Tax Cuts Raise Government Revenue

Missileer

Active member
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/11/D8IPQESO0.html


The White House Tuesday touted new deficit figures showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, trumpeting the news as a validation of President Bush's pro-growth tax cuts.
The deficit will for budget year ending Sept. 30 will register $296 billion under a new White House estimate released Tuesday. That's much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005. A surge in taxes paid by corporations and the wealthy is largely responsible for the deficit drop.

Put the money back in the hands of business and the people and the deficit will drop.
 
It's simply, by having a tax cut. Folks have money to spend. And when they buy items, it's taxed. But it's taxed more than if it was part of the federal income tax.
 
Hm interesting. Where those tax cuts mainly for corporations or private individuals? Or both?
 
Both, folks that save money from taxes spend money and companies that save money on taxes produce products at cheaper prices and pay their employees better. It's a wonderful simple idea.
 
The deficit can be brought under control with tax cuts but the debt is the worrisome thing. Along with tax cuts, the Government has to reduce spending further into debt, which they haven't so far.
 
This is such Government spin. Its simply the government taking us all for idiots.

The President overestimates by $22 Billion (the last initial estimate was $318 Billion) and thats suppose to be a good thing??? Do you really expect us to appaud incompetance, waste, and the fact they cannot use a calculator (this is the 2nd time they have revised the deficit from $423 to $318 and now $318 to $296).

The fact remain that a deficit of $296 Billion still remains the 4th largest deficit in US History. Dubya is also responisble for First, the Second, and the Third largest deficits in US History as well. We still have triple digit deficits for a very long time, thanks to this president.

And This is what passes for good news???
 
Last edited:
And This is what passes for good news???

Not necessarily good news, but better news than weve been getting.

Noticed the flag change as well, back statside? mmarsh.
 
Yep, Been back a few days now.

Actually its a old Washington trick. The intenionally overestimate the deficit and when the real number comes out they sell it as 'good' news. But their still spending like drunken sailors on a saturday night.
 
mmarsh said:
This is such Government spin. Its simply the government taking us all for idiots.

The President overestimates by $22 Billion (the last initial estimate was $318 Billion) and thats suppose to be a good thing??? Do you really expect us to appaud incompetance, waste, and the fact they cannot use a calculator (this is the 2nd time they have revised the deficit from $423 to $318 and now $318 to $296).

The fact remain that a deficit of $296 Billion still remains the 4th largest deficit in US History. Dubya is also responisble for First, the Second, and the Third largest deficits in US History as well. We still have triple digit deficits for a very long time, thanks to this president.

And This is what passes for good news???

How about some sources for us dummies.
 
Missileer said:
How about some sources for us dummies.
All you need do is to look up up historical records via the GSA and the news stories where the administration originally published inflated deficit numbers ... this particular administration has historically overestimated the deficit and then when the actual report is released showing GSA data, the administration toots it's own horn and would have the citizens believe that the administrations policies are responsible for this 'great' news. All it really is, is the spinning of inaccurate data then the publishing of accurate data. GWyah and the boys are experts at this spinning of half truths and half lies.

They DO believe we are all a bunch of idiots.
 
Last edited:
Missileer said:
How about some sources for us dummies.

I follow the news enough to know those figures are true.

My question is does that $296 billion deficit include those wonderful "emergency spending" packages for Iraq and the hurricane relief efforts?

Anyone know?
 
Missileer said:
How about some sources for us dummies.

Always glad to help...

1. The largest single debt was $412.5 Bilion in 2004 (inital projection was $521 then later $445)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249895/

2. The Second largest was $374 Billion in 2003 (revised from $377)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249895/

3. The third larget was $318 Billion in 2005 (orginally $427 Billion)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862777/

4. The fourth largest is this year at $296 Billion (Revised twice, most recently from $318 Billion).

(I think you all read the paper yesterday so, you'll excuse me if I dont post a link for this).

As you can see there is a pattern of the Adminstration constantly coming down off its initial estimate. In a nutshell, Its sort of like going to your wife and saying:

"Gee Honey, I went to Las Vegas and instead of losing $10,000 like I thought, I only lost $6000! Arn't you proud of me???".

One final note, Clinton budget surplus was of $122 Billion and $200 Billion in 1999 and 2000 respectfully.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Now that was good news. Come back with numbers like that then I'll be impressed.

Doody

The current budget only included certain recontruction costs for Afganistan and Iraq. The money used for fighting the war(s) will be in the usual emergency installments as usual. Don't know about Katrina...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
(I think you all read the paper yesterday so, you'll excuse me if I dont post a link for this).
As you can see there is a pattern of the Adminstration constantly coming down off its initial estimate. In a nutshell, Its sort of like going to your wife and saying:

"Gee Honey, I went to Las Vegas and instead of losing $10,000 like I thought, I only lost $6000! Arn't you proud of me???".

One final note, Clinton budget surplus was of $122 Billion and $200 Billion in 1999 and 2000 respectfully.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Now that was good news. Come back with numbers like that then I'll be impressed.

The Clinton budget surplus is because of the lower defense spending and he also didn't have N.O. sink on his watch.

mmarsh, you did a good job of following your posts with good sources as requested but you couldn't resist a little bit of intemperance and uncalled for remarks. Be more careful in your responses in the future.
 
Last edited:
Missileer

About the first part. Actually in 1997 Clinton raised Defense Spending to $265 Billion (just slightly under Reagan). It was a gradual 7 year growth, so by 1999 and 2000 he was paying for increased DOD spending. As for Katrina, Katrina only hit in December 2005 so a budget increase for repairs would only be felt in 2006 and not any year before that. Secondly Katrina repairs like Iraq are paid in budget Supplements I couldnt find any reference to what fraction of the 2006 budget is being diverted to Katrina repairs, I'd be intersted to know myself.


About the last point. I assume the part you found objectionable was the part in red. In both cases you misunderstand.

1. I was simply explaining that I thought there was no need to post a source as most peopel had already seen the story and that you had already posted the article in the thread starter. Basically all I was doing was stating the obvious.

2. I was merely putting the situation into laymans terms so that other people would understand my point. Not everyone is as familiar with out budget system (espically the younger generation and non-Americans) and frankly some of it is really boring. Sometimes a silly ancedote helps illustrate a point and tries to get a laugh or two.

I assure you I didnt mean anything else by my remarks.
 
Last edited:
This is laughable. First of all, these deficits are still some of largest in the history of our country. Second of all, corporate profits and the salaries of CEO's and other higher ups have grown faster than any other post-recession time in history (the economy grows quickly after a recession, in this case the recession that took place around the turn of the century), while the salaries of middle class and working class Americans have grown sluggishly, many not even keeping up with inflation. It would only make sense that revenue would increase during this period of economic growth. However, revenues have not increased anywhere as much as they could have, as the growth (if any) that these tax cuts on the upper class/corporate profits stimulated could hardly add up to one percent of the revenue that could have been collected by the higher taxes. This rhetoric simply masks the fact that corporations are allowing wages to stagnate by shifting growth towards profits and away from wages (thus increasing the amount of tax collected from corporate profit from the last year, giving the false impression that business is booming and the economy has been stimulated by tax cuts). The truth is Bush is shifting the tax burden onto the middle and working class while corporations allow wages to stagnate. Thirdly, Bush exaggerated the deficit prediction so that around election time he could claim stunning economic success.

Note: I don't blame the recession or the following growth on Bush; these are simply characteristics of a market economy. And if you want my opinion, we do have a bloated military budget.

And the deficit estimate partially includes emergency spending for Iraq/Katrina.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-6-05bud3.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
 
Last edited:
DM
What a bunch of unsupported pap ... you triviolize the principles of a free market and the affect a poorly thought out economic political philosophy can have on that market. GW's ill planned tax rebates to the richest Americans is a demonstration of a policy that doesn't really work. His justification for a recovery is to inflate predictive numbers where the budget is concerned and then to paint a rosy picture when the real numbers are posted with the boast that somehow the rebates are responsible for a boost in our business community.

Your claims are right out of the book that is in favor of redistribution of wealth to the masses and you miss many many important points. This particular thread is NOT the proper place to get into a discussion of your political leanings and beliefs though.
 
Dark_Mark said:
I'm not making this stuff up. Real corporate profits are rising while real income is stagnating or falling.

This is just a simplistic sliver from the whole picture ... your original post does NOT make this distinction and is full of assumptions that are open to enterpretation.
 
Dark_Mark said:
I'm not making this stuff up. Real corporate profits are rising while real income is stagnating or falling.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060330

I've often heard the term "corporate world" but can't for the life of me figure out which corporations are being considered. Coca Cola, Berkshire- Hathaway, and Microsoft can't compare to smaller dot com companies and small business owners, who employ more people in the workforce than large corporations. Most Blue Chip companies and Defense Companies are doing well except for GM and a few others. Not all these folks are the evil banker who ties Little Nell to the railroad tracks until she pays up.
 
Back
Top