|
An article written by Roy Blount, Republican Senator. I'm sure this is accurate...... barf. If the tax increases come about by letting Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010 (as Bush's legislation mandated) then the "largest tax increase in history" would have been actually authored by the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated Congress (as well as any Democrats who voted for Bush's tax cuts).[1] Wait a second, it's not the Bush administration that is allowing the tax cuts to expire. The Bush administration would love to keep these tax cuts. It's the money grubbing democrats that want the money so bad they have to take it... even from the people who need it most. Yeah right, it is those same Republicans who have been sending the "people who need [a tax cut] the most" to die in Iraq while lining the pockets of the rich. Hasn't the Iraq war cost up to 2 TRILLION dollars already? The economy has seen better days too. The money does after all, have to come from some place to pay for Bush's war follies. Maybe there's no other way than through taxes? Though I had rather seen these tax burden be put on corporations, rather than on ordinary people. Big corporations are, after all often those who profit during wartime, so shouldn't they be the ones to pay something back, when the going gets tough? Just because taxes go up doesn't mean the government makes more in the long run. The damage to an economy that tax increases cause can cause more losses than the increases bring. The deficit is rapidly decreasing because of the tax cuts. If the government could just control it's spending and not tack on billions of dollars of earmarks onto every bill that hits their desks, then the budget will balance itself in just a few short years (not a pretend balance that we had under Clinton, but a real one). Fact is, under the Bush tax cuts the lower and middle classes got a much higher percentage cut, so letting them expire means that the lower and middle class will have a much higher percentage i... Just because taxes go up doesn't mean the government makes more in the long run. The damage to an economy that tax increases cause can cause more losses than the increases bring.Too bad it doesn't work out that way in practice. ("Bush tax cuts did NOT increase federal revenue") Fact is, under the Bush tax cuts the lower and middle classes got a much higher percentage cut,Fact is, under the Bush tax cuts the federal tax code became more, not less, regressive. [1, 2] So, it doesn't work that way? Someone call the Catholic Church then because we must have a miracle. You see, federal revenues started dropping around 2000. Before Bush was even president. They continued to drop until around 2004. By that time, all the Bush tax cuts kicked in and federal revenue started rising. And now here we are right back up to where we were in 2000 when taxes were much higher and revenues are rising fast. So, since only tax increases can raise federal revenues, we must have a true to life miracle. As for the rest of your post, sounds like jealousy to me. Seems you are more concerned with what others are making and would prefer to live in a socialist society than a capita... Wouldn't it be easier to cut taxes if the government cut spending? That should be step one. Both the Demicans and the Republicrats want to increase the the federal budget. They both want to increase the share going to the department of Defense, and that's not including the supplemental amount for the war, on which they agree. The above commenters are niggling about relatively minor details. I'm afraid that this is exactly what federal politicians want you to do. I'm all for cutting spending. I would love to see an amendment that freezes all federal spending except for emergency spending (which could be raised with a super majority), and pay (which would be capped at the rate of inflation) any time the budget is running in the red. After all, we don't need to cut spending to balance the budget, we need to just stop the rampant spending increases. Of course, I would also like to see either a flat or consumption tax, and have tax increases take a super majority or better yet, a vote of the people. Ending a policy of militarism and foreign intervention might help cut spending. Sounds good to me! .  "The deficit is rapidly decreasing because of the tax cuts." The deficit has never decreased under Bush=Cheney it has only increased and increased. The rate of the growth of the deficit has decreased. And it would have decreased a lot faster if the tax cuts were the tax cuts the democrats were offering with Gore that would have gone to the middle and lower class instead of the top 1% of the nation. The deficit has never decreased under Bush=Cheney it has only increased and increased.You really shouldn't but into a conversation about the economy when you don't understand basic terms such as deficit. Ending a policy of militarism and foreign intervention might help cut spending.Or instead of cutting the military which is a legitimate service which the government should provide, maybe we should cut some of the social services that go beyond the scope of government. n2sooners, your comments above are inaccurate about the deficit. You write as if you describe the shape of a graph of deficits since 2000, but the data from the Congressional Budget Office and from the Office of Management and Budget don't support your statements. From the CBO, the deficit under the Clinton Adminstration reduced each year until 1998, when it reached a surplus. The surplus continued until 2000, with a surplus of $526 billion. Beginning in 2001, the surplus decreased, reaching a deficit in 2002, and with the deficit peaking at $648 billion in 2004. The deficit has decreased in the last 2 years, and 2006 saw a $260 billion deficit. You see, federal revenues starte... Oops, I copied it, but now I see you spoke about revenue, not the deficit. Sorry about that, my mistake. 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 National Debt to the penny The Clinton budgets ran from 94 to 01 and I included 93 for reference. As you can see, at no time during the Clinton years did the national debt go down. I'm not sure what measure they use to determine there was a surplus, but it is probably some method neither of us could get away with in de... Sooners, you are so good even a Longhorn fan can like you!! |
View the Top Clips from March 30, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
