I really don't care if you pick on me. IDK you, nor you me, but you did call me a "dumb-ass" in your first post addressing me - so who is picking on whom? But rest assured, I will not be calling - or "picking on" - you. I know why I do what I do. You don't know me. If you did you might eat your hasty and rude words in one big bite and swallow a bitter pill. I live in an economic environment created by a long run of conservative fiscal policy at work. I don't live on welfare. I hustle and I pay for everything in this world myself with your leftover money. Not mine. I also help out my family members and their kids on a regular basis, who are struggling living hand to mouth in a rich man's world. Does that mean I'm not educated and I can't read? Obviously not. As you can see I am able to formulate a fairly complicated opinion and I am able to rebutt your comments just fine. You don't need to feel sorry for me. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for you - believe that. Just by being on this site you have acknowledged the importance of women like me in your life, so don't pretend that you don't care to understand something about the general me, if not the specific me. The liberal elite in Washington DC are very dependent on women just like you. They trust you will keep them in power.

I agree with you about paying most of our money in taxes. We pay some of the highest percentages of our income (except me of course HAHAHA) in taxes. Even Slick Willie recently admitted that the tax code needs to be re-written because it is chasing money out of investment in the U.S. Compared to any other civilized country, we don't get shit in return. Every American child (and many illegal alien children) in the U.S. is now entitled to a free K-12 education offering one or two subsidized meals each day. Now, before you criticize, know it's the best education system Liberals can devise with trillions of our tax dollars. Also know that Obama inflated the number who now qualify for PELL grants for college, and similarly increased the number of PELL grants to be used for advanced degrees. I think we need to clean up a lot of overspending in our nation. I'm sure I don't agree on where that money should be cut - but can we agree that we at least need to add to our education budget? I mean damn you should see the sh*t they feed our kids at school. It's worse than jail food. Your child is not required to eat the state subsidized meals at school. You could prepare a meal more to your liking for your child and send it with him or her. What you gonna say to that mr. conservative - let them eat cake? LMAO Better cake than cell phones, wireless Internet, or more seriously, an ARM on a home one cannot possibly afford Originally Posted by amusemeant

..

The problem is overspending -- not cutting taxes...

Historically we have average expended 18% of Gross Domestic Product on government (meaning 18% of ALL economic production is spent on the FEDERAL government. It's gone slight up and down, but for the most part it's a reliable figure.

Under Barry, government is now taking 25% of all economic activity out of the economy. It was only 18% under BUSH. Government doesn't create prosperity, stifling GDP growth as redistributive programs consume productivity as it's increased.

Should we IMMEDIATELY reduce spending to the 18% level, the deficit will start shrinking dramatically. We can't reduce spending by giving away billions of dollars to favored nations, by funding their pet projects for them, or by using military equipment which needs to be replaced much sooner than it should have been.

Increasing taxes decreases revenue -- the higher taxes the less incentive a person or business would have to create profits. (If I were offered a job with a $50,000 raise, and it meant working 80 hours per week...but if I were being taxed to pay an extra $40,000....is that extra $10,000 of after-tax income worth the extra effort? ---- the uber-rich make the same choices...why should they put their money or themselves to work if government is only going to confiscate their efforts.)

Being firmly in the 25% bracket, it's a consideration I have to make as well. My recent pay raise is really only 67% of what it is (factoring other Federal taxes as well). (A marginal tax rate of 32.65% on every dollar added at this point, not including that silly 2% tax cut...). Of course, diverting most of that pay increase to a 401k sounds like a smart idea, it preserves the wealth....assuming those aren't confiscated outright at some point to fund some new program.

I believe every dollar earned, no matter who earns it should be taxed an identical amount. That way it's predictable, and EVERYBODY has a role in trying to keep taxes low. Those 47% percent of households who owe no Income Taxes...don't mind the tax rates going up on those who actually do pay...until those people stop coming into their shops and jobs are lost.

read my post turd, if you dare.....all economists agree? Really? Apparently the economist you're talking about never heard of Milton Friedman........

I suspect all you commies will ignore my post and keep quoting your communist manifesto.......... Originally Posted by Marshall

I hate that Communist Manifesto (and the Communists that adhere to it).....but I have a copy on my iPad...to refer to when I hear someone outside my office bloviating over Republican obstructionism on taxes on the rich, or Sarah Palin and how "dumb" she is..... I love quoting from it and tripping those people up....not realizing that it's a Marx philosophy, they are all for it! It leads to comical moments

Milton Friedman.....you're bringing back some warm and fuzzy memories...sitting in class (before the teachers all went to the dark side of the Force...), reading Milt's book in class for a reading assignment, seeing the photo of Ronald Wilson Reagan, America's Greatest President prominent on the wall next to the American flag....

What I would do to bring THOSE days back!

wtf, if you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen you dumb-ass cocksucker......this is the Wild West.....go east if you're gonna whine like a little bitch........ Originally Posted by Marshall

I can stand it.

I do not have to denigrate people's profession though.

That you stoop so low and to a lady shows just exactly what kind of man you are...that is to say none at all.

I have yet to make fun of your dick sucking job. You have to make money any way you can and I respect that. What I do not respect is that you bitch and moan about paying your fair share of taxes, especially when you have stated that you worked for the government and those very taxes are what paid your salary. How about we cut your retirement benefits so the rest of of us do not have to pay taxes for greedy cocksuckers like yourself?

(If I were offered a job with a $50,000 raise, and it meant working 80 hours per week...but if I were being taxed to pay an extra $40,000....is that extra $10,000 of after-tax income worth the extra effort? Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

So you're saying that having your potential raise taxed at 80% may prevent you from taking an 80 hour per week job for an extra $50,000? Well no fuckin' shit. What a ridiculous example. How about this: would you take the job if it were an extra $2M per year?.....Hell, let's even say the $2M is taxed at 80%, which it wouldn't be, in spite of your absurd example. So you'd take home an extra $400,000/yr.

But to re-state the obvious, it won't be taxed at 80%, even if Obama gets his way. It'll be taxed at 39%. So you'd be taking home an extra 1.22M per year.

And we're supposed to believe that you'd turn it down because your take home would only be $1.22M vs $1.28M per year. Boy, would that make you pretty damn dumb.

Here's a clue. Wealthy people are not going to give up their high paying careers simply because their taxes go up a measly 3% of what they make over $200,000. Suggesting otherwise is just dumb.

---- the uber-rich make the same choices...why should they put their money or themselves to work if government is only going to confiscate their efforts.)

Ok, let's give them a few years of making $60,000/yr and let's see how they feel about their decisions then.

So i guess we have a major disagreement on the definition of "bitch-slapped". Originally Posted by Doove

Yes Marshall actually thinks it ok to do it to ladies.

Nobody on either sideb agree's with his dumb ass view on that.

Milton Friedman.....you're bringing back some warm and fuzzy memories...
What I would do to bring THOSE days back! Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

Friedman and his minions are why we are in the mess we are.

Haven't you heard deficits do not matter. Dick Cheney, one of Milton's minions.

http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/unc...nowledge/26956

This interview was done in 2000, before the election. Your hero said government would be smaller in 8 years. The SOB is brilliant in theory....the real world does not adhere to his theories though. That is why he is so discredited.


Peter Robinson: So your sort of concluding note to the next president would be: if you're a Democrat, this may upset, if you're a Republican, it may cause you secret glee, but one way or the other, the technology is moving such that the government is likely to get smaller?
Milton Friedman: Right.
Peter Robinson: Milton Friedman, thank you very much.
Milton Friedman: You're welcome.
Peter Robinson: One of Milton Friedman's central pieces of advice to the next president: cut taxes to give money back to the taxpayers every chance you get. Something about me especially likes that piece of advice.
I'm Peter Robinson. Thanks for joining us.