Tax Cuts vs. Tax Increases

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 12:05 AM GMT
    President Clinton raised taxes on the rich and conservatives claimed it would destroy the economy.

    But after the tax increases the economy was great, millions of jobs were created and the huge Reagan/GHW Bush budget deficits (caused by tax cuts and military spending increases) turned into surpluses.

    Here are some charts that show deficits and jobs following President Clinton's tax increases. First compare job growth after President Clinton's tax increases and Bush's tax cuts.


    apd18i.jpg



    It's obvious. Right in front of our faces. Tax increases did not slow the economy or cost jobs, and tax cuts did not create jobs. This next chart shows how the budget went from deficit to surplus after President Clinton's tax increases and then, after President George W. Bush's tax cuts, to massive, huge, incredible deficits:


    2ywh5w4.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 4:12 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]
    Webster666 said

    apd18i.jpg



    Sorry, there was never a surplus. Your claim that there was is a lie.





    Total BS, SB.
    You are the one who is lying.

    As the graph in the link shows - there were yearly budget surpluses for several years at the end of the Clinton administration, thanks to the responsible and effective Democratic economic policies of the Clinton administration.
    Which were quickly turned into massive yearly budget deficits by the irresponsible and failed Republican economic policies of the Bush administraion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 6:26 PM GMT
    GOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich


    This week, President Obama rolled out a plan to invest $50 billion in infrastructure as a way of boosting job creation, which will be (at least partially) paid for by cutting subsidies to oil and gas companies. Republicans immediately criticized the proposal, with even Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who typically jumps at the chance to approve infrastructure spending, saying he wouldn’t vote for it.

    But many Republicans, at the same time that they are claiming that a $50 billion investment in America’s infrastructure is a budget-buster, are pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. At $830 billion, the price tag for extending that sliver of the Bush cuts is more than 16 times the cost of Obama’s infrastructure proposal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 6:58 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich


    Oh, this is news to me. The Republicans are pushing for a reduction in the top (35%) tax rate?



    And the GOP better keep pushing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and they better be ready to filibuster any bill the Democrats come up with. Its only 55 days until we vote out reid, boxer, pelosi will lose her speakers seat, specter will be gone, feingold will be gone, and murray will be gone. Man I cant wait.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 11:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    Total BS, SB.
    You are the one who is lying.

    As the graph in the link shows - there were yearly budget surpluses for several years at the end of the Clinton administration, thanks to the responsible and effective Democratic economic policies of the Clinton administration.
    Which were quickly turned into massive yearly budget deficits by the irresponsible and failed Republican economic policies of the Bush administraion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present


    Nah.... the "surpluses" were accounting gimmicks.

    And the "effective Democratic economic policies of the Clinton administration" were in reality the "effective Republican economic policies of the Republican controlled Congress." icon_wink.gif




    Liar.
    You're so pathetic, you can't even admit it when your wrong, and slapped in your stupid puss with the glaring evidence.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidGOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich


    Oh, this is news to me. The Republicans are pushing for a reduction in the top (35%) tax rate?






    Where does it say anything about the 35% tax rate ?
    Foo !

    2954t38.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 09, 2010 11:42 PM GMT
    Nah.... the "surpluses" were accounting gimmicks.

    And the "effective Democratic economic policies of the Clinton administration" were in reality the "effective Republican economic policies of the Republican controlled Congress."


    And from what Fairytale book did you get THAT one from? LOL

    cartoon_fairy.jpg
    http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/tales.wav
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    we need to let the tax cut expire. I have no problem paying taxes if it means we have a great infrastructer, health care and Social Security.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 09, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993

    Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill

    whistling.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 12:32 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    CHRISMA saidAnd the GOP better keep pushing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and they better be ready to filibuster any bill the Democrats come up with. Its only 55 days until we vote out reid, boxer, pelosi will lose her speakers seat, specter will be gone, feingold will be gone, and murray will be gone. Man I cant wait.

    It's going to be a long wait. Reid is ahead of Angle, because she's too crazy even for her own party, Boxer is ahead of the ridiculous Fiorina, Murray will beat Rossi, Feingold is ahead, and Pelosi will retain the speakership, albeit not by much.


    We'll see... but as of right now:

    In the House:

    Dems 193
    Repubs 207
    Toss Up 35


    And in the Senate:

    California Boxer (D) +2.5
    Colorado Buck (R) +1.8
    Illinois Kirk (R) +2.0
    Nevada Reid (D) +2.5
    Washington Rossi (R) +2.3
    Wisconsin Feingold (D) +1.0
    Florida Rubio (R) +5.4
    Kentucky Paul (R) +8.8
    Missouri Blunt (R) +6.0
    New Hampshire Ayotte (R) +8.0
    North Carolina Burr (R) +7.7


    This is so exciting.

    GOP Pickups in the Senate (they need 10):
    1. North Dakota
    2. Delaware
    3. Indiana
    4. Arkansas
    5. Pennsylvania
    6. Illinois
    7. Colorado
    8. Wisconsin (Most Polls have this race tied, but Obama's approval rating is in the toilet in this state)
    9. Nevada (Reid is hated here and unemployment is sky high, almost anyone will take him out)
    10. Washington (Murray is behind, which is a bad sign for an incumbent at this time in the election, just ask Elizabeth Dole)
    11. California (the latest polls have Fiorina within striking distance, I would love to see Boxer go down)
    12. West Virginia (Obama is hated here and many people like having Manchin in the Governorship, this is getting competitive)
    13. Connecticut (Blumenthal's campaign may go down Coakley style)


    The GOP is going to win the House. Some pundits are predicting as much as a 70 seat pickup. Bye Bye Pelosi.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 4:55 PM GMT
    Even Bush's advisors recommended the 10 year limit on the tax cut.

    It's absolutely the correct thing to let them expire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said

    apd18i.jpg



    Sorry, there was never a surplus. Your claim that there was is a lie.

    Ooops, forgot:

    SORRY, THERE WAS NEVER A SURPLUS. YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE WAS IS A LIE.







    Have to stop ya there. The surplus was Bush's entire reason for tax cuts, he claimed taxes were too high if we had a surplus...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 5:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    wran said
    Have to stop ya there. The surplus was Bush's entire reason for tax cuts, he claimed taxes were too high if we had a surplus...


    So you choose to believe Bush over that????

    Whether Bush said so or not, there was no surplus.


    I choose to believe you're parroting an extremist conspiracy theory I've heard from a few on the far right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 5:47 PM GMT
    wran said
    southbeach1500 said
    wran said
    Have to stop ya there. The surplus was Bush's entire reason for tax cuts, he claimed taxes were too high if we had a surplus...


    So you choose to believe Bush over that????

    Whether Bush said so or not, there was no surplus.


    I choose to believe you're parroting an extremist conspiracy theory I've heard from a few on the far right.


    You choose wisely, Grasshopper!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 5:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    wran said
    southbeach1500 said
    wran said
    Have to stop ya there. The surplus was Bush's entire reason for tax cuts, he claimed taxes were too high if we had a surplus...


    So you choose to believe Bush over that????

    Whether Bush said so or not, there was no surplus.


    I choose to believe you're parroting an extremist conspiracy theory I've heard from a few on the far right.

    Huh?

    There was no surplus. Plain and simple. Don't need a conspiracy for that.

    The annual deficits and public debt were paid down by borrowing money from the Social Security "trust fund" rather than borrowing directly from the public.

    Voila! A surplus!


    That's a whole other can of worms that Regan started, borrowing from SS. And republicans answer to that.....instead of paying it back, or legislating congress not treat it like its own piggy bank.....they propose making cuts. If congress kept its little paws off of it, it would be solvent way past 2037.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    I have a conservative boyfriend, so we argue about this stuff all day long sometimes. I know your guys tricks icon_twisted.gif

    No, I've never saw any evidence that our surplus came solely from the looting of SS.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 6:20 PM GMT
    wran saidI have a conservative boyfriend, so we argue about this stuff all day long sometimes. I know your guys tricks icon_twisted.gif

    No, I've never seen evidence that our surplus came solely from the looting of SS.


    I always wanted to date a gay conservative, I feel like it would make for an interesting relationship dynamic.

    Sadly all the ones I ever meet are always the hardcore anti-minority, money comes first, I got mine so go fuck yourself types. You know, the ones that would go to an event for gay republicans thats Hosting Ann Coulter, then claim that coulter loves gay people.

    Yea, they make my brain hurt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 6:24 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    wran saidI have a conservative boyfriend, so we argue about this stuff all day long sometimes. I know your guys tricks icon_twisted.gif

    No, I've never seen evidence that our surplus came solely from the looting of SS.


    I always wanted to date a gay conservative, I feel like it would make for an interesting relationship dynamic.

    Sadly all the ones I ever meet are always the hardcore anti-minority, money comes first, I got mine so go fuck yourself types. You know, the ones that would go to an event for gay republicans thats Hosting Ann Coulter, then claim that coulter loves gay people.

    Yea, they make my brain hurt.


    Mine isn't or I wouldn't be with him. He is Latino and proudly I can say he isn't afraid to voice his beef with his fellow conservatives on those issues. He calls himself a fiscal conservative, although I make fun of him for it all the time. We won't get into that though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 6:28 PM GMT
    wran said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    wran saidI have a conservative boyfriend, so we argue about this stuff all day long sometimes. I know your guys tricks icon_twisted.gif

    No, I've never seen evidence that our surplus came solely from the looting of SS.


    I always wanted to date a gay conservative, I feel like it would make for an interesting relationship dynamic.

    Sadly all the ones I ever meet are always the hardcore anti-minority, money comes first, I got mine so go fuck yourself types. You know, the ones that would go to an event for gay republicans thats Hosting Ann Coulter, then claim that coulter loves gay people.

    Yea, they make my brain hurt.


    Mine isn't or I wouldn't be with him. He is Latino and proudly I can say he isn't afraid to voice his beef with his fellow conservatives on those issues. He calls himself a fiscal conservative, although I make fun of him for it all the time. We won't get into that.


    That actually sounds awesome lol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2010 6:32 PM GMT
    [quote]

    That actually sounds awesome lol.[/quote]

    It certainly is for me icon_biggrin.gif We know how to put our differences aside, we love it.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 11, 2010 5:57 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Where does it say anything about the 35% tax rate ?
    Foo !



    How am I (and the rest of the "rich") going to get part of the "$800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich" you're talking about?





    A) Stupid; it's the REPUBLICANS who are pushing the $800 Billion tax cut for the rich. You're a REPUBLICAN; you'll have to ask some of the big muckety mucks in your KLAN.

    B) Answer the question, foo. Where does it say anything about a 35% tax rate ?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 11, 2010 5:59 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidNah.... the "surpluses" were accounting gimmicks.

    And the "effective Democratic economic policies of the Clinton administration" were in reality the "effective Republican economic policies of the Republican controlled Congress."


    And from what Fairytale book did you get THAT one from? LOL


    Constitution 101.

    The Congress controls the budget and tax policy.





    What Constitution have you been reading ?
    If the President doesn't sign it, it almost NEVER becomes law.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 11, 2010 6:01 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidThe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993

    Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill

    whistling.gif


    And... as you probably know... the names of those bills hide the fact that they do exactly the opposite of what their name suggests. icon_wink.gif





    Scroll up and read the charts, again, yuh boob.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 11, 2010 6:09 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    CHRISMA saidAnd the GOP better keep pushing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and they better be ready to filibuster any bill the Democrats come up with. Its only 55 days until we vote out reid, boxer, pelosi will lose her speakers seat, specter will be gone, feingold will be gone, and murray will be gone. Man I cant wait.

    It's going to be a long wait. Reid is ahead of Angle, because she's too crazy even for her own party, Boxer is ahead of the ridiculous Fiorina, Murray will beat Rossi, Feingold is ahead, and Pelosi will retain the speakership, albeit not by much.


    We'll see... but as of right now:

    In the House:

    Dems 193
    Repubs 207
    Toss Up 35


    And in the Senate:

    California Boxer (D) +2.5
    Colorado Buck (R) +1.8
    Illinois Kirk (R) +2.0
    Nevada Reid (D) +2.5
    Washington Rossi (R) +2.3
    Wisconsin Feingold (D) +1.0
    Florida Rubio (R) +5.4
    Kentucky Paul (R) +8.8
    Missouri Blunt (R) +6.0
    New Hampshire Ayotte (R) +8.0
    North Carolina Burr (R) +7.7






    How convenient that you intentionally left out the figures for the Senate, taken from the exact same web site.

    SENATE--
    48 DEMOCRATIC
    46 REPUBLICAN
    6 TOSS UPS
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 11, 2010 6:18 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    wran said
    Have to stop ya there. The surplus was Bush's entire reason for tax cuts, he claimed taxes were too high if we had a surplus...


    So you choose to believe Bush over that????

    Whether Bush said so or not, there was no surplus.






    No matter how many times you repeat a LIE, it's still a LIE

    The following is from factcheck.org

    The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history."

    It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

    Clinton's LARGE BUDGET SURPLUSES also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security SURPLUS" makes the total deficit or SURPLUS figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted.

    BUT EVEN IF WE REMOVE SOCIAL SERURITY FROM THE EQUATION, there was a SURPLUS of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.

    So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

    (CLINTON BUDGET YEARS IN BLUE)
    261zoyw.jpg