PDA

View Full Version : PRESIDENT OBAMA


TurfRuler
05-12-2008, 11:58 AM
BIG BROWN FOR PRESIDENT

Tom
05-12-2008, 12:38 PM
We will all see what the rest of the Derby field saw.....a horse's arse! :lol:

Lefty
05-12-2008, 03:31 PM
Obama recently said he'd campaigned in 57 states. Hmmm, where you at zilly? I guess you only comment when a repub makes a flub...
Well, there are 57 states of Islam, hmmm.....

46zilzal
05-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Obama recently said he'd campaigned in 57 states. Hmmm, where you at zilly? I guess you only comment when a repub makes a flub...
Well, there are 57 states of Islam, hmmm.....
Another reference without substantiation. DREAM WORLD

Document it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/new-patriotic-o.html

Lefty
05-12-2008, 04:19 PM
Another reference without substantiation. DREAM WORLD

Document it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/new-patriotic-o.html
Hey, Pal, I just heard a clip of it in his own voice. You're the one that lives in the dreamworld of socialism is nirvana. So you better not be callin me a liar, bub.

46zilzal
05-12-2008, 04:21 PM
Hey, Pal, I just heard a clip of it in his own voice. You're the one that lives in the dreamworld of socialism is nirvana. So you better not be callin me a liar, bub.
No I am the one who substantiates things.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Just went to your link and you always provide the worst tasting liberal sausage ever. lib/socialists always rush to make some sort of excuse for their lib candidate. But when Bush speaks that way, always critcized. I'm not too sure he was spoofing. But if you say so zilly. But I remember when Bush said the French have no word for entrepreneur you were all over him and clearly he was spoofing too.
Time to go play that great John Lennon Song. Just Imagine If There Were No Liberals. I can hear it now.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 04:29 PM
No I am the one who substantiates things.
Yeah, with liberal opinion pieces. You kill me, zilly, glad you're not here to vote. I don't want my taxes raised, and my country overrun with terrorists. There ya go.

46zilzal
05-12-2008, 04:32 PM
Yeah, with liberal opinion pieces. You kill me, zilly, glad you're not here to vote. I don't want my taxes raised, and my country overrun with terrorists. There ya go.
ABSENTEE BALLOT. Evey heard of it? U. S. citizens use it to vote all the time.

Over-run with terrorists....another chapter from Fantasyland.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 04:41 PM
Yeah, heard of it. So if you're still a citizen do you pay U.S. Taxes? If not, something wrong with a lib like you being able to vote for somebody that's promised to raise my taxes and live in another country. Now that's outsourcing!
Fantasyland?
9-11, ever hear of it?
Maybe you're like Tom Cruise. After 9-11 he moved to France saying he was afraid to live in U.S. anymore. A frightened little coward.

46zilzal
05-12-2008, 04:42 PM
Yeah, heard of it. So if you're still a citizen do you pay U.S. Taxes?
Since I earn ZERO dollars in the U.S., no I do not.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Then I think it's hypocritical of you to vote for some lib that wants to raise my taxes and weaken our defense systems while you live and work in another country. Why am I not surprised?

46zilzal
05-12-2008, 04:51 PM
Then I think it's hypocritical of you to vote for some lib that wants to raise my taxes and weaken our defense systems while you live and work in another country. Why am I not surprised?
Bull crap, if you were to check this country is one of the leading trading nations with the U.S. and the economy is so tied to it, that whatever happens there rebounds here.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 05:23 PM
ahh, zilly. Just more reasons to not take you seriously. So by living and working in Canada, you're helping this country? :lol: Personally i don't think you should be able to vote here, but that's just my opinion. Just doesn't seem right, somehow.

Tread
05-12-2008, 09:32 PM
Well, there are 57 states of Islam, hmmm.....

So funny how desperate you guys are that you can't campaign against Obama on your merits and have to make stuff up and try to perpetuate it to scare people out of voting for him.

The Muslim thing has been debunked over and over again for months, yet pundits with nothing of real value to argue keep trying to act as though it is true because they realize that they have to lie to have any chance. Really, really pathetic.

Cangamble
05-12-2008, 09:58 PM
EpGH02DtIws
I didn't know Alaska and Hawaii were Muslim states.

Lefty
05-12-2008, 10:15 PM
Well, pal, I can debunk him on HIS merits by the way, not mine, cause i ain't runnin. I just put the Islam thing in cause it was peculiar coincidence, that he talked about 57 states and there are 57 states of Islam.
I CAN disdain him on his merits, so try again when you put a little more thght into it. ol Lefty just loves a fight.

PaceAdvantage
05-12-2008, 10:40 PM
So funny how desperate you guys are that you can't campaign against Obama on your merits and have to make stuff up and try to perpetuate it to scare people out of voting for him.Desperate? I'm salivating at the prospect of seeing Obama as the Dem nominee.

The Obama post-honeymoon era will indeed be brutal to those who look up to him with dreamy, star-filled eyes.

Tread
05-12-2008, 11:46 PM
LOL, well I've put plenty of thought into and I know better than to get into prolonged discussions with delusional talking heads who drag references into an argument that are completely false. I'm sure you bought into the bullshit Swift Boating stuff as well.

McCain has already made it apparent that he is willing to borrow even more money from China to extend tax cuts to the rich without any solid plan whatsoever for reducing spending, so that means 4 or 8 more years of borrowing. He's exactly like Reagan and the 2 Bush's before him, although at least GHWB was smart enough to realize toward the end that all the borrowing was bad.

My peronsal philosophy is that tax cuts should be granted only when budget surpluses exist. When a surplus exists, tax cuts (or rebates, whatever you want to call them) should be distributed back in proportion to how they were paid in, heavily weighted to the rich. If these were the only terms under which tax cuts could be granted, people would hammer their reps to find spending cuts, but instead we get 28 years of lazy Republican bullshit (with one 8 year break) where we just grant the cuts anyway without reducing spending and borrow money instead, every year, and wait for the Republican fairy tale to come true that tax cuts "pay for themselves" when every reputable economist, the CBO, and even the President's own economic advisors say (and can show) that it's not true.

When you already are running a deficit, to say you are going to reduce revenues further by extending tax cuts is just so beyond fiscal sanity, I can't believe the general public does not grasp it better. We are borrowing money to put back into people's pockets, and then selling them a line of horseshit that they are getting more of "their" money back. It is absolutely the same thing as a business or person using a credit card to cover their expenses EVERY year because they don't have enough money. How many successful business or people operate that way?

And PA, I am not an Obama fan or apologist, I'm not even sure I like the guy. But I've heard McCain's garbage and it's the exact same fiscally inept stuff we've had from Republicans the last 30 years, so it makes my decision this fall very easy, no matter who the Democrat nominee is. I just think it's very funny how the Republican propoganda machine turns out 10X more false stories on Democrats, but if I had their political and fiscal record for the last 30 years, I guess I would have to make up BS too.

Tom
05-13-2008, 07:22 AM
When you already are running a deficit, to say you are going to reduce revenues further by extending tax cuts is just so beyond fiscal sanity, I can't believe the general public does not grasp it better.

Lowering taxes increases revenues.

Tread
05-13-2008, 09:06 AM
Lowering taxes increases revenues.

Let me fix this post for you.

Lowering taxes dramatically decreases revenues in the beginning and then slowly increases revenues over time, but never back to the point that they originally were before the tax cut.

Yes another talking head heard from spreding lies. You guys are unreal. Do you have any facts to back up this statement? Are you going to show me raw, unadjusted figures that economic scholars would laugh at?

Well here are my facts. From cbo.gov

In 2001, Federal Revenues were 19.8% of GDP. After the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts got put in place, 2004 revenues (during a year of solid economic expansion, the recession was long over) dropped to a 50 year historic low of 16.3% of GDP. By last year they had crept back up to 18.8% of GDP, but are not likely to make any further progress this year.

Oh, and whlie we've waited for this magical recovery of revenues, we've borrowed over 2 trillion dollars waiting for this magic (or should I say bullshit) to happen. "That's trillion, with a "T""

You want more than one example? OK, go back to 1981. Federal revenues were 19.6% of GDP. Reagan put his tax plan in place, revenues dropped to 17.3% by 1984 and then made a modest recovery to 18.4% by 1987 (see a trend here?). Then revenues stalled all the way thru the Bush term and were 17.5% when Bush #1 left office. They never got back to 19.6% until Clinton's policies were put in place.

Or perhaps you'd like to look at it from a different angle. On several occasions, Congress goes to the CBO and asks them to adjust budget projections based on various legislation they are considering. Not surprisingly, they have asked them to examine the impact of extending the Bush tax cuts. The results of their study? Almost 2 trillion more in lost revenue over the next decade.

If I went into your backyard and dug a huge hole, and then filled it half way back up, would you be happy that I put some of the dirt back or pissed off that I dug a hole in the 1st place? Republicans want you to be happy some dirt is going back and want to trick you into thinking eventually it will all be replaced someday, when in fact it never will. True economic conservatives are pissed off there is a hole in the 1st place.

So go ahead and keep spreading that lie if you want to, meanwhile the facts out here in the real world tell us the true story and shed light on yet another Republican lie that they need to perpetuate in order to win votes.

Tom
05-13-2008, 10:02 AM
Very interesting, but, lowering taxes increases revenue.

Tread
05-13-2008, 10:10 AM
So despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office and the president's own Treasury Department disagree with you, you will continue to believe this. Brilliant.

jballscalls
05-13-2008, 10:12 AM
I quit viewing for a few days, come back and its the same ol' crap LOL Lefty and the fab five defend the right, zilly and the four horseman defending the left, NO MATTER WHAT!! thanks for the entertainment guys.

PaceAdvantage
05-13-2008, 10:18 AM
I quit viewing for a few days, come back and its the same ol' crap LOL Lefty and the fab five defend the right, zilly and the four horseman defending the left, NO MATTER WHAT!! thanks for the entertainment guys.How boring would it be if we all agreed on everything?

lsbets
05-13-2008, 10:21 AM
Very interesting, but, lowering taxes increases revenue.

You are correct Tom. What your new friend appears to be missing is that if GDP grows more than the decrease in the percentage collected by the Feds, the total amount collected is more than it was before the cut. Its simple - putting money back in the hands of the tax payer grows the economy and the federal government takes in more dollars, albeit a smaller percentage, which is a good thing because to have the government confiscate almost 20% of the wealth generated by the American people is just plain wrong. Just like lowering takeout generates more handle, and ultimately more revenue.

jballscalls
05-13-2008, 11:03 AM
i know, but why even argue when you know what one another is going to say.

As a reader of this forum, you can see the titles of the threads, and nearly to a T you can predict who will say what. just once i want to read a thread and be surprised by a posting. hopefully it will happen some day.

46zilzal
05-13-2008, 11:19 AM
I quit viewing for a few days, come back and its the same ol' crap LOL Lefty and the fab five defend the right, zilly and the four horseman defending the left, NO MATTER WHAT!! thanks for the entertainment guys.
I defend my points of view. You are one of the people who put labels on it.

Tread
05-13-2008, 11:46 AM
You are correct Tom. What your new friend appears to be missing is that if GDP grows more than the decrease in the percentage collected by the Feds, the total amount collected is more than it was before the cut. Its simple - putting money back in the hands of the tax payer grows the economy and the federal government takes in more dollars, albeit a smaller percentage, which is a good thing because to have the government confiscate almost 20% of the wealth generated by the American people is just plain wrong. Just like lowering takeout generates more handle, and ultimately more revenue.

If expenses were the same fixed dollar amount every year, then this type of thinking would be correct. But here in the real world, GDP growth means inflation and inflation means the government HAS to take in more money every year just to keep providing the same services it did the year before. We had record revenues in terms of absolute dollars this year. Whoopee, we also had record expenses in terms of absolute dollars as well.

You seem to have some interesting theories on how GDP grows. Tell me, for your statements to be true, wouldn't the opposite of that have to have negative effects on GDP? How was GDP growth in the 90s? How was revenue growth in the 90s during this GDP expansion?

People who talk in terms of absolute dollar amounts are basically saying that 100 dollars now is worth 100 dollars in 2000 or 1980, which is entirely incorrect. The correct way any economic scholar or govt analyst looks at this stuff is in % of the economy.

The absolute dollar amount of the money we have to borrow is not important. What's important is the %of GDP that represents, and in those terms what Republicans have done the last 30 years and seem to want to continue to do is unacceptable to me as a fiscal conservative.

There is a difference between politics based on greed and politics based on conservative policies. The greedy people say "give me more of my money back" and the conservative people say, stop borrowing additional money from China to give back to these people.

Here is the GDP data by the way. Government revenues and outlays as a % of GDP.


Revenues Outlays

1968 17.6 20.5

1969 19.7 19.4

1970 19.0 19.3

1971 17.3 19.5

1972 17.6 19.6

1973 17.6 18.7

1974 18.3 18.7

1975 17.9 21.3

1976 17.1 21.4

1977 18.0 20.7

1978 18.0 20.7

1979 18.5 20.1

1980 19.0 21.7

1981 19.6 22.2

1982 19.2 23.1

1983 17.4 23.5

1984 17.3 22.1

1985 17.7 22.8

1986 17.5 22.5

1987 18.4 21.6

1988 18.1 21.2

1989 18.3 21.2

1990 18.0 21.8

1991 17.8 22.3

1992 17.5 22.1

1993 17.5 21.4

1994 18.1 21.0

1995 18.5 20.7

1996 18.9 20.3

1997 19.3 19.6

1998 20.0 19.2

1999 20.0 18.6

2000 20.9 18.4

2001 19.8 18.5

2002 17.9 19.4

2003 16.5 20.0

2004 16.3 19.9

2005 17.6 20.2

2006 18.5 20.4

2007 18.8 20.0

lsbets
05-13-2008, 12:21 PM
What you assume (incorrectly) is that I support the ridiculous spending our of government. Confiscatory tax policies and a large, centralized government with its tentacles in every aspect of our lives are antithetical to my concept of a free people and a free nation. We do not run deficits because taxes are too low, we run deficits because our government is too damned big and spends way too much money. If you think its okay for the government to confiscate one out of every five dollars earned by the American people, you and I will never see eye to eye on matters of taxing and spending and the size of government. In short, from my POV you just don't get it, and thats cool, I don't think most people do. Its much easier to let a large, bloated government do the thinking for you.

Tread
05-13-2008, 12:33 PM
I never assumed anything about you other than the fact that you falsely stated that tax cuts raise revenue, when all the facts and studies, including those by the president's own treasury department, state otherwise. Tax cuts reduce revenue. The CBO projections show it. The Dept of Treasursy talks at length about how extending the tax cuts either needs to be financed by reduced spending or future tax increases. That doesn't sound like something that is raising revenue to me.

Deficits are caused when spending is more than the revenue that is brought in. Period. The cause of the current deficits is BOTH too much spending and too little revenue.

Your take seems to be the incredibly irresponsible position of lowering tax revenues where you think they should be, and then complaining about expenses with no solid plan to reduce them. We have had 30 years of your "starve the beast" mentality and all it has gotten us is 7 trillion+ more money borrowed. If Republicans would quit lying to the American people constantly about tax cuts, recognizing how they reduce revenues, and tying offsetting spending cuts to those tax cuts, then I would be fully supportive. Instead, they take the lazy way out and cut revenue without cutting the spending. Or should I say making the spending worse if you review the numbers I posted above.

If you had read my earlier post, I feel the only way to reduce spending is to tie the tax cuts to it. If tax cuts can only be granted during a budget surplus, then people will hammer their reps into making the spending cuts. But until that happens, we need to have a revenue model consistent with our spending the last 50 years. And we do not have that today.

Greyfox
05-13-2008, 12:34 PM
Simply stated: It's a spending problem, not a revenue income problem.

xtb
05-13-2008, 01:14 PM
Since I earn ZERO dollars in the U.S., no I do not.

Whether you owe US income tax depends on how much you make and how much Canadian income tax you pay. Saying that an expat does not owe US income tax because the money was earned outside the US, is not true.

46zilzal
05-13-2008, 01:17 PM
Whether you owe US income tax depends on how much you make and how much Canadian income tax you pay. Saying that an expat does not owe US income tax because the money was earned outside the US, is not true.
In 35 years then, How is it that I have paid, in truth, ZERO dollars and zero cents to the IRS? Each year was worked out by an accountant and accepted. Several of my friends have had exactly the same experience as well.

xtb
05-13-2008, 01:36 PM
In 35 years then, How is it that I have paid, in truth, ZERO dollars and zero cents to the IRS? Each year was worked out by an accountant and accepted. Several of my friends have had exactly the same experience as well.

Then you and your friends must have always been below the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion amount (currently 83k) or paid sufficient Canadian income tax.

Since Canada does not tax gambling winnings and your accountant says you have never owed the IRS, one has to conclude that you don't make much from betting horses or, you're hiding it from Uncle Sam.

46zilzal
05-13-2008, 01:49 PM
That is why you pay accountants.

JustRalph
05-13-2008, 02:13 PM
When you already are running a deficit, to say you are going to reduce revenues further by extending tax cuts is just so beyond fiscal sanity, I can't believe the general public does not grasp it better.

They are grasping it really well nowadays in Michigan, Ohio and other states that took your advice and taxed the businesses out of business. Why do you think that these two states are in dire need of reform? Ohio now has an effective state tax rate on citizens of 8.87 %. Most of the cities are between 2-4%. You are paying 48 cents on a gallon of gas (state and Fed) and you haven't even paid your real estate taxes yet? Now go to the corner store and pay 7% sales tax on what you buy. God forbid you buy a car. Do the math on a new car?? Then toss in your Real Estate taxes, I own 350k in property and I pay about 2-3% on Real Estate taxes yearly. Last Time I checked, anyway. You haven't even dealt with uncle sam yet............there is a limit to the taxing the people can stand. And some of these states have reached it. The Federal level is the same.............

Why should I open a business in a State that taxes me at a rate 3 times that of another? Especially when the less taxed State Borders yours?

There is proof that revenues increase with less taxes. It is not a quick fix though. You have to create and nourish the environment over time.

Tom
05-13-2008, 03:04 PM
Exactly....you do not stimulate the economy by taking money out of it.
Business create growth, not governement.
Go to the track with your wife. Every time you win, give her $100, no matter how much you won. ee how much you have by the last race. Sure, she will use some of that money to feed you, but your welfare dinners were not used to generate moer profits. Soon, you can't afford to go to the track, that source of money dries up, and now your welfare meals are in danger.

Tread
05-13-2008, 03:23 PM
There is proof that revenues increase with less taxes. It is not a quick fix though. You have to create and nourish the environment over time.

Great, where is this proof? We had 12 years of "nourshment" in the Reagan/Bush era and it never came to fruition. 8 more years here and it still hasn't happened. How much time do we need? 25 years? 50 years? I'm very interested to see your proof, what sources can you provide?

you do not stimulate the economy by taking money out of it.
Business create growth, not governement.
An interesting theory that I'm sure makes plenty of sense to you, but unfortunately for that theory, the entire decade of the 1990s stands to completely and thoroughly disprove it, as economic expansion was stronger during the 90s while Bush I and Clinton were raising taxes than it has been this decade.

Once again, I don't propse that higher taxes are the answer, but you cannot cut taxes without recognizing how much revenue they take away from the government and tying offsetting spending cuts to the tax cuts. This is the only responsible way to cut taxes. Borrowing additional money to grant a tax cut is just beyond insane.

So let me get this straight, just to make sure I understand. Even though the CBO budget estimates clearly state lower revenues all the way out into the future with extending the Bush tax cuts and even though the Department of Treasury says all over their dynamic tax analysis that extending the tax cuts needs to be financed somehow, you guys are saying both of those bodies are full of shit and these tax cuts actually create more revenue than we otherwise would have. Simply priceless. I am speechless.

ddog
05-13-2008, 04:11 PM
Exactly....you do not stimulate the economy by taking money out of it.
Business create growth, not governement.
Go to the track with your wife. Every time you win, give her $100, no matter how much you won. ee how much you have by the last race. Sure, she will use some of that money to feed you, but your welfare dinners were not used to generate moer profits. Soon, you can't afford to go to the track, that source of money dries up, and now your welfare meals are in danger.


sure they were, they kept you alive to go back to the track to generate more winnings , or they kept one of your competitors alive(REALLY ALIVE) to keep playing against you in the pools.

Everyone seems to think that business , by themselves ever pay the full cost of "being" in business.
It just isn't so in a non third world country.

I don't know of any tax that is collected that is "taken" out of the economy?
Perhaps you could detail some.
Since we are running huge defs it ALL must be plowed into something.

So many have made it and the recent past has been so great according to most of the righties on the board that I can't see why the complaints.
What , you never made any money before 2000?

What do you care if you win from a gvt worker(paid for by taxes) or Chinese hedge fund mgr, paid for by our debt?
You still get the money from them , right?

lsbets
05-13-2008, 04:22 PM
Since 1965 federal revenues (in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars), have almost tripled from 620 billion to over 2.5 trillion. The predominant trend during that time has been to cut taxes, even during the Clinton years after Congress changed hands in 1994.

ddog
05-13-2008, 04:24 PM
Since 1965 federal revenues (in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars), have almost tripled from 620 billion to over 2.5 trillion. The predominant trend during that time has been to cut taxes, even during the Clinton years after Congress changed hands in 1994.

Which taxes?

Tread
05-13-2008, 05:34 PM
Since 1965 federal revenues (in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars), have almost tripled from 620 billion to over 2.5 trillion. The predominant trend during that time has been to cut taxes, even during the Clinton years after Congress changed hands in 1994.

LOL, wow this is great. So now we are going to blur the individual actions over a 40 year period and draw one conclusion from it. I hope you dont work in any important sceince or mathematical areas. Are you saying the tax package Clinton put in place in 1993 was significantly changed before he left office? It wasn't.

I posted the revenues as a % of GDP on the last page for the timeframe you are trying to dumb down and consolodate. It's very apparent when revenues are rising as a % of the economy and when they are not.

So I guess we should add you to the list of people who think the reports turned out by the Congressional Budget Office and Departement of Treasury are completely full of shit because it doesn't make sense to you. All those mathematicans and analysts just have no idea what they are talking about, but you do. LOOOOOOOL.

Tread
05-13-2008, 05:43 PM
In recent testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”


N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”

Commenting on President Bush’s claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”

The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.” The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.

Treasury Department Study Finds the Bush Tax Cuts Will Pay For Less Than 10 Percent of Their Cost

According to CBO’s official cost estimate, the Administration’s proposal to make the tax cuts enacted since 2001 permanent would cost 1.4 percent of GDP annually. (This does not include the AMT relief that the Administration proposes on an annual basis, which would bring the total cost to 2 percent of GDP.)

According to the Mid-Session Review, the tax cuts would have positive long-term economic effects that would raise national income by “as much as” 0.7 percent over the long term. With tax receipts projected to be about 18 percent of national income, this translates into an increase in revenues of as much as 0.13 percent of GDP.a In this scenario, which assumes that the tax cuts are financed by future cuts in government spending, the tax cuts would cost about 1.27 percent of GDP annually — or more than 90 percent of the conventional cost estimate. (Under Treasury’s alternative financing scenario, the tax cuts would actually reduce national income over the long run.)

lsbets
05-13-2008, 05:59 PM
You wanted numbers that accounted for inflation and I gave them to you. Not my fault you don't like the numbers and want to see the government confiscate a higher percentage of the people's money. Facts are facts - revenue tripled while taxes were cut. According to your theory that shouldn't have happened. Sorry retread, the concept seems to be way beyond your ability to comprehend.

Tread
05-13-2008, 06:37 PM
The only one with a comprehension problem here is you. The fact that revenues have grown over a 40 year period does not account for which actions actually grew the revenues during that period. These are not my theories, these are fact-based realities described by people and organizations that study this stuff for a living.

If you insist that tax cuts increase revenues in the long run (or the short run) you are in fact calling all of the following people liars, basically saying they are full of shit and you don't care what they say:

- The US Department of Treasury
- The Congressional Budget Office
- The chairman of the President's economic advisory council
- And the one before him
- And the one before him

Oh, let's add one more to the list who you are calling liars and full of shit. The US Congress. Here's a trivia question. Why were the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 made to be temporary cuts, why not just make it a permanent tax law change?

The answer?

At the time of their passing, Congress had laws in place that limited the budget impact of any legislation, including tax cuts to a certain amount. Because of this, and because of the fact that everyone dealing with the bill (including the president) understood the revenue losses associated with the tax cut (1.349 trillion estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation), they could only create law that stretched out until 2011, with various items sunsetting at various times in order to make the overall bills compliant with Congressional rules.

So apparently, in your eyes, all these people are completely out of their minds and full of shit.

46zilzal
05-13-2008, 06:39 PM
So apparently, in your eyes, all these people are completely out of their minds and full of shit.
A common trait of the author.

lsbets
05-13-2008, 07:30 PM
You said revenue would fall. You were shown real numbers that revenue grew. You don't seem to like reality. Oh well. I could trot out any number of "experts" who say the opposite of what you say. But, I don't need to. I have the facts on my side. You and zilly seem to share a common trait - an aversion to the truth when it gets in the way of how you want things.

And zilly - nice job - you almost wrote a proper sentence that made sense. You might become an Eintstein yet!

Tom
05-13-2008, 07:42 PM
A common trait of the author.
If you are not bright enough to contribute to the thread topic, stay out of the thread. Oh, wait, a common trait of YOU.

Tread
05-13-2008, 07:44 PM
You said revenue would fall. You were shown real numbers that revenue grew. You don't seem to like reality. Oh well. I could trot out any number of "experts" who say the opposite of what you say. But, I don't need to. I have the facts on my side.

So now you are going to lie about my position to try to save face. I, and all the people I quoted, never said revenues would consitently fall overall when compared with the year before in the face of a tax cut. I said that revenues would be less than they would under current law if the tax cuts are extended. Please show me where I said revenues would fall. I never said any such thing. I said they would be less than they would under current tax law.

Enacting tax cuts creates less revenue than the original tax models they are compared with. That position is factually supported by all the data and sources I have already cited in this thread.

If you want to keep twisting my words to save face, I suppose that is your only hope, because the facts I've stated are loud and clear. And don't give me that bullshit copout that you could cite sources, but you wont. Please, show me any example of any study from any reputable body that takes the U.S. tax baseline with its revenue projections and then cuts taxes and produces a higher revenue projection. I'll be waiting.....(forever)

lsbets
05-13-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm sorry Tread, I must not have read this:

Lowering taxes dramatically decreases revenues in the beginning and then slowly increases revenues over time, but never back to the point that they originally were before the tax cut.

Your words - dead wrong. Facts prove you wrong. Reality proves you wrong. No spin needed, but be careful you don't fall as you backtrack away from the basic premise of yours that started this discussion.

Tom
05-13-2008, 08:18 PM
Deja vous....this guy is very familiar.
Under 20 posts and already calling people liars.
Real asset to the board, huh?

JustRalph
05-13-2008, 10:42 PM
Re-introduce yourself to Taxseason

JustRalph
05-14-2008, 05:19 AM
http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/1506