They took the teabags off and put red hats on.
US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
They took the teabags off and put red hats on.
countryboy
Verified User
Lol, if you could refute it, you would. But you cannot, obviously. I don't think you have a firm grasp on the concept of "run away". Perhaps a remedial course in fifth grade English is in order.
I am a conservative, I have to like, you know, work and stuff. Are you too lazy to look up a few dates? JFK, Reagan, Clinton (cap gains only), and George W Bush. They all instituted federal tax cuts. In every instance, federal revenues went up. I'm sorry if that hurts your delicate sensibilities. You can either look it up now and admit you're wrong, or eat a little crow when I have time to post it later. Or, you could continue to act like a juvenile little asshole, and look like a fool.
countryboy
Verified User
I admit it sounds counterintuitive, but every time federal taxes are cut, federal revenues increase. That's just a fact bro. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but it's awfully coincidental.
CharacterAssassin
Verified User
I don't have to refute, Tinkerbell: it's up to you to support it and, thus far, you've run like a bitch from doing so. It's all there for everyone to see. Don't let that get you so emotional.
I'm sure your mop skills are legendary. But that's irrelevant to the fact you haven't demonstrated the veracity of your claim.
Yawn. Sorry you had to run away like a bitch from your own claim.
Good to see you choking, as usual, on your own words and spaz-dancing all over the place trying to distract people from that fact.
Hint: it's not working.
Here's what happened:
1) You said something untrue, about how tax cuts increase revenues
2) We posted evidence, including Treasury receipts, that show that is not the case, particularly from 1982-3, and 2001-4. Nor was it the case in Kansas, who just repealed their tax cuts last year and suddenly found themselves with budget surpluses.
3) You maintain your position despite no evidence to support it, and a very weak correlation argument.
No one believes for a second that you are gainfully employed.
1. JFK was killed before tax cuts were passed.
2. Revenue increased from 1964-8 because Johnson boosted government spending by 50%
3. Reagan's revenues in 1983 were below revenues in 1982.
4. The Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 was what caused the dotcom bubble.
5. Bush the Dumber cut taxes in 2001 and had revenue below 2000 levels from 2001-4
Nothing you are saying is even remotely true. Not even in broad terms.
NO THEY DIDN'T!
They didn't go up from 1982-3.
They didn't go up from 2001-4.
In Kansas, they didn't go up from 2013-17 and because they didn't, Republicans there repealed their tax cuts and then saw budget surpluses.
You keep insisting on something that is demonstrably UNTRUE even when evidence exists at your fingertips to disprove everything you're saying.
Stop being such a baby.
Not a fact. It's a lie.
Revenues were below 2000 levels from 2001-4.
Revenues were below 1982 levels in 1983.
Revenues increased during LBJ because he increased government spending by 50% over four years.
You keep saying lies. Stop.
TrippyHippy
free mind and open heart
As others in this thread are trying to point out, the 2001 Bush tax cuts were followed by a roughly $100 billion drop in federal revenue over 4 years. Checked the numbers myself. And since the fed govt loves to couple tax cuts with spending increases, 2001 was also the last time the fed govt saw what a surplus looked like.
countryboy
Verified User
Were the tax cuts cancelled for Bush's second term? What happened on September 11th 2001? You don't think that could have had a profound effect on the economy? Just saying.
No. Instead, the tax cuts fueled the housing bubble. We know it fueled the housing bubble because Bush was campaigning on that very thing in 2004:
Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/26/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership.html
Blaming 9/11 for four straight years of revenue below 2000 levels is weak sauce.
No, 9/11 didn't have a profound effect on the economy and you can't provide any evidence showing it did.
The DJIA recovered all the losses on 9/11 by November of 2001.
GDP growth for 2001 was positive.
This guy here is coming up with every excuse he can to explain why the Bush Tax Cuts produced nothing but record deficits.
After 8 years, Bush lost net private sector jobs.
Even after 4 years, Bush lost net private sector jobs.
The 2001 surplus vanished and was replaced by deficits, four of which were record highs.
TrippyHippy
free mind and open heart
No, but irrelevant. You claimed tax cuts are followed by increase in revenue. I showed that by the exact numbers, that is false. Revenue spiked in 2005, yes, 5 years after the tax cut. You can't jump over 4 years of federal receipts like that and attribute that spike to the tax cuts.
Lol not really no. There's no evidence supporting the idea that the WTC attack affected federal tax revenue for four consecutive years. If there is, I'm all eyes.
countryboy
Verified User
Are you forgetting about Bush's 2003 dividend and cap gains cuts?
Are you also forgetting about the dot com bubble bursting?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Are you forgetting about the $21T the Pentagon cannot account for spending between 1998-2015?
This society generates more than it needs to resolve everything this society faces, but we choose to fund empire and subsidize an industrial ruling class instead.
This is not the first tax cut. There is plenty of data showing what happens. They do not create jobs. They create deficits. The tax cuts we do, send money to the top 1 percent, who do not need it. However you have to view repub tax cuts as what that are, a tool to create huge debts and then kill all social programs for the bottom 80 percent. It is a slow and steady process with a goal that is within reach. Ryan admitted it . Lots of Repubs have.
They do not hire and expand because they have lots of money. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. The wealth gap is above the levels of the Gilded Age. You only hire when you cannot keep up with demand. that is best achieved by raising the minimum wage or cutting taxes on the middle class . But that does not arrive at their destination.
They do not hire and expand because they have lots of money. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. The wealth gap is above the levels of the Gilded Age. You only hire when you cannot keep up with demand. that is best achieved by raising the minimum wage or cutting taxes on the middle class . But that does not arrive at their destination.
cawacko
Well-known member
Raising the minimum wage works great if your goal is increase the use of automation and eliminate jobs for those on the margain. What middle class taxes would you cut?
Revenue for 2004 was below 2000. Revenue for 2003 was below 2004.
All your tax cuts did was create massive deficits. FOUR record deficits in 8 years after erasing a budget surplus.
And you only exceeded 2000 revenues in 2005 because of the subprime mortgage bubble you started inflating in 2004. The same bubble you blame on Democrats while trying to give credit for the economic gains to the tax cuts.
But that's a double-edged sword because tying tax cuts to the growth of housing ends up tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Housing Bubble.
That's why Bush campaigned on the housing market as proof the tax cuts worked.
That burst in 2000, before Bush was even President.
The 2001 recession didn't start until April of 2001, nearly three months after Bush was sworn in.
The recession was so weak that GDP for 2001 didn't even decline.
So you blame the dotcom bubble and 9/11 for pathetic growth for four years after cutting taxes.
Chump.