Envy and greed are truly ugly human traits.

 

And there's a lot of that in this thread.

Probably had nothing to do with the Democrats taking a commanding control of Congress in 2006... coupled with the uncertainty of the looming 2008 election when it was certain that Bush could not be reelected... and every Democrat running for president assuring increased taxes on the upper income groups... followed by the election of the one guy who pledged to stick it to those with the finances to fuel the economic engine of this country... followed by the forced passage of bills entirely out of favor with the majority of American people.

 

Nah... that couldn't have anything to do with it.

 

The rich are just selfish, greedy, stingy, big fat poopy heads. :thumb:

 

I must be missing something obvious. I thought it was certain in November 2004 that Bush could not be reelected in 2008.

I must be missing something obvious. I thought it was certain in November 2004 that Bush could not be reelected in 2008.

Hardy-Har-Har Mr. Smart A :lol:

 

Good catch :thumb:

 

It's obvious you've parented teenagers.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Does, does, does. Look at revenue from 2003 to 2007 and tell me the cuts not only increased revenue but increased it by 44% in 4 years to a record high in 2007.

 

Somewhat misleading.

 

Many economists including those who worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush will tell you that tax cuts do not lead to increased tax revenue. It can and has contributed to job growth and contributed to the GDP but its not believed to increase tax revenues.

 

The 40 year average for tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 18.3%. After this "record growth" it was at 18.4%.

 

Remember when using percentage growth statistics that you have to also look at the base. The growth you mention didn't come off a strong base. It came off of a period of time where federal revenues had decreased and economists contribute part of that decrease to the President Bush tax cuts. It basically got the fed back to where it should have been.

 

Can they be good for jobs? Yes. Can they contribute to economy stimulation? Yes.

 

Do they cause increased tax revenue? Experts say no.

Somewhat misleading.

 

Many economists including those who worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush will tell you that tax cuts do not lead to increased tax revenue. It can and has contributed to job growth and contributed to the GDP but its not believed to increase tax revenues.

 

The 40 year average for tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 18.3%. After this "record growth" it was at 18.4%.

 

Remember when using percentage growth statistics that you have to also look at the base. The growth you mention didn't come off a strong base. It came off of a period of time where federal revenues had decreased and economists contribute part of that decrease to the President Bush tax cuts. It basically got the fed back to where it should have been.

 

Can they be good for jobs? Yes. Can they contribute to economy stimulation? Yes.

 

Do they cause increased tax revenue? Experts say no.

 

Yet, some experts say yes. The question is at what point that happens.

Somewhat misleading.

 

Many economists including those who worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush will tell you that tax cuts do not lead to increased tax revenue. It can and has contributed to job growth and contributed to the GDP but its not believed to increase tax revenues.

 

The 40 year average for tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 18.3%. After this "record growth" it was at 18.4%.

 

Remember when using percentage growth statistics that you have to also look at the base. The growth you mention didn't come off a strong base. It came off of a period of time where federal revenues had decreased and economists contribute part of that decrease to the President Bush tax cuts. It basically got the fed back to where it should have been.

 

Can they be good for jobs? Yes. Can they contribute to economy stimulation? Yes.

 

Do they cause increased tax revenue? Experts say no.

Actually I didn't say record growth, I said record revenue.

 

Tax cuts do not themselves increase revenue but they do lead to increased revenue. The tax cuts couldn't have caused the decrease in revenue. Bush passed the first round in 2001, most of which wouldn't even take effect for several years. A good portion of the 2003 cuts he passed caused the 2001 cuts to kick in early. Look at the revenue line. It dips starting in 2000 and bottoms out in 2003. From their it increases dramatically. I never said Bush created record growth but I do think the evidence says cuts to contribute to increases in revenue, growth, and jobs.

 

 

[ATTACH]32238[/ATTACH]

 

In response to a request from a Senator, the CBO said that the increase in revenue was 1.9% of GDP and the the increases "disproportionately" came from a rise in corporate tax revenues.

 

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

 

2/3 came from an increase in corporate profits and the other 1/3 came from things like tax policy allowing partial expensing of capital equipment.

Yet, some experts say yes. The question is at what point that happens.

 

We'll never get consensus among economists on anything but many within the Bush administration were included in my generalization.

So are you saying that the tax cuts caused spending to increase?

 

No I was eluding to and stated later in the thread that President Bush/Congress put through the tax cuts while being involved in a two front war.

Why is this a problem? The money that people accumulate as wealth has already been taxed. Why should someone's kids have to pay taxes to get what their family has earned over generations?

 

Actually that is a largerly a myth, see the link I posted earlier.

Actually that is a largerly a myth, see the link I posted earlier.

 

No it isn't. Your link tried to rationalize it by saying large estates are made up mostly of unrealized capital gains. Do you really believe that?

No it isn't. Your link tried to rationalize it by saying large estates are made up mostly of unrealized capital gains. Do you really believe that?

 

:thumb: CBPP has it's own agenda. It certainly had it's own slant, didn't it?

We'll never get consensus among economists on anything but many within the Bush administration were included in my generalization.

 

It pretty much falls down the middle among ideologies. Economics shouldn't be that way but it is.

And as usual, the libs still think economics is a zero sum game.

And as usual, the libs still think economics is a zero sum game.

Excellent observation... sometimes when you stand so close to something you forget to see it.

 

It's not as though there is a predetermined pool of revenue that must be divided fairly... and if a stingy rich guy gloms onto more than his fair share, there's less for someone else. Under this scenario, it would make sense to try to divide funds more equitably.

 

There is no lid on our potential. There is no fixed limit on what we may generate. Under this REAL WORLD scenario, a rising tide lifts all the boats in the bay. The more we loosen the shackles on working capital, invention, creativity and incentive, the more revenue that will be produced... resulting in greater tax generation for our government... with less pain all the way around.

 

I've never understood the motivation to pull down the achievers instead of trying to motivate and lift up the poor.

 

It's the best of quality AND quantiity. :thumb: