Page 56 of 58 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #551
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,962
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I guess what bothers me more in Georgia is a group legally, and in constant contact with the Ga Sec. of State, went around and got 85,000 citizens of Georgia to register. These people all believe they've done what's necessary to vote in a few days. But for some reason, as of last writing, 50,000 of those registrations haven't been processed. And no one worried about election integrity seems to care. That's 50,000 people unable to vote, potentially, and a yawn, but right wingers can't do too much to solve the problem of a handful of impersonation fraud cases. Something seems off, and it looks to me like the problem might be the 50,000 registrations were gathered by a liberal leaning group targeting poor people and minorities...

    And, sure, we could reform the registration process - I'd prefer a national system, constantly updated, that automatically registers every citizen when they turn 18 and then uses IRS or USPS or other data to reassign them to the correct voting district when they move. It's the dumbest election system anyone could imagine. But that's not really the point - we have what we have.



    6% of 13 million is 780,000 illegal voters, and yet we've had GOP officials in many states and U.S. Attorneys under Bush desperately trying to find any evidence that voting by illegals is a big problem and they've failed. There have been almost no prosecutions of this kind of illegal activity. So you'll have to understand why I find those numbers impossible to believe. And if they're true, the "solution" to this problem that's been implemented - Photo ID - will only stop around 25% of this fraud.



    I just don't see any evidence that there is a big problem with registered voters. There really IS a big incentive for republicans to find and remove illegals from the rolls of registered voters. I guess I can't think of a reason why people with massive incentives to do so have failed every time, except that there aren't many 'illegals' registered to vote.
    I think something needs to be done if we are to have fair elections. The question is what? Is there a happy medium that might not please either side but yet correct most of the problems? Solve the problem or problems we have? It like the illegal immigration problem in total. One side loves the cheap labor but hates the idea that these illegal aliens might someday become citizens and vote. The other side loves the idea these illegal aliens might become citizens someday and vote while they hate the cheap labor aspect. Both sides love using the illegal alien problem as a campaign issue and see it beneficial to them that it never gets solved as it fires up their respective bases.

    As for your solution on registration, section 4 of Article I leave the time, places and manner of elections to the states. Hence 50 different election laws with each states election laws written to benefit which ever party is in power. It is like gerrymandering, one party will holler about Texas gerrymandering but will in turn gerrymander the heck out of New York. The other party will holler about gerrymandering in Illinois but gerrymander the heck out of North Carolina. Neither party wants to outlaw gerrymandering only because if they are in power, they can use it for an election advantage.

    I think in short, the fear of something, in this case voter fraud is worth more than solving the issue. But neither side would be willing to give up an advantage if they perceive they have one to solve any issue.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #552
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,151

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    That is a lie, The Bush tax cuts weren't fully implemented until July 2003 and the Treasury shows you are absolutely wrong. You also ignore the Clinton recession as well as 911. The cry after 9/11 was that 'we will never forget" You have forgotten. The Bush tax cuts didn't cost the Treasury a dime and led to job creation and more govt. revenue. Like all liberals you assume economic activity would have been the same without those cuts. That is what liberals always do, ignore activity and human behavior.?
    No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...

    Bush Tax Cuts.jpg

    ...which, BTW, was the forecast of the revenue cuts by the Heritage Foundation. Of course, you are once again exhibiting your selective memory because you are forgetting that actual design of the tax plan was to reduce the surplus....

    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    From that aforementioned Heritage Report (because I know you won't look)

    "...It initially estimated that the Bush plan would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.313 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2010. Extending the time frame of that analysis to the current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast period--FY 2002 to FY 2011--increases the reduction in tax revenue to $1.554 trillion...."

    If you remember, that little plan by the Heritage Foundation was to not only eliminate the surplus, but it would, and I quote from within "....Effectively pay off the federal debt. The Bush plan would decrease federal debt to the lowest possible level at which it could be redeemed--$818 billion in FY 2011 (see Chart 4).25 From FY 2001 to FY 2011, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 30.5 percent to just 4.7 percent under the plan..." Of course, we all know the debt actually climbed to $10T under Bush, making this the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of the world (though to Hertiage's credit, they did not factor in the expense of an elective war and two elective occupations)..... but the Heritage Foundation was spot on their prediction of how much the tax plan would cost the treasury.

    Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything positive for our economy. Feel free to post a credible economic study supporting your position. In the interim, here is a bunch that do not...

    http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.ns...nk/CHAS-89LPZ9
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...iscal-problem/
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/op...ay/24sun4.html
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...-tax-cuts?lite
    http://www.brookings.edu/research/ar...economics-gale
    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/ses...bush-tax-cuts/
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did...l-tax-revenue/
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ng_114896.html

    Happy reading!
    Last edited by upsideguy; 10-30-14 at 11:56 AM.

  3. #553
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...
    Obviously the "tax cuts pay for themselves" crowd has no interest in objective evidence, so I'm afraid it won't help much. Fact is the tax cuts were intended to reduce revenues, and did.

    But what amazes me is how long it took for revenues to reach pre-cut levels even in the midst of the largest debt bubble in 80 years. The "growth" was nothing but a massive bubble that soon popped and dumped us into the Great Recession, millions of lost jobs, etc. and we still couldn't run a balanced budget at the peak of that bubble. So the structural deficit - some sustainable level of revenues versus expenses - was massive - $hundreds of billions - even at the peak, when actual deficits depressed by the bubble economy were reasonable.

  4. #554
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I guess what bothers me more in Georgia is a group legally, and in constant contact with the Ga Sec. of State, went around and got 85,000 citizens of Georgia to register. These people all believe they've done what's necessary to vote in a few days. But for some reason, as of last writing, 50,000 of those registrations haven't been processed. And no one worried about election integrity seems to care. That's 50,000 people unable to vote, potentially, and a yawn, but right wingers can't do too much to solve the problem of a handful of impersonation fraud cases. Something seems off, and it looks to me like the problem might be the 50,000 registrations were gathered by a liberal leaning group targeting poor people and minorities...

    And, sure, we could reform the registration process - I'd prefer a national system, constantly updated, that automatically registers every citizen when they turn 18 and then uses IRS or USPS or other data to reassign them to the correct voting district when they move. It's the dumbest election system anyone could imagine. But that's not really the point - we have what we have.



    6% of 13 million is 780,000 illegal voters, and yet we've had GOP officials in many states and U.S. Attorneys under Bush desperately trying to find any evidence that voting by illegals is a big problem and they've failed. There have been almost no prosecutions of this kind of illegal activity. So you'll have to understand why I find those numbers impossible to believe. And if they're true, the "solution" to this problem that's been implemented - Photo ID - will only stop around 25% of this fraud.



    I just don't see any evidence that there is a big problem with registered voters. There really IS a big incentive for republicans to find and remove illegals from the rolls of registered voters. I guess I can't think of a reason why people with massive incentives to do so have failed every time, except that there aren't many 'illegals' registered to vote.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_124470.html
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #555
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,313

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...

    Bush Tax Cuts.jpg

    ...which, BTW, was the forecast of the revenue cuts by the Heritage Foundation. Of course, you are once again exhibiting your selective memory because you are forgetting that actual design of the tax plan was to reduce the surplus....

    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    From that aforementioned Heritage Report (because I know you won't look)

    "...It initially estimated that the Bush plan would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.313 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2010. Extending the time frame of that analysis to the current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast period--FY 2002 to FY 2011--increases the reduction in tax revenue to $1.554 trillion...."

    If you remember, that little plan by the Heritage Foundation was to not only eliminate the surplus, but it would, and I quote from within "....Effectively pay off the federal debt. The Bush plan would decrease federal debt to the lowest possible level at which it could be redeemed--$818 billion in FY 2011 (see Chart 4).25 From FY 2001 to FY 2011, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 30.5 percent to just 4.7 percent under the plan..." Of course, we all know the debt actually climbed to $10T under Bush, making this the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of the world (though to Hertiage's credit, they did not factor in the expense of an elective war and two elective occupations)..... but the Heritage Foundation was spot on their prediction of how much the tax plan would cost the treasury.

    Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything positive for our economy. Feel free to post a credible economic study supporting your position. In the interim, here is a bunch that do not...

    http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.ns...nk/CHAS-89LPZ9
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...iscal-problem/
    Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/op...ay/24sun4.html
    Charts: Seriously, it's the Bush tax cuts | MSNBC
    The Cost of Tax Cuts | Brookings Institution
    Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
    Did The Bush Tax Cuts Reduce Federal Tax Revenue ?
    The $12 Trillion Misunderstanding | RealClearPolitics

    Happy reading!
    You can try to re-write history until hell freezes over but the reality is the rebate was given in 2001 and the tax cuts fully implemented in 2003. That is reality

    Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You people just don't get it and I am tired of fighting for even you to keep more of your own money. You don't want that tax cut, send it back and stop whining about paying for others keeping more of what they earn

    Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall. I certainly understand how people like you always spend more money in the economy when you are paying more to the Federal govt. and have less in your paychecks. Brilliant economic policy on your part

    From the Treasury Department Data

    Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
    [Billions of dollars]
    Bureau of Economic Analysis
    Last Revised on: October 30, 2014 - Next Release Date November 25, 2014

    Line * 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
    1 Current receipts 3118.2 2967 3042.8 3265.1 3663.5 4001.8 4202.4 4041.8
    2 Current tax receipts 2163.7 2001.8 2049.6 2211.9 2551.1 2812.9 2958.4 2777
    3 Personal current taxes 1234.8 1050.3 1000.9 1046 1208.5 1352.1 1487.9 1435.2


    40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.
    Last edited by Conservative; 10-30-14 at 01:36 PM.

  6. #556
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    If there's something in that article you'd like to point to, please do. I'm not going to guess. Not a word that I saw was in response to the post of mine you quoted.

  7. #557
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall.
    Not quite - tax cuts do stimulate economic activity, but other factors are far more important. In the Bush years, obviously the low interest rates of the Fed, and the debt and housing bubble affected economic "growth" far more than the tax cuts. We had a gigantic, unsustainable bubble, and it burst, as it must, causing the largest recession since the Great Depression. Taxes didn't cause the bubble or the burst.

    40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.
    You're not interested in any real analysis, so I won't bother, but I did read something in those links that is well said, by a conservative.

    There’s nothing wrong per se with tax cuts that reduce tax revenue. Quite honestly, less money in the hands of the Federal Government is generally a good thing. However, a policy of tax cuts that result in lower tax revenue combined with massive increases in entitlement and other forms of spending is economic stupidity. Until Republicans recognize that, they’re not really much better than the Democrats on this issue.
    That's really the whole point. We can argue about whether tax cuts are good or bad, but if we want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. Not a hard concept, so I'm not sure why we can't both agree on this. We won't agree on the level of spending and therefore of taxes, but it's shocking, really, that we disagree about whether politicians can have their cake and eat it too, and increase spending like we did during the Bush era AND cut taxes.

    You can oppose spending every day and twice on Sunday, but the fact is we Bush increased spending on Med. Part D, and the wars, and the related WOT, and on domestic non-defense programs AND cut taxes. Blame it all on democrats if you want. Doesn't matter. Spending more for whatever reason requires higher taxes or higher deficits.

  8. #558
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,151

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You can try to re-write history until hell freezes over but the reality is the rebate was given in 2001 and the tax cuts fully implemented in 2003. That is reality

    Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You people just don't get it and I am tired of fighting for even you to keep more of your own money. You don't want that tax cut, send it back and stop whining about paying for others keeping more of what they earn

    Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall. I certainly understand how people like you always spend more money in the economy when you are paying more to the Federal govt. and have less in your paychecks. Brilliant economic policy on your part


    [/B]
    40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.
    You really don't know when to quit do you? I don't know what makes me think of Miranda rights in this instance... probably the "...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

    While I appreciate supporting facts, I really appreciated your post of the Wiki article on the Bush tax cuts which you presented as evidence supporting your case (Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It, along with the link to the 2001 tax act does far more to support my case then yours (if fact, I am not certain how it supports any of your case except to point out that the Bush tax cuts were FULLY implemented in 2003, as opposed to my statement that they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001.... guess what? We are both right ... see below)

    Let me post the guts of your Wiki article (that you presented as evidence)... so you can see the repeated acknowledgments that the cuts took between $1.3T and $1.8T from the US coffers:


    [I]Debate over effect of cuts From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

    [I]There was and is considerable controversy over who benefited from the tax cuts and whether or not they have been effective in spurring sufficient growth. Supporters of the proposal and proponents of lower taxes say that the tax cuts increased the pace of economic recovery and job creation. Further, proponents of the cuts asserted that lowering taxes on all citizens, including the rich, would benefit all and would actually increase receipts from the wealthiest Americans as their tax rates would decline without resort to tax shelters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

    The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less;[3] while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5]

    Statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[6] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[7][8][9][10] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[11] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their year 2000 dollar peak until 2006, though reasons for regaining previous levels are not given (see chart at right).[12]
    The U.S. federal effective corporate tax rate, 1947-2011

    Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[13] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[14] and the Tax Policy Center[15] have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."[16]

    Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[17][18][19][20][21] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[22] Supporters argued that the tax brackets were still more progressive than the brackets from 1986 until 1992, with higher marginal rates on the upper class, and lower marginal rates on the middle class than established by either the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.[23]
    U.S. Federal budget deficit as % GDP assuming continuation of certain policies 2011-2021

    Economist Simon Johnson wrote in 2010: "The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue—at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies—and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare. Other parts of government spending can be frozen or even slashed, but it just won’t make that much difference. That means older Americans are going to get squeezed, while our ability to defend ourselves goes into decline. Just because there’s a bipartisan consensus on an idea, such as tax cuts, doesn’t mean it makes sense. Today’s tax cutters have set us up for tomorrow’s fiscal crisis and real damage to U.S. national security."[24]

    A Washington Post article takes a different view, saying that data showed the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.[25]

    The New York Times stated in an editorial that the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

    CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest

    Don't you just love it when people hang themselves? It makes your job so much easier...

    Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  9. #559
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,313

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    JasperL;1063926556]Not quite - tax cuts do stimulate economic activity, but other factors are far more important. In the Bush years, obviously the low interest rates of the Fed, and the debt and housing bubble affected economic "growth" far more than the tax cuts. We had a gigantic, unsustainable bubble, and it burst, as it must, causing the largest recession since the Great Depression. Taxes didn't cause the bubble or the burst.
    Spoken like a true big govt. liberal. Do you have any idea what the four components of GDP are. Tell me how taxes aren't important considering those components and how they contribute to GDP? QE has led to the lowest interest rates in history during the Obama term and yet economic growth is basically stagnant. People are hording money, businesses are buying back stock, 20 million Americans are unemployed/under employed/discouraged. You don't seem to understand how our economy works and you continue to ignore that liberals project that economic growth will remain the same even without the tax cuts but you cannot explain what you do when you have more money in your paycheck which is what happened during the Reagan and Bush term



    You're not interested in any real analysis, so I won't bother, but I did read something in those links that is well said, by a conservative.
    I am interested in results, not liberal speculation and brainwashing. You don't want more money in your paycheck, tough, Reagan and Bush gave it to you, send it back



    That's really the whole point. We can argue about whether tax cuts are good or bad, but if we want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. Not a hard concept, so I'm not sure why we can't both agree on this. We won't agree on the level of spending and therefore of taxes, but it's shocking, really, that we disagree about whether politicians can have their cake and eat it too, and increase spending like we did during the Bush era AND cut taxes.
    Why would you want to send more money to the Govt. if it won't cut spending? The two are not the same, let people keep more of what they earn and they need less of that so called Govt. help. We currently have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. Take SS and Medicare OFF BUDGET NOW and then fund about a 1.5 trillion dollar govt. and watch the economic growth. You seem to want to fund the govt. based upon what they spend not what they should spend. I prefer people keeping more of their own money and starving the govt.

    You can oppose spending every day and twice on Sunday, but the fact is we Bush increased spending on Med. Part D, and the wars, and the related WOT, and on domestic non-defense programs AND cut taxes. Blame it all on democrats if you want. Doesn't matter. Spending more for whatever reason requires higher taxes or higher deficits.
    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, Bush increased spending but never had a trillion dollar deficit and never had Debt exceeding 100% of GDP. Medicare Part D ended up costing half of what the Democrats wanted. We can argue whether or not it was successful but the reality is it did reduces Medicare expenses. Defense is the responsibility of the Federal govt. and Obama increased defense spending. Supplementals are part of the yearly deficits. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt, the war in Iraq was winding down, and yet has added over 7 trillion to the debt If you truly care about the debt then you should focus on what Obama has done, and not what Bush did because Bush added 4.9 trillion in 8 years, Obama over 7 trillion in 6. Doesn't appear you have a problem with that 7 trillion dollars

  10. #560
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,313

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    You really don't know when to quit do you? I don't know what makes me think of Miranda rights in this instance... probably the "...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

    While I appreciate supporting facts, I really appreciated your post of the Wiki article on the Bush tax cuts which you presented as evidence supporting your case (Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It, along with the link to the 2001 tax act does far more to support my case then yours (if fact, I am not certain how it supports any of your case except to point out that the Bush tax cuts were FULLY implemented in 2003, as opposed to my statement that they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001.... guess what? We are both right ... see below)

    Let me post the guts of your Wiki article (that you presented as evidence)... so you can see the repeated acknowledgments that the cuts took between $1.3T and $1.8T from the US coffers:


    [I]Debate over effect of cuts From Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    [I]There was and is considerable controversy over who benefited from the tax cuts and whether or not they have been effective in spurring sufficient growth. Supporters of the proposal and proponents of lower taxes say that the tax cuts increased the pace of economic recovery and job creation. Further, proponents of the cuts asserted that lowering taxes on all citizens, including the rich, would benefit all and would actually increase receipts from the wealthiest Americans as their tax rates would decline without resort to tax shelters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

    The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less;[3] while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5]

    Statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[6] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[7][8][9][10] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[11] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their year 2000 dollar peak until 2006, though reasons for regaining previous levels are not given (see chart at right).[12]
    The U.S. federal effective corporate tax rate, 1947-2011

    Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[13] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[14] and the Tax Policy Center[15] have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."[16]

    Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[17][18][19][20][21] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[22] Supporters argued that the tax brackets were still more progressive than the brackets from 1986 until 1992, with higher marginal rates on the upper class, and lower marginal rates on the middle class than established by either the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.[23]
    U.S. Federal budget deficit as % GDP assuming continuation of certain policies 2011-2021

    Economist Simon Johnson wrote in 2010: "The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue—at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies—and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare. Other parts of government spending can be frozen or even slashed, but it just won’t make that much difference. That means older Americans are going to get squeezed, while our ability to defend ourselves goes into decline. Just because there’s a bipartisan consensus on an idea, such as tax cuts, doesn’t mean it makes sense. Today’s tax cutters have set us up for tomorrow’s fiscal crisis and real damage to U.S. national security."[24]

    A Washington Post article takes a different view, saying that data showed the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.[25]

    The New York Times stated in an editorial that the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

    CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest

    Don't you just love it when people hang themselves? It makes your job so much easier...

    Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The point of the Wiki argument was to prove to you that Tax cuts were not fully implemented until July 2003, not 2001 and that is reality. The rest of the Wiki article is simply speculation and projections. CBO has never been accurate and uses Congressional information to make their projections. No one can prove that the economic activity would have been the same without the tax cuts yet that is what you and others do. Please tell me how tax cuts that grew revenue 40% after the tax cuts could have added 1.6 trillion to the debt. What data are they using??

    Please stop with the BS and send your extra money back to the govt. not selling here at all

    You don't seem to have any idea how accurate CBO is in their projections and where they get their assumptions. Find out and get back to me.

Posting Permissions

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