If tax cuts are so great for the economy....
 

Then why doesn't Bush want to just do away with taxes altogether? Then we'll really have a kick ass economy right?

Quote from his speech today

?Some in Congress say the plan is too big,? the president said. ?It seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package? If they believe tax relief is important for job creation, they ought to join us.?

The rest of it is here http://www.msnbc.com/news/904662.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1 if you care.

Fucking moron

:321GFY

if they cut taxes who's going to pay for all our humanitarian efforts like "liberating iraq" and all that?

In 04 do you think we'll here this again?

"It's the economy...stupid."


What he doesn't get is that, SURE tax cuts ARE a stimulous to the economy, etc.

However, no one must have also told him that the population cannot be feeling huge amounts of stress, fear, paranoia, etc...

Clinton was the 'feel good' president and the economy reflected that. The stockmarket is 90% psychology and 10% math... You'd think a learn-ed group of government officials would have figured this shit out by now....

Wow you must really hate Bush to actually want higher taxes.
:(

listening to liberals discuss the economy is quite amusing

lol, most here hate anything to do with republicans. so everyone jumps on the bandwagon pointing out stupid shit.

you guys really think he just wants to cut taxes just to do it, without putting forth any thought? its a lot more complex and in depth than that.

Tax cuts being a stimulus to the economy is a THEORY, not a FACT.
The logic is that by cutting taxes, you put more capital into the private sector, and that capital can then be used for businesses to expand, hire more workers, etc.
This would work within the framework of a balanced budget.
But the budget isn't balanced, so the tax cuts will increase the deficit. So what to govt gives the economy with its right hand in the form of a tax cut, it takes away with its left hand by borrowing capital to cover the deficit.
So the amount of capital available to the market remains unchanged, and as a result the economy remains unchanged, but our debt grows higher which means our interest payments in future years become higher as well.

so you called up Dion Warwick and her psychic buddies that told you erroneous information about how I've voted since the mid 80s????

in-ter-est-ting...

Of course its more complex than that. There are lots of people that contributed to the president's record breaking campaign fund (over 100 million dollars) and all of them were promised tax cuts if he was elected.

bingo

Ever heard of a president named Hoover (a conservative) and a president named Roosevelt (a liberal) and the great depression?

TOLD!

exactly. it's pathetic.

Wasn't the recession of the 1980s (Reagan) actually worse than the recession during the Great Depression. We just didn't feel it as bad because credit is so much easier to get and people live in a lot more debt than they did in those days.

One thing I find interesting is how people that post a million articles a day about how our civil liberties are being taken away, have no problem with taxes. An income tax is compleltely against the fabric which this country was founded on.



"a president named Roosevelt (a liberal) and the great depression?"

Yea, and only had to enter a world war and let the japs bomb us to do it.

Thats ancient history though. I think post vietnam is when the left started really going downhill with their views.

No, that recession started in the late 70's and had a lot more to do with inflation and the oil embargo than anything else.
The end of the oil embargo, plus the invention of the fuel injector, plus massive military spending pulled us out of that one.

During the great depression we had around 40% unemployment. That fucking hurts no matter how many VISA's you have.

Yes, so lets raise taxes until the economy recovers. :1orglaugh

I disagree. The programs that Roosevelt founded are the same ones we're fighting tooth and nail for today. (i.e. social security)

Saying Roosevelt was responsible for Pearl Harbor is like saying Dubya was responsible for 9/11, its doesn't make any sense and you lose all your credibility making assertions like that.

Roosevelt "spent" his way out of the depression, by raising taxes and creating public works programs. We were well on our way out of the depression before the war started.

As for your civil liberties comment, this thread is about how tax cuts are "supposed" to be good for the economy, not whether or not I like taxes.

C'mon Ron, is that the best you could do?

is there a need to do more?
raising taxes will NEVER cure the problem of out of control government spending. cutting taxes at least has a chance.
You cut taxes because its the right thing to do.

you raise taxes because its the wrong thing to do but you're able to do it.

You would think but we are talking about the government.

Noone want higher taxes. However if you cut fed taxes the states get cut off of funding and real estate taxes among other things go UP in the states.

I'm not looking forward to higher real estate taxes. Are YOU?

Not to mention that this country has NEVER.... NEVER Cut taxes while at war.

Then maybe the states need to stop out of control spending as well.

are you brainwashed into thinking that? real estate taxes go up because the government won't stop spending.

Our country does thing EVERY day that have never been done before. so?

Ron,
How well did the 1.3 Trillion tax cut help the economy?

It staved off a total depression. prove it didn't.

If your answer is that the government needs more of our money to spend, you don't have a clue about what they spend already.

Perhaps if these cocksuckers in the house and senate didn't blackmail each other with porkbarrel spending we wouldn't be spending 4 million to test wheat fields or some other bizarre shit.

Meanwhile NYC is spending 5 million a week on operation Atlas and getting 1% of the total homeland security budget. While Turkey who wasn't very helpful is getting a billion dollars in the last war budget.

Insane spending like the Turkey example goes both ways.

This is exactly why the government should get LESS of our money.
At some point, there will be a money crisis where pork barrel bullshit MUST be cut out of the budget.
If we keep sending them our money, they WILL keep spending it.

1. A tax cut is the fastest way to put money back in the economy, they are immediate. Refunds, well that is obviously a longer route. Lowering interest rate has a mild effect on the economy and takes about 18 to 24 months to have an impact. Oh and finally government programs only return a portion of the dollars and normally only to a select few.
2. More dollars into the economy does equate to more revenue to the government. Sales tax contributions increase to the govenment, oh and a side effect of that is increased employment generating more revenue to the government. Bottom line the economy is not fixed and is constantly growing, as it grows revenue's to the state increase.
3. Finally if you are so concerned over the debt just tell your government not to increase spending and live within there means, you don't have to cut spending just freeze it at current levels. Looking at my check and every business owner ought to agree with me, that the government gets enough of our money.

Oh and for all of you that disgree with that, might I suggest a charitable contribution from you to the problem you feel the most strongly about correcting. On the other hand if you feel strongly about it, and that the government deserves more of YOUR money then go ahead and send it. I just wish you would quit worrying about what is in my pocket. How many of you self employed owners hate it when someone finds out that you own your own business which then leads them to believe you must be rich and consequestly owe someone something! :feels-hot :feels-hot

I'd say it's exactly why the President should have a line item veto, so he can cut out the obvious pork in any new bill.

When Ronald Regan the conservative let's reduce government president floated his tax cut proposals George Bush senior called them voodoo economics. GW sr was right that tax cut created huge debt and a recession.

This new proposal is also a trickle down theory. It is nothing more than a way to pay back big donors to the Bush campaign.

Even Alan Greenspan has called them ill advised and the GAO has said they will cause huge debt issues.

With the liberal Clinton we had surpluses and paydown on the national debt. You figure it out.

yea, maybe there will be another internet boom, then we can slash the millitary, cia, fbi, and get another 911 too

Negative. that was jimmy carters recession

Or put another way, giving back a little to the people who pay (by far) the most.

well then, I guess we'll have to cut spending, won't we?

With clinton, we had a fake economy built on an internet bubble. when the bubble burst, so did the economy. the accidental result was paying down of the debt.
Consider it figured out.

Did it work when Regean did it?

yup. it got us out of the carter recession and jumpstarted the economy.

well I must have heard the wrong information because they were telling us north of the boarded that Regeanomics didn't work. We have been getting tax cuts the past number of years and I haven't even noticed the cuts.
My advice is don't get sucked in, you have to pay for it some time.
The best thing is to lower deficits and balance budgets.

Having lived thru reaganomics, I'd happily do it again.
We can pay down the debt any time the government chooses. tax cuts have NOTHING to do with the debt. spending more than you take in does.

The Regan years were very good. But they came back to haunt us.

Let's not forget that Regan raised income tax six years in a row, and created the Social Security Tax. Which is BS!

While he DID win the Cold War, we were left with a HUGE deficit!

This was for the Rep. nomination, not the actual election!


Bush and the extreme right

In the estimation of the media pundits, Bush has locked up the Republican nomination a year before the convention. More than half the party's senators, governors and congressmen have endorsed him. Some 200 corporate and business backers, in a group called the Pioneers, have agreed to raise $100,000 apiece from friends and associates, and half have already done so. Last month Bush raised more than $4 million at a single fundraiser in Washington, DC, attended by nearly every lobbyist in town.

Bush's enormous lead is not a byproduct of broad personal or political support?he is little known to the public and played no significant role in Republican Party politics before his election as governor of Texas in 1994. As the New York Times observed, ?the financial frenzy ... is all the more striking because Mr. Bush is not particularly well-known nationally and his positions on issues are largely a mystery.?

Ok Ron, we're never going to agree, but you know I have to put my 2 cents in :Graucho

I agree that spending is totally out of control, corporate welfare and pork barrel bullshit suck up more of our money than I even care to think about.
So why doesn't Dubya propose spending cuts in conjunction with the tax cuts for a balanced budget?
The original budget he sent to congress already had a record deficit projection, and that was without the bill for the war in Iraq.
His original tax cut proposal this time around was for 726 Billion dollars, and he just wanted to tack that onto the deficit without cutting spending.

The Reagan tax cut isn't what got us out of the recession, the end of the oil embargo along with a massive increase in military spending got us out of that recession. (military spending=jobs for those of you keeping score at home, defense contractors employ lots of people)

Tax cuts DO have something to do with the debt. If you take in less revenue, OR increase spending, you go into the red.
That's simple math that even your click counter software couldn't fuck up. :winkwink:

Your thoughts mean nothing. You have NO say/vote. :thumbsup

The whole argument for the current tax cut proposal, the elimination of the tax on stock dividends, is that corporations already pay taxes on their profits, so the stockholder's shouldn't have to pay taxes on the profits passed to them as dividends. They call it "double taxation"

This is interesting.
Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft?s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.

General Electric, America?s most profitable corporation, reported $50.8 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid only 11.5 percent of that in federal income taxes. That low tax rate reflected almost $12 billion in corporate tax welfare for GE.

Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years. It reported $18.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past two years, but paid a tax rate of only 5.7 percent.

Worldcom paid no taxes at all in two of the last three years, despite reported U.S. profits of $15.2 billion. Worldcom?s total tax rate over the three years was only 1.6%. Corporate tax welfare slashed Worldcom?s tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past five years.

IBM reported $5.7 billion in U.S. profits in 2000, but paid only 3.4 percent of that in federal income taxes. In 1997, IBM reported $3.1 billion in U.S. profits, and instead of paying taxes, got an outright tax rebate. Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.

General Motors paid no taxes at all in three of the last five years, despite $12.5 billion in reported U.S. profits. GM?s tax rate for the past three years was negative 1.3 percent. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $3.6 billion over the past five years.

Enron paid no income taxes at all in four of the past five years, despite $1.8 billion in reported U.S. profits. Enron?s total taxes over the five years were a negative $381 million. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $1.0 billion.

El Paso Energy reported $1.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid less than nothing in federal income taxes, getting tax rebates of $254 million. El Paso?s tax rate over the five years was negative 15.5 percent. Its corporate welfare totaled $827 million.

Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate?s total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.

Navistar, on $1.4 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, paid only $28 million in federal income taxes, a tax rate of only 2 percent. Navistar?s corporate tax welfare totaled $451 million.

Yeah, wealthy corporations pay way more in taxes than the average Joe and deserve a break. :321GFY

Whole story is here
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

Oh well we are 2 differant size countries. It worked here. Our economy is still growing.

BTW, it wasn't my thoughts but a quote from an analyst. Wont look again for it, because nobody gives a shit and nobody can change anything.

FYI, tough I am Canadian, I do operate a US based business.

When and if you ever look to shelter yourself from the mighty US gov in the future, I can set you up a Canadian corp... I would estimate that within the next 2 years, porn guys in the US are going to feel ... the heavy breathing of Ash... on their neck. lol



:angel

don't make my use the "L" word on you! :winkwink:

Probably because guys like you would then say,"look at these spending cuts! He's just doing this to give money to his rich friends. These cuts in programs aid the poor! he doesn't care about us, just his rich friends."

perhaps he firmly believes that it will spur the economy. I assume that the white house has many more tools at its disposal to make policy that we do. :)

This is just your opinion. I happen to not share it.


Continuing to link tax cuts to the debt while never mentioning spending *is* the liberal way.
:thumbsup

Continuing to link spending to the debt while never mentioning the effect of tax cuts *is* the Limbaugh way. :thumbsup

you know, i've yet to hear anyone say how much these tax cuts will increase real GDP in the future. i doubt there's an economist out there who could estimate it with any accuracy.

GDP numbers for the first quarter were sluggish, but oil dropped GDP a bit and GDP is expected to grow over the rest of the year. if inflation stays in check then i'm not sure if another round of tax cuts is necessary. get back into black ink.

Tax cuts increasing the GDP is a matter of some debate. A lot of economists don't believe it has the effect that the GOP thinks it does.
This has been a big deal recently because Dubya had to appoint a new head of the CBO, and insisted that the new guy be someone who would assume that the tax cuts would grow the economy and make deficit projections accordingly. They call it "dynamic scoring". (The last guy wouldn't do that)
So the deficit projections we have right now assume that the tax cuts will grow the economy and help offset some of the lost revenue. If the last guy were still heading up the CBO the deficit projections would be much larger. (And the actual deficit may end up being much larger when its all said and done)

take economy 101 you will understand why they are good

you don't learn crowding out until 301...

maybe you should take that.

Considering the source? Hell yes I know he's doing it without much forethought about whether it will work or not. He's got to raise money for his re-election campaign, and big business, oil etc. (those that would actually benefit from a tax cut right now as it is proposed), are his big time sponsors.