115
Politics--Who Cares : Swingers Discussion 2071581021
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsPolitics--Who Cares
TOPIC: Politics--Who Cares
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 270   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Hell, even Owebama saw what GWB's tax cuts did to grow a struggling economy.

Clinton's admission that he raised taxes too much sides with the economists with my "ideology' that the 1993 tax increases held back an economy poised to boom.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And yes, I started a 4 year period for GWB in 2003, because it was after the second cut, and after the Clinton recession and 9-11. :-)

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"{Comparison of the Clinton years with the Bush years is pretty strong evidence that Clinton's tax hikes grew revenue much faster than under Bush's tax cuts, and didn't hurt the economy at all. But I don't expect you to acknowledge those facts, because they run counter to your pre-conceived ideology. "

(Sigh) There are economists on your side and mine (I can post sources if you'd like) of what the Clinton tax increases did. I've never seen you acknowledge you pre-conceived ideology

Clinton tax increase 1993 ($1,154 B) through 1996 ($1.453 B) give 26% increase in total revenue

Clinton tax CUT 1997 ($1,579 B) through 2000 ($2025 B) gives a 28% increase in total revenue

GWB tax cut 2003 ($1782 B) through 2006 ($2407 B) give 35% increase in total revenue

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" IIT revenues didn't "remain" around 8%. "

lol. Did you look at my source?? ITT is pretty flat. You can nitpick what 'around' means.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Up 20.6 percent points to 53.1 under Reagan. Up 13.0 points to 66.1 under GWH Bush. Down 9.5 points to 56.4 under Clinton. Up 28.8 points to 85.2 under GW Bush. Up 13.5 points to 98.7 under Obama (through FY 2011; probably another 5 points at end of 2012). "

Yes, Compare Apples to Apples. Reagan and GWB were 2 term Presidents, and besides, I hope you know by now that I believe debt is mostly a function of Congress since the President has ZERO spending power

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Then GWB went on the tax-cut binge again, and IIT fell to below 7% in 2004 before heading back up to a high of 8.4% in '07. "

You can't grasp the BIG picture. Total revenue 2003 - 1,782 2005 - 2,153

20.81% increase, higher than any of Clinton's

It's exactly why I said ITT didn't matter. It's why you were spinning or stupid when you brought it up in the discussion

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16721 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Oh, I thought you were still stuck on individual tax receipts, which remained around 8% . hahahahaha!"

I'm not "stuck" on anything; I have discussed both IIT and total revenues, but think it makes more sense to evaluate the revenue effects of a tax increase or decrease, based on the source of revenue more directly affected by the tax law. 

You seem stuck on using inaccurate figures. IIT revenues didn't "remain" around 8%. They were at 9.4% of GDP in FY 1981 and quickly dropped after Reagan's tax cuts, down to a low of 7.8% in 1984. They were at 7.7% when Clinton took office, and rose steadily after his 1993 tax increase, to a high of 10.2% of GDP in FY 2000. Then GWB went on the tax-cut binge again, and IIT fell to below 7% in 2004 before heading back up to a high of 8.4% in '07. 

None of this gobbledegook changes the fact that a higher tax rate produces more revenue than a lower rate on the same income. 

Comparison of the Clinton years with the Bush years is pretty strong evidence that Clinton's tax hikes grew revenue much faster than under Bush's tax cuts, and didn't hurt the economy at all. But I don't expect you to acknowledge those facts, because they run counter to your pre-conceived ideology. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10769 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Fjep:

Bush inherited a surplus, Obama inherited an economy raped and pillaged by the rich with their tax cuts. No matter what Obama does, it'll take 10 years to see the effects of his actions from his first term as president.

The suffering we suffer today, is as a direct result of what Bush had done in his first four years. Now I will grant bush some leeway... he did have 9/11 occur on his watch and that does cause some problems.

However, he failed to pay for the wars as we fought them, or even attempt to find revenue sources for the wars. Further he chose to entered into Iraq (a nation which we had contained) with poor intelligence and on the word of a taxi driver and warhawks.

Even if the intel on Iraq was good and we had found a real stockpile of WMDs, he failed to provide a plan for paying down the debt for the war. There was no war tax, no war bonds, nothing. Sadly Obama hasn't done this either... and for that I do blame him for not placing a bandage over this gapping wound.

But to call the last four years, obamas fault is worst than childish.. it is to ignore any logical discussion.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7252 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"ya, it's just crazy that Owebama has increased debt/gdp by almost 15 percent."

More than that, if you include the current FY that ends this month. Here is the summary I posted earlier in this thread:

32.5% Debt/GDP when Reagan took office.   Up 20.6 percent points to 53.1 under Reagan.   Up 13.0 points to 66.1 under GWH Bush.   Down 9.5 points to 56.4 under Clinton.   Up 28.8 points to 85.2 under GW Bush.   Up 13.5 points to 98.7 under Obama (through FY 2011; probably another 5 points at end of 2012).  

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10769 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Soooo Bobby how is your Messiah doing on that standard of living?

cnbc.c om/id/44962589/A_Long_Steep_Drop_for_Americans_Standard_of_Living

"Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago."

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 270   End
TOPIC: Politics--Who Cares