PDA

View Full Version : tax cuts don’t increase revenue



Qtec
07-15-2010, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Coburn: New Tax Cuts Cost Money But Extending The Bush Tax Cuts ‘Isn’t A Cost’

Last Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) caused quite a stir when he claimed that the government should “never” offset tax cuts, yet unemployment insurance extensions must be paid for. “You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,” he said.

Today on C-Span, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) circled the wagons around his Senate colleague. When host Greta Brawner asked Coburn about a Washington Post editorial mocking Kyl’s statement, Coburn conceded that tax cuts cost money, but he claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts won’t cost anything, because, according to Coburn’s logic, they’ve already been enacted at one point in the past:

COBURN: Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn’t a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that’s a cost. It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them. It costs money if we increase, which I would be willing to do. I think we ought to cut corporate taxes.

Watch it:


Other Republicans such as California Senate candidate Carlie Fiorina have jumped on the “tax cuts don’t cost anything” bandwagon. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came to Kyl’s defense yesterday, laughably arguing that there is “no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.” “They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy,” he said. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Except, there is evidence that tax cuts diminish revenue</span></span>, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted:

[H]ow about the Congressional Budget Office’s estimations? “The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. <u>In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. </u>Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.” <span style='font-size: 17pt'>How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. </span></div></div> link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/coburn-bush-tax-cuts/)

see also (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/mcconnell_no_evidence_whatsoev.html)

Q..just so you know.

Gayle in MD
07-15-2010, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Coburn: New Tax Cuts Cost Money But Extending The Bush Tax Cuts ‘Isn’t A Cost’

Last Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) caused quite a stir when he claimed that the government should “never” offset tax cuts, yet unemployment insurance extensions must be paid for. “You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,” he said.

Today on C-Span, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) circled the wagons around his Senate colleague. When host Greta Brawner asked Coburn about a Washington Post editorial mocking Kyl’s statement, Coburn conceded that tax cuts cost money, but he claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts won’t cost anything, because, according to Coburn’s logic, they’ve already been enacted at one point in the past:

COBURN: Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn’t a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that’s a cost. It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them. It costs money if we increase, which I would be willing to do. I think we ought to cut corporate taxes.

Watch it:


Other Republicans such as California Senate candidate Carlie Fiorina have jumped on the “tax cuts don’t cost anything” bandwagon. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came to Kyl’s defense yesterday, laughably arguing that there is “no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.” “They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy,” he said. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Except, there is evidence that tax cuts diminish revenue</span></span>, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted:

[H]ow about the Congressional Budget Office’s estimations? “The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. <u>In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. </u>Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.” <span style='font-size: 17pt'>How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. </span></div></div> link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/coburn-bush-tax-cuts/)

see also (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/mcconnell_no_evidence_whatsoev.html)

Q..just so you know. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Good post. McConnell is one of the biggest crooks in there. Too bad the trolls on here are so compromised intellectually, they won't even be able to comprehend that those tax cuts, lead to a loss of revenue. They're so thoroughly indoctrinated into the RW BS, they will probably deny that fact, also.

G.

</span>

LWW
07-15-2010, 05:21 AM
Can either of you read?

The article makes the false assumption that the tax cuts increased the deficit and offers zero data that the deficits decreased revenue.

In fact the gubmint's own records confirm that the cuts brought in more revenue and neither of you have ever presented a scintilla of data showing otherwise.

The "TRUTH" which you are both parroting is merely a statist attempt to whitewash over the real cause of the deficit ... increased spending.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-15-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can either of you read?

The article makes the false assumption that the tax cuts increased the deficit and offers zero data that the deficits decreased revenue.

In fact the gubmint's own records confirm that the cuts brought in more revenue and neither of you have ever presented a scintilla of data showing otherwise.

The "TRUTH" which you are both parroting is merely a statist attempt to whitewash over the real cause of the deficit ... increased spending.

LWW </div></div>

You're an idiot. The Congressional Budget Office did the study, you moron.

G.

LWW
07-15-2010, 09:52 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/fed_receipt_sum_historical-3.jpg

I know they did ... and being a fact loving kind of guy, I went to see the actual data as opposed to being spoon fed a headline catch phrase which doesn't bact up the "TRUTH" it proposes.

In 2001 the revenue to the fed fell from $2,025.2B to $1,991.1B .

The Bush tax cuts pushed the income to the fed up to $2,568.0B in 2007.

Starting in 2008, the first year that the budget and tax policy was under the control of the demokook regime revenue started falling again ... dropping to $2,105B in 2009.

Hence, the reality is that the Bush tax cuts increased fed income by $576.9B per year ... and in a few short years the new regime's policies have removed $463B of it.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23)

My source ... the regime's OMB itself.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BWA</span><span style='font-size: 23pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 11pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>HAHA</span> ...

Fret not my sweet, the people with the spoon will be by again soon to provide you with what the "TRUTH" is now.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-15-2010, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know they did ... and being a fact loving kind of guy, I went to see the actual data as opposed to being spoon fed a headline catch phrase which doesn't bact up the "TRUTH" it proposes.

In 2001 the revenue to the fed fell from $2,025.2B to $1,991.1B.

The Bush tax cuts pushed the income to the fed up to $2,568.0B in 2007.

Starting in 2008, the first year that the budget and tax policy was under the control of the demokook regime revenue started falling again ... dropping to $2,105B in 2009.

Hence, the reality is that the Bush tax cuts increased fed income by $576.9B per year ... and in a few short years the new regime's policies have removed $463B of it.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23)

My source ... the regime's OMB itself.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BWA</span><span style='font-size: 23pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 11pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>HAHA</span> ...

LWW
</div></div>

You idiot! Bush wasn't including his expenditures in the budget. He sidetracked all thata by using emergency finding, and borrowiong to pay for his Fed up wars, AND the tax cugts.

Go put your idiot head back up where the sun don't shine.

G.

LWW
07-15-2010, 10:12 AM
Dearest, I know you get upset when someone shows you that your sources have played you like Perlman on a Strad, but the issue at hand isn't whether or not any POTUS included all expenses on the official budget.

I agree that Bush as well as Clinton and dearest leader, have perpetrated a budgetary fraud upon the populace with "OFF BUDGET" items. I'd like to buy a new 599 Ferrari "OFF BUDGET" but alas I must live within the laws of the land.

The topic of this thread however is whether, or not, the Bush/R tax policy increased revenue to the treasury. You claimed that OMB proved it did not. I have shown clearly that OMB has proven not only that it did increase revenue, but the policies of the Obama/D regime has decimated those revenues back to what they were a decade ago.

You can hide from the truth, but the truth will still be there when you come out.

Facts, they are such stubborn things.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-15-2010, 10:25 AM
You're wrong.

LWW
07-15-2010, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're wrong. </div></div>

Prove it.

I presented the OMB's actual numbers.

You presented Q's story.

Q's story presented an opinion that didn't back the opinion up with any data whatsoever.

Deal with it.

LWW

eg8r
07-15-2010, 10:49 AM
LOL, so he looks at the actual data the CBO used and you didn't. He proves qtip's post is incorrect and you have zero data to back you up. What happens, you call him idiot and tell him he is wrong. Hilarious.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-15-2010, 10:55 AM
Factual data is not a requirement for the left to form an opinion.

Steve

LWW
07-15-2010, 11:04 AM
Truth and facts are to the far left what a cross and stake are to Dracula.

LWW

Qtec
07-15-2010, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The article makes the false assumption that the tax cuts increased the deficit </div></div>

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Q. Where did Bush get the money to finance the tax cuts?
Answer. He BORROWED it, hence adding to the debt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet conservatives continue to argue for another round of permanent tax cuts similar to those of the Bush administration. Even if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts to the federal budget over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion, an average of 1.4 percent of the country’s total economic activity (GDP) per year. </div></div>



Q

Qtec
07-15-2010, 11:21 AM
link (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CBO Data Show <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit</span>

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. </span>[1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs. </div></div>

http://www.cbpp.org/archivesite/1-25-05bud-f1.jpg

What was the result of these tax cuts?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what actually happened during the economic cycle that began in March 2001 and ended in December of 2007—which almost exactly coincides with the Bush presidency and the implementation of the Bush tax cuts. This period registered the <u>weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period.</u> Overall monthly job <span style='font-size: 14pt'>growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967.</span> Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. <u>And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.</u> </div></div>

Q

LWW
07-15-2010, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The article makes the false assumption that the tax cuts increased the deficit </div></div>

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Q. Where did Bush get the money to finance the tax cuts?
Answer. He BORROWED it, hence adding to the debt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet conservatives continue to argue for another round of permanent tax cuts similar to those of the Bush administration. Even if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts to the federal budget over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion, an average of 1.4 percent of the country’s total economic activity (GDP) per year. </div></div>



Q </div></div>

Incorrect.

The tax cuts, as has been shown, brought in more money than before ... and by a wide margin.

Now, if you want to argue that we had to borrow money because he and congress spent the additional revenue plus some more I would agree with you.

That, however, has not been your argument ... although at this point it seems that you wish folks to believe that it has been your point all along.

The facts stand unchallenged that the OMB you and Gayle swore by dispute your arguments that the tax cuts did not increase revenues. They clearly did increase revenues ... and furthermore the new regimes additional tax increases and minimum wage hikes have both decreased revenue while increasing unemployment.

In combination with massive spending increases they have completed the trifecta ... fewer tax ayers, less revenue, increased spending ... required for the debacle we are now in the midst of.

What angers you is that I know exactly what I'm talking about and can prove it using your own sources.

Deal with it.

LWW

LWW
07-16-2010, 10:30 PM
Those who insist upon denying the basic facts on this should study just a tad of economics. I would suggest in particular &gt;&gt;&gt;THE LAFFER CURVE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) which has been proven accurate following the US tax cuts of the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's, and 2000's.

It works regardless of what party is in power and has worked in different eras and many nations without fail.

LWW

Qtec
07-16-2010, 11:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2005 US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the effectiveness of tax cuts

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal income tax rates in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). <span style='font-size: 17pt'>In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: </span>the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.[5] </div></div>

Qtec
07-17-2010, 12:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it comes down to this.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> Republicans believe they can turn bullshit into gold. Despite the inescapable conclusion of history, theory and empirical evidence to the contrary,</span> Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Boehner, Tom Coburn, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison and other Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit. Of course, even though the tax cut claim is laughably false, conservative ideology requires that it must true. Otherwise, the Republicans have just been giving money to rich people.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And as another recent CBPP analysis revealed, over the next 10 years, the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined.</span> </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/node/38396)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4524250851_8a16aebb74.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/3489255980_d747bdb1d5.jpg

Q

LWW
07-17-2010, 03:24 AM
Completely irrelevant.

As has been shown countless times, the CBO numbers are a fantasy. They are based on the proven wrong assumption that we would have had the same economic growth had the taxes remained higher. That belief is insane on the face of it.

Besides that ... the argument you presented was that tax cuts didn't raise revenue.
Now you are flailing madly trying to change the argument.

You were wrong and you were proven wrong by your own source. Your choices from here are easy:

1 - Deal with it and learn from it.

2 - Ask the spoon wielders to double the dosage.

Choose wisely.

LWW

Qtec
07-17-2010, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been shown countless times, the CBO numbers are a fantasy. </div></div>

Only to those who don't agree with them.

Q

LWW
07-17-2010, 07:00 AM
Do you agree with the OMB numbers in your source in the original post of this thread, which I accidentally called CBO?

LWW

Stretch
07-17-2010, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been shown countless times, the CBO numbers are a fantasy. </div></div>

Only to those who don't agree with them.

Q </div></div>

Q, please don't rile Larry with cool reasoned thinking. You know how riled up and foamy at the mouth he gets when anyone dare present ideas differing from his own. Oh and thanks for not taking the bait of his non-stop barrage of put-downs, insults, and jibes that he feels it so necessary in order to make his points. It's revealing to all. St.

LWW
07-17-2010, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
link (http://crooksandliars.com/node/38396)

Q </div></div>

Did you actually read that link?

Of course not ... if you had you would have seen this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained how tax cuts magically turn red ink black:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

Which is sadly right. </div></div>

Notice, the author of YOUR LINK states that the tax cuts increased federal revenue.

How much clearer can they make it for you ... they call themselves "CROOKS AND LIARS" and then crookedly use lies in big spoon fed headlines.

So, do you agree with YOUR SOURCES or not?

LWW

LWW
07-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Do you agree with Q's sources.

Let me clue you in on how they play you folks like Ozzie Smith played a 3 hopper.

They use the ideology of Josef Goebbels that any convincing lie must contain a kernel of truth.

The claim is that tax cuuts decreased revenue ... even though they show absolutely nothing to support this false claim.

Then they introduce the kernel of truth ... that the deficit rose after the tax cuts.

What the crooks and liars never want you to do is to actually review the numbers. When you do, actually I did it for you as neither of you had the ambition to look beyond the end of the spoon, you find that the tax cuts increased revenue but the deficit increased because the additional revenue was spent plus even more.

Their is no magic involved, other than they know that the Obamanation is so ideologically blinded that they will absolutely rebuke the truth.

Neither of you have presented anything, with the exception of the admitted crooks and liars misdirection, and have refused to actually look at the hard data.

LWW

Qtec
07-18-2010, 02:40 AM
I was taught not to mock the afflicted. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Larry thinks that if you give away 2 trillion in tax cuts [ and borrow the money to do it] and only get 500B back [ after 7 yrs] ,that's a good deal!

It doesn't matter how many sources [ plural] I provide, its never good enough for L.

Oh, another thing, the chart he is citing [ my chart] CLEARLY shows that Clinton had a surplus, something L has always denied. Will L now finally admit he was wrong?


Q

LWW
07-18-2010, 06:08 AM
The chart shows a surplus after the SS funds were raided.

The facts show that the cumulative federal debt rose each year of the Clinton regime ... hence no true surplus as the money used to claim a surplus was borrowed money ... and also shows that the tax cuts increased federal revenue. It also shows that the middle class does better compared th the rich than it did 50 years ago ... and that it did best of all under Reagan's regime.

Now ... do you believe that your sources are valid or not?

It isn't a trick question, and you can end your misery on these topics whenever you want it to end.

LWW

LWW
07-19-2010, 02:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Larry thinks that if you give away 2 trillion in tax cuts [ and borrow the money to do it] and only get 500B back [ after 7 yrs] ,that's a good deal!

It doesn't matter how many sources [ plural] I provide, its never good enough for L.

Q

</div></div>

Actually I have stated the exact opposite. Tax cuts combined with spending increases in excess of the new revenue was a disaster.

Now ... back to those sources, do you claim they are believable or not? I'm making the question as simple for you and stretch as I can.

LWW