This is the FUNNIEST thing I have heard in a long while.

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

Well, please enlighten us then.

Well, taxcuts have this nasty habbit of actually increasing revenue, so while you two yuck it up, those of us who look past the surface understand the positives of doing such things.

Go ahead and laugh it up though.

Oh, goody. Then by your reasoning, why not cut taxes by $1.1 TRILLION a year (effectively eliminating the entire income tax)?

According to you, since "tax cuts have this nasty habit of actually increasing revenue", a $1.1 trillion cut should work wonders for our economy. And if you do NOT support the complete elimination of income taxes, please explain to us in your oh-so-wise economics-expert voice why that would be a bad idea.

Or is it barely possible that there's a point beyond which tax cuts are counterproductive? And if that's so - if there's some level of taxes below which cutting them further would be bad - then how do you know we haven't already reached (and perhaps long-since passed) that point? Please gaze into your true-believer's crystal ball and explain to us why $70 billion in additional cuts is good but $1.5 trillion (or $800 billion, or whatever) in additional cuts would be bad.

I would love to see income tax at 0% I would like to see it replaced with a consumption tax so everyone is taxed the same for the services they use and products they buy.
But no, my logic does not include exreme reductions like you are trying to claim. But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts. The reason the deficit is still big even though revenue has increased, is because the government is always spending more and more. I think there is plenty of room to cut programs and funding since the goverment has more than exceeded it's responsibilities.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that we really don't know the effects of them, so I better not hear you try to claim that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit then because you can't prove it.

 

[BlancoNino]

Think of the economy as a giant ship. It's going in one direction and it's picking up speed. If you want to turn it around, it takes a lot of power AND a lot of time to slow it down, stop it, and slowly get it started up again. Think of Reaganomics and Clintonomics. Clinton's tax increases slowly turned it around and the very last year of his economic policies, we hit a recession.

Plus, remember that the economy is affected by a lot of things. Defecits really don't hurt the economy as much as people think.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

Well, please enlighten us then.

Well, taxcuts have this nasty habbit of actually increasing revenue, so while you two yuck it up, those of us who look past the surface understand the positives of doing such things.

Go ahead and laugh it up though.

If tax cuts were that great at producing revenue, we wouldn't be 8 trillion+ in the hole. Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich is a failed concept.

This is what pisses me off so much about people who think like you do. I, by no means am rich I hope that someday I am but hey as long as I have what I NEED and can occasionaly get what I WANT then I am happy.

Why do statements such as yours above make me ill? Well see like it or not people do not just become rich overnight (unless you win the lotttery) SOMEONE had to work for it so why shouldn't they reap the rewards? If they know where to put thier money so they can get breaks on taxes then why not? Wouldn't you? If not then no wonder you are not rich.
Believe it or not the "poor" have plenty of benefits..how do I know? I know people at or below the poverty line and guess what?

1- They get free medical care
2- Free schooling in some cases
3- Assistance for food
4- Assistance for housing
5- Genereous tax benefits on thier returns
***all with my money mind you****

And yes they do choose to be that way. Why? well look at the list above...it is very easy for someone to forsake thier self respect to gain those benefits why not? the more they save at the hospital and the grocery store the more beer and cigarettes they can buy...I see it happen all the time. I know a guy who knocked up his girlfriend and they waited to get mairried AFTER the baby was born so it would cost them little if anything for medical (and he made 35,000) so I have seen people manipulate the system to a disgusting degree. (I watched a woman purchase soup bones for her dog with a welfare card...it is classified as a food product so therefore he dog gets assistance too) And yes I was an a$$hole and let her know how I felt about it.

These taxcuts do help the middle class...I know I am one.

Do I donate to others with my extra money? Hell no...(maybe around Christmas time) why should I ...I sock all I can into my 401k because someday someone like you will get into office and raise my taxes and I need to think about 30 years from now when I am ready to retire. you are not going to look out for me...and I don't expect you to either.

:shocked:

Wow...too bad...all that money...no social conscience whatsoever.

Just because you admit being an "a$$hole" doesn't make you less insufferable.

Enjoy the fiery furnace of hell...you were wise to have booked early.

Do I think I was an a$$hole for questioning her on her purchase?...no
Did she? most certainly yes she did.

Most people hate to be called out when they do something wrong, and they know it is wrong.

Now if the situation I described is ok with you then send me some of your hard earned money and let me spend it as I please....after all you are making money not for yourself, but for everyone around you...just like you seem to think everyone else is.

 

[dannybin1742]

Well, taxcuts have this nasty habbit of actually increasing revenue, so while you two yuck it up, those of us who look past the surface understand the positives of doing such things.

for the rich, quit subscribing to supply siders, its bs, as many academic studies have proven

 

[dannybin1742]

1- They get free medical care
2- Free schooling in some cases
3- Assistance for food
4- Assistance for housing
5- Genereous tax benefits on thier returns
***all with my money mind you****

yes but what about people like me, i'm a graduate student, am married, and make 20k per year, this gets me by every month, and oh yeah my wife is a student (for one more year)

i don't have a new car, i have to pay for dental insurance that barely covers me, i have to pay 1200 per year for her health insurance, occationally we have car repairs, i've had a root canal that wiped us out for 2 months because my dental insurance only covered 50% of it,

now how am i supposed to save???? where is generaour government that you speak of? and this free ride that he lower income people get? shut your mouth before you say another stupid thing

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

1- They get free medical care
2- Free schooling in some cases
3- Assistance for food
4- Assistance for housing
5- Genereous tax benefits on thier returns
***all with my money mind you****

yes but what about people like me, i'm a graduate student, am married, and make 20k per year, this gets me by every month, and oh yeah my wife is a student (for one more year)

i don't have a new car, i have to pay for dental insurance that barely covers me, i have to pay 1200 per year for her health insurance, occationally we have car repairs, i've had a root canal that wiped us out for 2 months because my dental insurance only covered 50% of it,

now how am i supposed to save???? where is generaour government that you speak of? and this free ride that he lower income people get? shut your mouth before you say another stupid thing

Welcome to the real world.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

I know this much, subtract 35 million from 70 million and you're still 35 million short.

And that's only counting Bush's reckless tax cuts. Add in Bush's monomania in Mesopotamia and you're billions more in the hole.

Some economics. :roll:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

I know this much, subtract 35 million from 70 million and you're still 35 million short.

And that's only counting Bush's reckless tax cuts. Add in Bush's monomania in Mesopotamia and you're billions more in the hole.

Some economics. :roll:

Another one raising their hand, proving my point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that we really don't know the effects of them, so I better not hear you try to claim that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit then because you can't prove it.

Typical BS and evasion. There's all the difference in the world between proclaiming to be able to quantify highly variable and totally indirect effects of tinkle-down economics and the very real, immediate, and direct budgetary effects of suddenly cutting revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. Care to try again with a responsive comment?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

I know this much, subtract 35 million from 70 million and you're still 35 million short.

And that's only counting Bush's reckless tax cuts. Add in Bush's monomania in Mesopotamia and you're billions more in the hole.

Some economics. :roll:

Another one raising their hand, proving my point.

So your idea of "economics" is creating deficits that grow to record proportions while you empty the treasury into your "haves and have mores" pockets.

Great economics if you happen to be among the top two percent. Not very good for the other ninety-eight percent of us.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that we really don't know the effects of them, so I better not hear you try to claim that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit then because you can't prove it.

Typical BS and evasion. There's all the difference in the world between proclaiming to be able to quantify highly variable and totally indirect effects of tinkle-down economics and the very real, immediate, and direct budgetary effects of suddenly cutting revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. Care to try again with a responsive comment?

SoG is talking economics when he obviously can't even handle simple math.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that we really don't know the effects of them, so I better not hear you try to claim that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit then because you can't prove it.

Typical BS and evasion. There's all the difference in the world between proclaiming to be able to quantify highly variable and totally indirect effects of tinkle-down economics and the very real, immediate, and direct budgetary effects of suddenly cutting revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. Care to try again with a responsive comment?

Well, if what you say is true, then the same logic applies in the case I supplied, no?

Economists tend to agree with my assessment, but I'm sure you can find some who don't. But if you were to be honest with your "logic" then you can't say Bush's tax-cuts caused the deficit.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

I know this much, subtract 35 million from 70 million and you're still 35 million short.

And that's only counting Bush's reckless tax cuts. Add in Bush's monomania in Mesopotamia and you're billions more in the hole.

Some economics. :roll:

Another one raising their hand, proving my point.

So your idea of "economics" is creating deficits that grow to record proportions while you empty the treasury into your "haves and have mores" pockets.

Great economics if you happen to be among the top two percent. Not very good for the other ninety-eight percent of us.

If there was any doubt about my previous response to you, that doubt is now gone.:laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
But the truth is, Bush's tax cuts have increased tax revenue. Sorry, but it's the facts.

No, that's not "the facts". Yes, Bush reduced some taxes and tax revenue increased. There is no proof of a connection between the two, however. The fact is that tax revenues have grown fairly steadily for decades, when taxes were cut, when taxes were raised, when taxes were left unchanged. The reason is obvious, once you put aside partisan posturing. The economy grows fairly steadily, the number of taxpayers increase each year, and average wages increase each year (almost). Consequently, unless the economy has totally tanked, tax revenues will increase year after year, regardless of whether there's a tax cut or a tax increase.

The meaningful question is how much does a tax rate change affect the rate of growth compared to leaving taxes unchanged? That's a question the faithful ignore, because the answer doesn't fit their agenda. Much easier to keep chanting the "lowering taxes increases tax revenue" talking point, even though it's deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that we really don't know the effects of them, so I better not hear you try to claim that Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit then because you can't prove it.

Typical BS and evasion. There's all the difference in the world between proclaiming to be able to quantify highly variable and totally indirect effects of tinkle-down economics and the very real, immediate, and direct budgetary effects of suddenly cutting revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. Care to try again with a responsive comment?

Well, if what you say is true, then the same logic applies in the case I supplied, no?

Economists tend to agree with my assessment, but I'm sure you can find some who don't. But if you were to be honest with your "logic" then you can't say Bush's tax-cuts caused the deficit.

And still reading-impaired too, I see. I thought you knew someone who could help with that. Sigh. You'll have to settle for bolding, I don't have a crayon font.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

1- They get free medical care
2- Free schooling in some cases
3- Assistance for food
4- Assistance for housing
5- Genereous tax benefits on thier returns
***all with my money mind you****

yes but what about people like me, i'm a graduate student, am married, and make 20k per year, this gets me by every month, and oh yeah my wife is a student (for one more year)

i don't have a new car, i have to pay for dental insurance that barely covers me, i have to pay 1200 per year for her health insurance, occationally we have car repairs, i've had a root canal that wiped us out for 2 months because my dental insurance only covered 50% of it,

now how am i supposed to save???? where is generaour government that you speak of? and this free ride that he lower income people get? shut your mouth before you say another stupid thing

Well perhaps maybe you should have choose another path? I am not a college student (wish I was) and I make a decent living. I am unmarried but my GF and I have been living together for the las 16 years and do you know how many times we have ever even considred going on assistance? Not one. I didn''t start out where I am I worked my way to it. Hell when we got together I was making 8.25 an hour living insome sh!thole...so don't cry to me about struggle...been there done that....

you CHOOSE to go to college
you CHOOSE to get married

I would say it is time to rethink your lifes plan and decide what is most important to you.


BTW what are you a graduate of?
edit:
followed your link and you are a student of Biochemistry?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I hear if you cut taxes to 0% revenues will skyrocket.

WINNAR!

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Don't know much about Economics do you.

Well, please enlighten us then.

Well, taxcuts have this nasty habbit of actually increasing revenue, so while you two yuck it up, those of us who look past the surface understand the positives of doing such things.

Go ahead and laugh it up though.

Listening to an interview with a collegue of Ben Bernake just after he was nominated to the Fed, the interviewer asked about his fiscal temperment to which the collegue replyed:

"No, Ben is a moderate. No serious economist is a supply-sider."

 

[BlancoNino]

You guys can talk all you want about "reckless tax cuts", but there was a time when we were paying a whole hell of a lot less in taxes and balancing the budget. We're fighting a war, remember? How else do you help the economy and fight a war at the same time without running a defecit?