PDA

View Full Version : REPUBLICAN TAX NONSENSE



Gayle in MD
04-17-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
REPUBLICAN TAX NONSENSE

On July 13, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asserted that there was no net revenue loss from any of the Bush tax cuts, in defense of an earlier comment by Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona, that all spending increases must be offset so as not to increase the deficit but tax cuts must never be offset. Said McConnell:
“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.”

Bush administration economists, however, never made any such claim. Following are a few of their statements regarding the revenue feedback of the Bush tax cuts.

Andrew Samwick, chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during George W. Bush’s first term, in a January 3, 2007 blog post:
“You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. If I'm wrong, show me the evidence ... and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues.”

Alan Viard, senior economist at Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, as quoted in the Washington Post on October 17, 2006:
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, as quoted in the Washington Post on October 17, 2006:
“As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.”

Edward Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush’s second term, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, September 28, 2006 (p. 11):
“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”

At his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on June 27, 2006, Bush’s nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was asked if he thought that tax cuts paid for themselves. He replied (p. 18):
“As a general rule, I do not believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.”

In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in capital taxes at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican Doug Holtz-Eakin was CBO director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

The 2003 Economic Report of the President during Bush’s first term stated (pp. 57-58):
“Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”

The actual data show pretty convincingly that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly.

Federal Revenues During the George W. Bush Administration
Fiscal Year Revenues/GDP Revenues/2005-$* Revenues/2005-$/Per Capita
2000 20.6 2,310.0 8,180
2001 19.5 2,215.3 7,765
2002 17.6 2,028.6 7,041
2003 16.2 1,901.1 6,537
2004 16.1 1,949.5 6,642
2005 17.3 2,153.6 7,271
2006 18.2 2,324.1 7,773
2007 18.5 2,414.0 7,993
2008 17.5 2,288.5 7,508
*Billions Source: OMB


</div></div>

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1864/republican-tax-nonsense




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joe Walsh Claims Every Time The U.S. Has Cut Taxes, Revenue Has Gone Up (VIDEO)


WASHINGTON -- As Congress addresses the federal deficit and begins debating next year's budget, a centerpiece of the conversation is whether to raise taxes and increase revenue for the government or to simply cut spending.

In his speech last week, President Obama called for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for individuals making $200,000 or more a year and couples making $250,000 or more. Some conservatives, such as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have voiced support for tax increases.

But many other Republicans, especially freshmen members affiliated with the Tea Party, aren't so keen on that idea. On ABC's "This Week," host Christiane Amanpour mentioned to freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan doesn't address raising revenue, while Obama's does.

"Can you really sustain what everyone's calling for just by cuts in public services? Doesn't there need to be revenue-raising mechanisms?" she asked.

Walsh replied that the best way to raise revenues is to grow the economy. "You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase," he insisted.

Amanpour continued to press him, expressing skepticism that Congress can really balance the budget just by cutting social programs. Walsh insisted that tax cuts consistently help the economy grow and therefore raise revenues for the government.

"In the 80s, federal revenues went up," said Walsh. "We didn't cut spending. Revenues went up in the 80s. Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up. The economy has grown."


WATCH:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/joe-walsh-cut-taxes-revenue-up_n_850192.html

Walsh isn't the first lawmaker to make this argument. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a similar comment about the Bush tax cuts.

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he asserted. "They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."

But even conservative economists have cast doubt on this claim.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former White House economist under George W. Bush, in a 2006 Washington Post article.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, also said that no one in the administration believes tax cuts created a surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan economist who became a strong critic of the Bush administration's policies, used data from the Office of Management and Budget in a blog post last year to illustrate how "the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly."

see chart:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/joe-walsh-cut-taxes-revenue-up_n_850192.html

Walsh isn't the first lawmaker to make this argument. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a similar comment about the Bush tax cuts.
"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he asserted. "They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."

But even conservative economists have cast doubt on this claim.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former White House economist under George W. Bush, in a 2006 Washington Post article.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, also said that no one in the administration believes tax cuts created a surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan economist who became a strong critic of the Bush administration's policies, used data from the Office of Management and Budget in a blog post last year to illustrate how "the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly."

</div></div>
chart:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/joe-walsh-cut-taxes-revenue-up_n_850192.html

<span style="color: #660000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Will the Repiglicans EVER stop lying to the American People????

Will the self-described economic geniuses in the Fly-Over States, EVER wake up???

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves!!!!</span>

G.</span> </span>

cushioncrawler
04-17-2011, 06:10 PM
The usofa needzta giv lots of money to the middle and lower classes and to the needy.
This iz in effekt taking tax kuts even further -- ie it iz in effekt lowering tax rates past zero, into negativ territory.
If lowering tax rates iz deficit-neutral, then giving iz deficit-neutral too.
And, the best thing iz that the rich will benefit from the trickle-up effekt.
mac.

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:13 AM
We have been doing that in this country for decades.

Stretch
04-18-2011, 05:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have been doing that in this country for decades. </div></div>

Yes, OPEC and China are greatfull for the handouts. St.

LWW
04-18-2011, 05:58 AM
Can you read, eh?

Stretch
04-18-2011, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read, eh? </div></div>

I was going to ask you the same thing, dude. St.

Sev
04-18-2011, 06:28 AM
I love the argument about unpaid for tax cuts.

It assumes that the government owns the money and not the people who actually earn it.

There are 1 government worker for every 14.6 people in the US. Approx 2 million of them are in Washington. Firing 1.5 million of them would be a good first step in controlling spending.

States following suit and moving to privatization would also be a boon.

Stretch
04-18-2011, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love the argument about unpaid for tax cuts.

It assumes that the government owns the money and not the people who actually earn it.

There are 1 government worker for every 14.6 people in the US. Approx 2 million of them are in Washington. Firing 1.5 million of them would be a good first step in controlling spending.

States following suit and moving to privatization would also be a boon. </div></div>

Every time something is privatized cost goes up, service goes down. There are some essential services that should not be held hostage to "profit" for the good of the community. St.

Gayle in MD
04-18-2011, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The usofa needzta giv lots of money to the middle and lower classes and to the needy.
This iz in effekt taking tax kuts even further -- ie it iz in effekt lowering tax rates past zero, into negativ territory.
If lowering tax rates iz deficit-neutral, then giving iz deficit-neutral too.
And, the best thing iz that the rich will benefit from the trickle-up effekt.
mac. </div></div>

That is what is known as Repiglican fiscal Conservatism. charts prove, the country loses ground, jobs, treasure and lives, everytime we suffer through eight years of Repiglican economic policies. VOODOO ECONOMICS!

Gayle in MD
04-18-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love the argument about unpaid for tax cuts.

It assumes that the government owns the money and not the people who actually earn it.

There are 1 government worker for every 14.6 people in the US. Approx 2 million of them are in Washington. Firing 1.5 million of them would be a good first step in controlling spending.

States following suit and moving to privatization would also be a boon. </div></div>

Every time something is privatized cost goes up, service goes down. There are some essential services that should not be held hostage to "profit" for the good of the community. St. </div></div>

There you have it friend. Repiglicans are for fascism. History proves it. It started with Reagan, now we have Air Traffic Cotrollers asleep in the towers.... first, they do away with workers rights, give the country away to corporate interests, and when the public rises up, they call out the military industrial complex, to kill off the dissenters....Their supporters are too stupid to see it.

G.

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:34 PM
[quote=Gayle in MD] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The actual data show pretty convincingly that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly.

Federal Revenues During the George W. Bush Administration
Fiscal Year Revenues/GDP Revenues/2005-$* Revenues/2005-$/Per Capita
2000 20.6 2,310.0 8,180
2001 19.5 2,215.3 7,765 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue already in decline, tax cuts passed.</span>
2002 17.6 2,028.6 7,041 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue declines again.</span>
2003 16.2 1,901.1 6,537 <span style="color: #3366FF">Tax cuts fully implemented.</span>
2004 16.1 1,949.5 6,642 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenues begin to rise.</span>
2005 17.3 2,153.6 7,271 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue continues to rise.</span>
2006 18.2 2,324.1 7,773 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue sets a new record.</span>
2007 18.5 2,414.0 7,993 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue sets another new record. Democrooks take control of congress and start "FIXING" things.</span>
2008 17.5 2,288.5 7,508 <span style="color: #3366FF">Democrook legislation takes effect, revenues begin to decline.</span>
<span style="color: #3366FF">2009 Revenue falls again.</span>
<span style="color: #3366FF">2010 Revenue falls again.</span>
<span style="color: #3366FF">2011 Reevenue is still falling.</span>
*Billions Source: OMB </div></div>

You truly don't have the slightest understanding what you cut and pasted ... other than it was on the spoon ... do you?

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love the argument about unpaid for tax cuts.

It assumes that the government owns the money and not the people who actually earn it.

There are 1 government worker for every 14.6 people in the US. Approx 2 million of them are in Washington. Firing 1.5 million of them would be a good first step in controlling spending.

States following suit and moving to privatization would also be a boon. </div></div>

It also makes the patently insane assumption that the economy is 100% static and the rates can be changed without any ripple effect through the economy.

To the leftists here ... what happens if you set the tax rate to 100%?

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every time something is privatized cost goes up, service goes down. There are some essential services that should not be held hostage to "profit" for the good of the community. St. </div></div>

Name some.

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is what is known as Repiglican fiscal Conservatism. charts prove, the country loses ground, jobs, treasure and lives, everytime we suffer through eight years of Repiglican economic policies. VOODOO ECONOMICS! </div></div>

Then why did JFK advocate the same policy?

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There you have it friend. Repiglicans are for fascism. History proves it. It started with Reagan, now we have Air Traffic Cotrollers asleep in the towers.... first, they do away with workers rights, give the country away to corporate interests, and when the public rises up, they call out the military industrial complex, to kill off the dissenters....Their supporters are too stupid to see it.

G. </div></div>

There you go using words you don't understand. In reality you petition in favor of fascism daily.

As an addendum, how on Earth did a dead man make the traffic controllers fall asleep on the job?

pooltchr
04-18-2011, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As an addendum, how on Earth did a dead man make the traffic controllers fall asleep on the job? </div></div>

Her theory seems to be that if she can somehow put two different things in the same paragraph, then she can tie them together in her mind.
Air Traffic controllers...RR....controllers falling asleep on the job.

It doesn't take much to twist a simple mind, as we see with her on a regular basis.

Steve

LWW
04-19-2011, 03:29 AM
I just saw on Drudge where a controller was suspended because the corpse of Ronald Reagan forced him to bring a portable DVD player to the tower and then threatened him into watching a movie while on duty and neglecting planes in the air.

OH DEAR! (http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-local-air-traffic-controller-suspended-for-watching-movie-txt,0,2903386.story)