Posted on 01/10/2005 8:16:57 AM PST by Willie Green
'Revenue killing tax cuts'!!! Tax cuts are revenue generators.
Yes, we do. SANFORD FOR PRESIDENT in 2008!
Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to get a plug in for Sanford.
Instead of "trickling down" to provide economic stimulus and growth, Dubya's tax cuts hemorrhaged OUT of our domestic economy as increased offshore investment and expanded trade deficits. This economic misdirection provides inadquate funding to cover Dubya's irrresponsible spending spree, and buries taxpayers over $1.5 trillion deeper in debt.
ping
Yes, and the American public is wrong here. Look, what matters is how much money is being spent. How the spending is paid for is a relatively unimportant issue. If you borrow for it, you take on a future obligation, but leave people with more money now that in the US generally gets put to productive use (as evidenced by our long term growth rate). This growth makes the long term obligation easier to pay when it comes due.
If you tax for it, there is no long term obligation, but over the long run the economy does not grow as fast, and standards of living are lower.
The liberals (including the GOP) enjoy having us squabble of which one of those situations is better. It keeps our focus off of the level of spending.
Personally, I would rather have low taxes and more deficit, but hey, it's relatively unimportant. WHAT MATTERS IS THE LEVEL OF SPENDING. How it's paid for is a trivial issue.
Nonsense. We were in a recession in 2001, made worse by the results of 9/11. As a result of a contracting job or tax base, revenues fell. Just like in 1982 and 1983. Revenues fell because of the Cater and Clinton recessions. I credit President Clinton with the increase in the deficit, because like the liberals say, the economy tanked under 'his watch'
As unemployment fell from 10% to 5% in Reagan's second term, revenues exploded. The same is true today. Revenues are improving, getting stronger as we come out of the Clinton recession. The deficit is falling. And with larger tax cuts and regulatory reform the deficit witll continue to shrink.
No it isn't.
The deficit for fiscal 2004 was smaller than all the experts thought it was going to be. Due to a larger and weathier job or tax base. Revenues are much stronger than anticipated, and will continue to improve. The Kennedy Tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, increased revenues to the government. As Bush tax cuts are.
If you want to argue that the Bush Administration is spending foolishly, fine. But in terms of generating revenue they're right on track.
Revenues are increasing. That is what the tax rates effect. The deficit is a function of revenues and spending. Revenues are increasing. The problem, of course, is that spending is increasing as well.
And the value of the dollar is decreasing while prices go up.
Yep, Dubya's plundering the Treasury and sending us to the poorhouse.
So what's your point?
Same old political spin: overestimate the deficit so that it can be described as "smaller" despite being the largest deficit ever recorded.
Same old baloney as when they claim that "decreasing the rate of increase" is supposed to be a "savings". Crapola.
My point is that in a discussion of the deficit, one must address both revenues and spending. If someone is making the argument that a particular revenue policy is working, it is not possbile to asses whether or not that argument is correct one way or the other simply be pointing out what has happend to the deficit, as the deficit is a combination of both revenue and spending policy.
From the article: The United States is a large and rich country
(Chuckle). No, we are not. As the article points out, we are a debtor nation. We cannot afford Social Security, we cannot repair our infrastructure, and we must cut our military budget as the world becomes more dangerous.
We were a rich country; but that is in the past tense. As we send our industry to China and outsource every sort of job, as we borrow ourselves ever more deeply into debt, we travel further from what made us rich.
As for squandering money on foreign aid - it is like someone contemplating bankruptcy putting a donation on his credit card.
Spoken like a true statist! It would never occur to him that the Bush Administration believes in private charity over using tax money for such purposes.
Willie, Why do you frequent Free Republic? You've made several unsubstantiated charges.
Here's some facts: Capital FLOWS to where it is treated best. In the US, we have one of the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATES...second only to Japan if memory serves. We DRIVE our corporations to tax havens.
Alan Greenspan, in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, May 21, 2003, said:
"GREENSPAN: First, Congressman, let me just repeat a cliche which happens to be true, mainly that capital doesn't pay any taxes; only people pay taxes. What happens is, you impose taxes on organizations which then deflect them elsewhere. But at the end of the day, all taxes are paid by people.
I have always argued that this is a very inefficient way of organizing revenues within a government, and that we're far better to tax -- gain our taxes directly, rather than putting it on capital.
Because all it does, it slows down the growth of economic activity and the revenue base from which the revenues actually occur.
GREENSPAN: And I've argued over the years for the elimination, where we possibly could, of taxes on capital. And I, as you probably are aware, have always argued for the elimination of the capital gains tax. And the reason is is that I think it's an extraordinarily inefficient tax -- inefficient means of raising revenue in the sense that by posing itself on capital reduces the growth rate in the economy. ....
....And anything we can do to remove taxation on capital will enhance the revenue base and probably do more to incomes of lower- and middle-income Americans than any other tax-type vehicle we would impose."
Please explain how tax cuts cause off-shore investment.
Please explain how tax cuts expand trade deficits.
Tax cuts, particularly as they relate to removing the burden on capital, will generate MORE revenue than they "cost."
Please educate yourself on dynamic econometric modeling: PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF DYNAMIC REVENUE ESTIMATION, MARTIN A. SULLIVAN, June 14, 2004; found at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-05.cfm
"Polls consistently find...'
What polls, where, when, by whom?
The dollar is returning. Do you read the news?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.