These damned tax cuts; all they do is creat bad news.

For the Donkaroaches, that is.

Now talk amongst yourselves, trolls, whilst I go purchase a new bowling ball, bowl a few lines, and go play a few holes of golf. TTFN...

all the numbers you present are always qualified by starting in the middle of Bush's term. Why not bias the numbers even more and only count when things improved - its just a joke. YOu have to take the entrie Bush Presidency not just pick periods where things went better and ignore them when they went bad

"Now, do any of you liberals have the guts to dig up liberal writing at the time the tax cuts were enacted with all those tales of doom and gloom?" - Mark Noonan

According to the cbo, reciepts as a percentage of GDP are down for those that got tax cuts, the only reason net reciepts have risen is because how many people where hit with "bracket creep". So the democrats where right, a 3-4% marginal cut won't massively raise reciepts, and the rich'er will pay less and the poor'er will pay more, of course there's more revenue because more people are now rich and wether this is a more or less equitable arangement is debatable.

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

Of course if Bush hadn't raised spending by over a trillion dollars we could have almost abolished the income tax for everyone, or at least be paying down our debt right now.

So again, the problem isn't taxs, revenue, deficits or debt, it's SPENDING!!!! What's the point of having a republican president or congress if they spend even more than a democrat?

Liberalblockhead,
You incredible jack-ass; 2001 was Clinton’s budget. The tax cuts began in the 2002 Budget enacted in October 2001, and had the first effect on the economy in 2003. When are you going to learn to stop making a complete fool of yourself?

robert,
I’ll concede that the Republicans spent like drunken sailors, and I’d prefer fiscal responsibility; but let’s deal with the cards we’re delt. Surely you don’t see any politicians on the horizon reversing the spend-spend-spend trend, do you?

Regarding the CBO report; I believe it says the opposite of what you gleaned;

The bulk of the revenue increase was associated with corporate income taxes: Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006 (their highest level since 1978).

Regarding individual tax receipts (I before E except after C) CBO states that individual taxes were lowered when compared to GDP, but because of Capital Gains (which happens when people make more money) increased and as a result of “real bracket creep." Real bracket creep arises when real economic growth raises average incomes. I think your confusing this with “Nominal Bracket Creep” which occurs as a result of inflation causing an unfair raise in taxes.

Under the tax cut strategies, taxpayers made more in real income; more income results in moving up in tax brackets, and moving up means paying more taxes. How can increasing your income be considered a bad thing?

Sorry, that should read;

individual taxes were lowered when compared to GDP, but net revenues increased because Capital Gains increased and as a result of “real bracket creep."

"Regarding individual tax receipts (I before E except after C) CBO states that individual taxes were lowered when compared to GDP, but because of Capital Gains (which happens when people make more money) increased and as a result of “real bracket creep." Real bracket creep arises when real economic growth raises average incomes. I think your confusing this with “Nominal Bracket Creep” which occurs as a result of inflation causing an unfair raise in taxes.

Under the tax cut strategies, taxpayers made more in real income; more income results in moving up in tax brackets, and moving up means paying more taxes. How can increasing your income be considered a bad thing?" - Dasien Libsbane

"So the democrats where right, a 3-4% marginal cut won't massively raise reciepts, and the rich'er will pay less and the poor'er will pay more, of course there's more revenue because more people are now rich" - robert

I don't disagree with the tax cuts at all, I disagree with the massive spending increases. Mark's trying to say that there's been a deficit reduction because of the tax cuts, but really it's just more of the same because of the spending increases. Tax cuts are always good, but in a way irrelivant, taxes will always be constrained by the reality of spending. In the long run the only important number is spending.

"robert,
I’ll concede that the Republicans spent like drunken sailors, and I’d prefer fiscal responsibility; but let’s deal with the cards we’re delt. Surely you don’t see any politicians on the horizon reversing the spend-spend-spend trend, do you?" - Dasien Libsbane

It's a long shot but.... Ron Paul.

Ron Paul????
Yer killin’ me, Smalls!

Wait a minute ... "So the democrats where right [...] there's more revenue because more people are now rich"

You aren't seriously suggesting that democrats said that the Bush tax cuts would create more wealth, are you?

"Ron Paul????
Yer killin’ me, Smalls!" - Dasien Libsbane

Like I said he's a long shot, and unpopular for republicans because of Iraq, but he's the only politician I can think of that actually wants smaller government and has votes to back that up.

"You aren't seriously suggesting that democrats said that the Bush tax cuts would create more wealth, are you?"

No, I don't think they said that. But receipts have risen higher in lower brackets than higher brackets, which they did say. Don't try to hard to make me defend democrats, it's hard for me to do. But while Bush tax cuts may have helped more people become rich a little, I think this is mostly a function of individual effort.

My point is that the whole reason we even collect taxes is to fund spending, if you change taxes all your doing is trying to make a smarter or more equitable way of collecting that spending revenue(Or a stupider way that shifts the burden till after an election). In the long run if you want lower taxes the only thing that matters is spending, if you cut taxes and rack up deficits, it's more like a tax deferment(although if tax rates are insanely high this might be the smartest option), if you cut taxes and ramp up spending reality will eventually catch up with you. Deficit spending is the same as thing as a tax on future tax payers. To be fiscally responsible the only important number is spending, which makes like none of the current congress or Bush fiscaly responsible.

"You incredible jack-ass; 2001 was Clinton’s budget. The tax cuts began in the 2002 Budget enacted in October 2001, and had the first effect on the economy in 2003. When are you going to learn to stop making a complete fool of yourself? "

-- nice try.. So let me get this straight - you arbitrarily decided to start in 2003 because that is when things started to get somewhat better. Talk about bias- talk about being a jack-ass. The facts speak for themselves and don't need any massaging from broken down bush apologists like you

"-- nice try.. So let me get this straight - you arbitrarily decided to start in 2003 because that is when things started to get somewhat better. Talk about bias- talk about being a jack-ass. The facts speak for themselves and don't need any massaging from broken down bush apologists like you"

liberalT, does it make you mad when you see the deficit drop? I don't understand why your getting so flustered over good news.

robert,
“risen higher in lower brackets”
You mean more taxpayers are in higher tax brackets as a result of the economic stimulus created by the Bush Tax Policy. Okay, we agree.

But, I’m still troubled by your math; let’s see if we can dissect the logic. You stated, “Mark's trying to say that there's been a deficit reduction because of the tax cuts, but really it's just more of the same because of the spending increases.” If the spending increased and the deficit decreased that would mean mathematically either there was an increase in revenue via the tax rate adjustments, or some external force has affected the amount.

We know that reduced borrowing reduces the interest rates and lowers the cost of servicing the debt, and that does, indeed explain part of the deficit reduction. But, the thrust of the argument in favor of tax rate reductions is economic stimulus, which facilitates wealth creation, which in turn increases revenue to the public coffers, which lowers the amounts needed to be borrowed, which lowers service on the debt, which lowers the deficit. Et viola ~ a good thing!

“ if you cut taxes and rack up deficits,”
That’s the democrats argument, I expected you to see beyond that simplistic (kblockhead) reasoning and discuss what actually happened instead of what third grade arithmetic would lead you to believe. You're much smarter than that.

“ Deficit spending is the same as thing as a tax on future tax payers” Not actually; not all the time, you and I both know that revenue and expense is dynamic, not static. Deficit spending, while not optimal is often necessitated by economic circumstances. The deficit is very often a paper “bookmark” of revenue shortfall that causes nothing more than a reevaluation of payment schedules. The forth quarter of 2007 will see surplus receipts; does that mean we’re going to pay it forward and accept the service costs? If the democrats have their way, that’s exactly what will happen. If Bush vetoes the spending bills, the money allocated to service the debt won’t be needed and the deficit reduces retroactively.

Kblockhead,
Shut the hell up; every time I try to read your comments my IQ goes down.

Dasien, I'm trying to say in a way it is as simple as third grade math, you must pay for what you consume.

Government Consumption = Taxes
(The not third grade part is that's it's over time)

Yes, you can cut rates and increase revenue, you can mantain deficits some years for benifit, there are all sorts of accounting tricks. I'm not trying to criticize Bush's tax policy, I'm trying to criticize Bush's spending. In the end it's as simple as the third grade math equation, in the long run, spending = taxes. You can waste some money with bad tax policy, but if you change tax policy and get more money while cutting tax rates, you shouldn't go on a spending spree, you should cut taxes even more.

Smart government is better than dumb government, but smart idealogically conservative government is the best. And if it wasn't for massive increases in non-essential spending we would be paying down the debt, or have even more tax cuts(possibly even accelerating the process).

accounting tricks; GOOD
Stupid spending; BAD

Good, we agree! I'm going out for a snifter of Laphroaig 30yr and a Gurkha Centurian. Join me and let others chime in on the subject. (I fear you and I have sucked the air out of the room with our dry dissertations on Economics.)

What would be the deficit if WE, not our children and grandchildren, were actually paying for this occupation?

caye,
$274.39 billion (the war is included in the deficit.)

What would be the deficit if WE, not our children and grandchildren, were actually paying for this occupation?

What would be the price, in dollars, if you, not your children and grandchildren, went back to school and learned to write?

And stop it already with the Cindy Shriekhan talking points; you already look stupid enough...

Good spin, Mark. And now, the reality.

We need a balanced budget. Period!

Love the liberals on this blog. Mark even when you give them stats that they only have to admit one is bigger than the other, they still fight you tooth and nail, and never, ever, admit you or Bush might have been right on anything. If Bush said 3 is a smaller number than 4, the trolls on this blog would scream how stupid he is.

Way to go, Tractatertot. And now, you're a moron. Reagan was fighting and winning a cold war; Bush41 fought a war; Bush43 is fighting a global war. Slicky Blue Dress was playin' golf, chasin' wimmin, and slashing defense and intel. It's easy to run up projected surpluses when you're not doing the heavy lifting...

Tractatus chart says it all. Its the actual facts on the federal deficit. Mark ignores the first few years and quotes only the improvements and not the fact that the buget had a SURPLUS under clinton that he left Bush during his first year. Disdain - says were fools because really you count anything negative about Bush - it has to be Clinton's fault. And then keefer chimes in with the "only republicans have struggles" nonsense.

Sigh - yet another reminder - facts down't matter only broken , head up your ass, ideology with these bushy bots.. You can't escape the truth - it sets you FREE

You guys argue funny, like Republicans think deficits are bad or something. Reps LOVE deficits, especially accompanied by tax cuts, so they are in essence running up every taxpayer's credit card to be collected under threat of imprisonment through IRS action, while scrambling to make those tax cuts permanent.

They HATE surplus, thinking that means taxes are too high.

Technically there aren't more rich people, but the rich are richer, by, like, 81% over the last 6 years. Working folks are richer by about 3%, mostly 'cause we're working longer hours than six years ago.

Could be worse. We all could have been born in Iraq.

Tractatus, I don't want to defend Bush's spending or racking up deficits, but that link you gave is misleading.

A very large portion of federal spending is financing the debt. What Clinton did was replace 30 year bonds with various short term bonds to take advantage of a low short term interest rate, and he did this against the advice of his treasury secretary. This is what changed Clinton's deficit into a surplus.

This in my opinion is even worse than just racking up debt, this is accounting tricks for political purposes that cost everyone money. We're probably going to end up paying more taxes so that Clinton could look good, which shows how little respect that the guy has for your hard work.

And none of you liberals have been reading your intellectual liberal books. Huge deficits are advocated by tons of liberal intellectual economist. I don't like them because I've been influenced by reading too many weirdo Austrian economic books(I'm really poor and they're the only free ones I can find, why are there no free socialist economic books?). You guys should read up on how debt monetization works, you would know something really important about the government and it's effects on the economy that probably less than 1 in 100 people know, you would know what causes buisness cycles and wouldn't make stupid statements like "What would be the deficit if WE, not our children and grandchildren, were actually paying for this occupation?".

Mark,

When you quoted from the article, you left out that forecasts had predicted that government surpluses would total $5.6 trillion over the next decade. So far Bush's tax cuts have left us about $8 trillion below expectations.

Tractatus chart says it all.

It sure does, libtardT; it says that Tractatertot is a moron--just like you.

btw, just what is a "Tractatus chart?"

Could be worse. We all could have been born in Iraq.

We wish you were born in Iraq, Broder. Then you'd be grateful that the USA is such a benevolent nation. Alas, you were born and raised to hate your own country. What a shame, lad; what a shame.

Good post, robert; I hereby retract your name from the "kindergarten" list. Please accept my humble apology...

btw, I'm pretty sure I misused the word "retract" in my previous post--no need to correct me. Replace "retract" with "remove," if necessary...

markadebtalot:
even greenspan slammed bush on spending, debt and all sorts of other stuff.....
you gotta be bumming on that
but you probably don't like greenspan anymore....
but he did get that medal from your namesake didn't he?
so he must be ok

*sighs*

Once again, liberals prove they don’t know how to read financial information. robert, it’s worthless to keep explaining to these knee-jerk reactionaries.

Nothing convinces like charts and graphs, especially when a few key items are missing. On the particular charts referenced, it indicates CBO as the source, but fails to point out that the statistics were taken during each budget period. An example of the fallacy of this computation is the so-called “surplus” during the Clinton Administration. Not only was there no surplus in actual funding during this time (Clinton never once presented a balanced budget, much less one with a surplus) the actual “surplus” was made up of Social Security fund money that had already been spent.

Additionally, robert is absolutely correct in his explanation of the financing; when recalculated at the actual rates the service cost, there was a shortfall in the 1998 Budget by more than ½ a trillion dollars. But, that required backward looking analysis that the CBO doesn’t do. Instead they take the actual numbers after the fact and project the future with the “new” numbers.

Especially impressive is the “Public Debt” chart with the “Public Debt” overlaid with entirely different indices. I’m developing a chart that shows the Federal Spending with the IQ of liberals overlaid that shows the more we spend, the dumber liberals become. It’ll have pretty colors, be based on 2006 numbers and have irrational projections; just like the charts Tractatus has presented.

Like Charts? Here’s one that shows the Nation Debt factored with real economic conditions.

Or, if you actually understand economics, try this “Debt Clock”. I actually don't expect any of the Knuckle dragging Financial Neanderthals and Federal fiduciary fakirs to actually read and understand it. I do expect congressive to post opinion without source “there aren't more rich people” and liberal-blockhead to ramble nonsense displaying an utter lack of understand or even basic comprehension skills.

I'd Love to discuss actual facts with Rico, robert or Rana, also love to make 3moreyears look like a whiney loser. But, sometimes all I get are serial posters who write the intellectual equivalent of "Oh, yeah? (lenny!)