Page 42 of 58 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #411
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,760

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No he isn't interested in objective analysis because it is easier to buy what you are told rather than do the research. What most liberals don't understand is that Income taxes have only been cut three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and every time the Treasury reports more revenue to the Treasury in that important category. Many don't understand the concept of economic activity and how it boosts govt. revenue including Income tax revenue. The numbers are there for all to see, I just get tired of posting them only to be ignored.
    OK, if tax cuts boost revenue, then tax increases must cause a drop in revenue. Based on your objective analysis, why did tax revenues increase two and a half times faster under Clinton, after tax rate increases, than under Reagan?

    More jobs were created in the Clinton era than the Reagan era.
    GDP grew about 33% in both 8 year periods.
    Under Reagan, real tax revenues increased by 20%, or less than GDP growth.
    Under Clinton, real tax revenues increased by 47%, or well in excess of GDP growth.
    Based on that, it would surprise no one that Reagan cut tax rates, and Clinton raised rates.

    And to pay for the ACA, should Congress have just passed another couple rounds of TAX CUTS?

    Finally, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is rejected by conservative economists - men who worked for Reagan, W. and others, who want lower taxes and smaller government. You should let them know about the evidence they are missing.
    Last edited by JasperL; 10-27-14 at 02:05 PM.

  2. #412
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not an expense, it's a drop in revenue, which my accounting teachers and common sense tells me must be offset with spending cuts for most entities, else they run deficits/losses. And as it happens, whether we debit expenses (increasing expenses) or debit revenues (which is a decrease in revenues) the effect on the profit or loss is identical. Reduces profits, increases deficits, however you want to say it.

    But that's not the issue - my point is tax cuts, based on math and evidence, don't increase revenues.



    OK, so sometimes you agree with deficits, sometimes you don't. What does that have to do with the notion that tax cuts do or don't pay for themselves?
    How do you explain Reagan cutting Federal Income taxes and increasing Federal Income tax revenue by 60%? How do you explain Bush cutting income taxes in 2003 and generating over 500 billion more in Federal Income Tax revenue? You simply have no concept of how our economy operates and grows due to people like you keeping more of what they earn. These numbers are available that the U.S. Treasury website. You need to actually do some research as to what the leftwing is telling you

    I agree with deficits only when they generate results like Reagan had, Obama has done nothing to grow govt. revenue or the economy and the 7 trillion in debt he has amassed now takes the debt over 100% of GDP. Name for me one modern day President with that record? Please stop claiming that you keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) have to be paid for but the reality is the JFK, Reagan, and Bush INCOME tax cuts were paid for by strong economic growth and job creation that grew Federal Income tax revenue

  3. #413
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,935

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    I went to vote and my voters registration card was not enough so I had to produce a photo ID. I thought a VRC was good enough but apparently not. While I am for the photo ID law they need to stop paying out for printing VRCs if they are no good anymore.

  4. #414
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,760

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    How do you explain Reagan cutting Federal Income taxes and increasing Federal Income tax revenue by 60%? How do you explain Bush cutting income taxes in 2003 and generating over 500 billion more in Federal Income Tax revenue? You simply have no concept of how our economy operates and grows due to people like you keeping more of what they earn. These numbers are available that the U.S. Treasury website. You need to actually do some research as to what the leftwing is telling you.
    I've been through most of it before. Revenue increases with inflation, increases in the population, and due to economic growth that happens with or without the tax cuts. The total revenue figures for Reagan include payroll taxes not affected in any way by the income tax changes, in fact Reagan increased payroll tax rates, which caused, as predicted, large increases in payroll tax revenues. Also, too, corporate income taxes increased and are included in that total, but aren't affected by individual income tax rates. The Reagan miracle story assumes all that happened good in the economy was the result of tax rate changes, and so all economic growth is attributed to tax rates, when in fact research shows taxes have a small overall effect on national economic growth - real but small.

    Point is you're taking two numbers - total tax revenues in 1982 I assume, and total tax revenues in 1989 - and then saying that ALL of the changes in those numbers is due to the change in the top tax rate. It's a bogus analysis, and ignores inflation, pop growth, increases in payroll tax rates, etc.

    Furthermore, to emphasize, if tax cuts increase revenue, then tax increases MUST reduce revenue. But somehow, after Clinton raised rates, revenue increased two and a half times greater than under Reagan. You can't explain that and work those results into your theory.

    Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.

  5. #415
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.
    Actually it takes greater political courage to cut spending and balance a budget. All politicians love to spend the public's money without any regard for the long term consequences.

  6. #416
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    JasperL;1063914799]I've been through most of it before. Revenue increases with inflation, increases in the population, and due to economic growth that happens with or without the tax cuts. The total revenue figures for Reagan include payroll taxes not affected in any way by the income tax changes, in fact Reagan increased payroll tax rates, which caused, as predicted, large increases in payroll tax revenues. Also, too, corporate income taxes increased and are included in that total, but aren't affected by individual income tax rates. The Reagan miracle story assumes all that happened good in the economy was the result of tax rate changes, and so all economic growth is attributed to tax rates, when in fact research shows taxes have a small overall effect on national economic growth - real but small.
    Really? so 17 million new taxpayers didn't have an effect? Interesting logic on your part. If you are married ask your spouse what happens when you have more money in your pay check. Further stop with the payroll tax increase as it has absolutely nothing to do with Federal income tax revenue. You can easily get the income tax revenue from the Treasury website but apparently you are too buried in liberal rhetoric to do that which makes you a waste of time

    Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and a consumer driven GDP is affected by that revenue. You just don't get it and never will

    Point is you're taking two numbers - total tax revenues in 1982 I assume, and total tax revenues in 1989 - and then saying that ALL of the changes in those numbers is due to the change in the top tax rate. It's a bogus analysis, and ignores inflation, pop growth, increases in payroll tax rates, etc.
    Wrong, I am talking only about FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Furthermore, to emphasize, if tax cuts increase revenue, then tax increases MUST reduce revenue. But somehow, after Clinton raised rates, revenue increased two and a half times greater than under Reagan. You can't explain that and work those results into your theory.
    Without economic activity growth yes, but Reagan's tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, and JFK tax cuts created more taxpayers, a concept that you will never understand

    Finally, no one who should be anywhere policy making anywhere believes that to pay for ACA (for example), all we needed to do was pass a couple of big rounds of tax CUTS. Additional spending requires the tough choice to raise taxes, not the gutless, cowardly choice to cut taxes.
    Only in the liberal world does the govt. need the money more than the people. Ever figure out why that is?

  7. #417
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,760

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Actually it takes greater political courage to cut spending and balance a budget. All politicians love to spend the public's money without any regard for the long term consequences.
    Of course, I agree.

    If you want to cut taxes, it takes political courage to offset those tax cuts with spending cuts - those who are affected object.
    If you want to increase spending, it also takes political courage to raise taxes to pay for the increases in spending. No one likes to pay higher taxes.

    But what takes no courage at all is spending more money, and then pretending that you can pay for that spending by cutting taxes. Life is never that easy. But that is the myth Republicans push to justify tax cuts as a solution to any problem.

  8. #418
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,263

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    What's your point? Bush cut tax rates and had a GOP House and Senate. Deficits increased.

    Clinton also raised marginal rates, and raised payroll taxes. Are you saying the 47% real increase in tax revenues during the Clinton years was due to tax cuts on capital gains? Or that the capital gains tax cut is what fueled the tech boom and the millions of jobs created?

    We can all make random statements all day long, but I'm missing the principle you're trying to get across. There is or is not a Tax Santa Clause (i.e. tax rate cuts pay for themselves). I don't believe in a Tax Santa Clause - tax rate cuts decrease revenues, as math tells us they will.

    It's not random.

    Clinton " balanced the budget " with a Republican House.

    Who allocates money in our Government ?

    And Bush was handed a Democrats House in 2006.

  9. #419
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,760

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Really? so 17 million new taxpayers didn't have an effect? Interesting logic on your part. If you are married ask your spouse what happens when you have more money in your pay check. Further stop with the payroll tax increase as it has absolutely nothing to do with Federal income tax revenue. You can easily get the income tax revenue from the Treasury website but apparently you are too buried in liberal rhetoric to do that which makes you a waste of time
    Of course they make a difference. But two points - the new jobs aren't all attributable to changes in tax rates, and 2) what changes are the result of the tax cuts aren't large enough to pay for the tax cuts. I said it, you ignored me.

    Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and a consumer driven GDP is affected by that revenue. You just don't get it and never will
    I accept that entirely. But all that means is $1 in nominal tax cuts will reduce tax revenue by some amount less than $1. The estimates are broad based tax cuts "cost" only about 80cents to 99cents if the tax cut is offset with spending cuts - i.e. not financed by higher deficits. If deficit financed, the $1 in tax cuts might cost MORE than $1.

    But for tax cuts to pay for themselves, a $1 in nominal tax cut costs less than ZERO. It allegedly RAISES revenue.

    Wrong, I am talking only about FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No you're not, which I knew because I've looked at the numbers. Total nominal revenues, including individual income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate income taxes went up by 60.4%. Individual income taxes increased by 49.7%. And to put more perspective on it, payroll taxes increased by 177 billion over those 8 years, individual income taxes by only 160 billion. Payroll taxes were fully 45% of increased revenues during the Reagan years.

    Nominal Individual income taxes increased by 83.1% during the Clinton years. Clinton added more jobs, but payroll taxes only accounted for 32% of total increases in revenues.

    See Table 2.1 Historical Tables | The White House

    Without economic activity growth yes, but Reagan's tax cuts, Bush tax cuts, and JFK tax cuts created more taxpayers, a concept that you will never understand
    There's nothing difficult to understand. If the tax rate cuts of Reagan had so large an effect on the economy that they RAISED revenues, then income tax increases should harm the economy and LOSE revenue, but that didn't happen. Clinton raised rates and the economy created more jobs in those 8 years than during the Reagan years. Bottom line is income tax rates have a significant but minor effect on economic growth, and that's why they do not pay for themselves.

    Only in the liberal world does the govt. need the money more than the people. Ever figure out why that is?
    Not the point. Either we can or cannot pay for spending with more tax cuts. People in the reality based world know spending increases require tax increases, such as occurred with ACA.
    Last edited by JasperL; 10-27-14 at 05:15 PM.

  10. #420
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    There's always a good excuse for GOPers to spend more money, while cutting taxes. But if you look at the record, the GOP and Bush II expanded non-defense domestic spending more than any POTUS since LBJ.
    Just as there's always a good excuse for Dems to argue for retreat and defeat. See? Two can play that game. The spending bills in question enjoyed broad Dem support.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Page 42 of 58 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •