• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

Do you realize how foolish you look with posts like this? What does a March 2011 article have to do with the most current poll numbers?

Do you realize how foolish you look with posts like this? How does it feel to be even less popular than Obama

Lets put this into perspective.

More approve of Obama than the following..

Congress (17%)
Boehner (30%)
Republican handling of the debt ceiling (21%)
Tea Party (20%)

Now the parts where Obama gets beaten are among others

Who do you blame for the deficit ... Bush (44%)
Who is to blame for whole debt drama ... Republicans (47%)
Not favouring the Tea Party (40%)
Tea Party influence in GOP too much (43%)
Not a supporter of the Tea Party (73%)

From Documents: The Full Results From The New York Times and CBS News Poll - Document - NYTimes.com

So GOP and Tea Party people.... how does it feel to be more unpopular than Obama?
 
Yet with the exception of 2008 and 2001-2002 Federal Tax revenue grew after the complete execution of the Bush tax cuts. How do you explain it. You buy the liberal rhetoric yet ignore the actual results.

Please show me with your reference figure or charter or URL.
 
Please show me with your reference figure or charter or URL.

You can get the information at BEA.gov, they get their data from the checkbook of the United States, Treasury Dept.

Here is what BEA.gov shows for Federal Income Tax revenue by year

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
 
Last edited:
You can get the information at BEA.gov, they get their data from the checkbook of the United States, Treasury Dept.

Here is what BEA.gov shows for Federal Income Tax revenue by year

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class actually increased revenue?
 
You can get the information at BEA.gov, they get their data from the checkbook of the United States, Treasury Dept.

Here is what BEA.gov shows for Federal Income Tax revenue by year

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class actually increased revenue?
 
Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class actually increased revenue?

The Bush Tax cuts for all taxpayers led to economic growth that increased govt. revenue
 
The Bush Tax cuts for all taxpayers led to economic growth that increased govt. revenue

There is no way to prove anything of the sort; therefore it is your opinion that it led to economic growth. At this point in time, the aggregate tax liability of the nation is at a historic low (in fact, taxes are lower than they were during the Bush administration). Why have they not led to economic growth?

Correlation does not imply causation:
The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.

Why do you habitually get caught up in this fallacy?
 
There is no way to prove anything of the sort; therefore it is your opinion that it led to economic growth. At this point in time, the aggregate tax liability of the nation is at a historic low (in fact, taxes are lower than they were during the Bush administration). Why have they not led to economic growth?

Correlation does not imply causation:

Why do you habitually get caught up in this fallacy?

Why do you ignore logic and common sense or do you you have any? How does keeping more of your own money hurt the economy? Makes total sense that when the consumer has more money our consumer driven economy increases and that boosts jobs thus new taxpayers. I sincerely hope you are sending your Bush tax cut back from every paycheck.
 
Why do you ignore logic and common sense or do you you have any? How does keeping more of your own money hurt the economy? Makes total sense that when the consumer has more money our consumer driven economy increases and that boosts jobs thus new taxpayers. I sincerely hope you are sending your Bush tax cut back from every paycheck.

This has nothing to do with me, so refrain from getting personal.

You engage in a logical fallacy on a daily basis (more like 10 times+ per day). The economy would have grown IMO even without the tax cuts due to the massive increases in government spending that were enacted during the Bush Administration.

But lets play your game. Taxes were cut and people had more money to spend... right? Make a guess where this "money" eventually ended up. It fueled a massive real estate bubble that we are still feeling the brunt of.
 
This has nothing to do with me, so refrain from getting personal.

You engage in a logical fallacy on a daily basis (more like 10 times+ per day). The economy would have grown IMO even without the tax cuts due to the massive increases in government spending that were enacted during the Bush Administration.

But lets play your game. Taxes were cut and people had more money to spend... right? Make a guess where this "money" eventually ended up. It fueled a massive real estate bubble that we are still feeling the brunt of.

That is your opinion which of course you are entitled to. Not sure why you have such a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. People with more of their own money means less need for the current 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Budget and bureaucrats that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt.

Where the money went is a personal choice that liberals seem to have a problem with. My suggestion to you is the same one as given to Buffet, you don't believe you are paying enough in taxes send a bigger "contribution" into the Federal Govt. I am sure the consumers that keep more of their money will have no problem with that.
 
That is your opinion which of course you are entitled to. Not sure why you have such a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. People with more of their own money means less need for the current 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Budget and bureaucrats that created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt.

Where the money went is a personal choice that liberals seem to have a problem with. My suggestion to you is the same one as given to Buffet, you don't believe you are paying enough in taxes send a bigger "contribution" into the Federal Govt. I am sure the consumers that keep more of their money will have no problem with that.

I have absolutely no problem with people keeping more of their own money; i do my best to minimize my tax liabilities. But again this has nothing to do with me. The fact remains that increasing deficits during periods of strong economic growth is a horrible economic policy that we continue to pay the price for. Nothing you have ever stated negates this point!
 
I have absolutely no problem with people keeping more of their own money; i do my best to minimize my tax liabilities. But again this has nothing to do with me. The fact remains that increasing deficits during periods of strong economic growth is a horrible economic policy that we continue to pay the price for. Nothing you have ever stated negates this point![/QUOTE

the best way to prevent deficits is to stop spending. We don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. and the nanny state promoted by liberals and therein lies the problem. Too many people always ignore the spending side to focus on the revenue side. Like it or not a consumer driven economy relies on consumer spending and that is 2/3 of our GDP now which puts us in real trouble with we have 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans with limited money. Those people have to get back to work full time paying taxes to help fund this govt. if spending cuts aren't going to occur. If spending cuts don't occur I prefer being in a position having more of my own money so I need less of that so called govt. help.

What I have said over the years is Govt. doesn't need to be this big and our Founders never envisioned a govt. this size or spending at this level. They put the power at the state and local level with the people and that is where it belongs. Too much duplication at the Federal level for what the states are also doing. Federal Social engineering with things like the Great Society and New Deal all meant well but like all liberal programs have grown out of control. What was tabbed as spending in the name of compassion has yet to generate compassionate results meaning actually solving a social problem. Nothing you have said has negated that reality either.
 
I have absolutely no problem with people keeping more of their own money; i do my best to minimize my tax liabilities. But again this has nothing to do with me. The fact remains that increasing deficits during periods of strong economic growth is a horrible economic policy that we continue to pay the price for. Nothing you have ever stated negates this point!

the best way to prevent deficits is to stop spending. We don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. and the nanny state promoted by liberals and therein lies the problem. Too many people always ignore the spending side to focus on the revenue side. Like it or not a consumer driven economy relies on consumer spending and that is 2/3 of our GDP now which puts us in real trouble with we have 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans with limited money. Those people have to get back to work full time paying taxes to help fund this govt. if spending cuts aren't going to occur. If spending cuts don't occur I prefer being in a position having more of my own money so I need less of that so called govt. help.

What I have said over the years is Govt. doesn't need to be this big and our Founders never envisioned a govt. this size or spending at this level. They put the power at the state and local level with the people and that is where it belongs. Too much duplication at the Federal level for what the states are also doing. Federal Social engineering with things like the Great Society and New Deal all meant well but like all liberal programs have grown out of control. What was tabbed as spending in the name of compassion has yet to generate compassionate results meaning actually solving a social problem. Nothing you have said has negated that reality either.

I really don't understand what you were responding to, but repeating yourself in every post until you are blue in the face is not the way.
 
I really don't understand what you were responding to, but repeating yourself in every post until you are blue in the face is not the way.

You know very well what I am saying, we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal govt. with 50 states doing much of the very same thing you want the govt. to do. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem but liberals want more revenue to pay for that 3.7 trillion dollar budget. That is total and complete bull**** and most people know it expecially when put in the words I just gave you.
 
You know very well what I am saying, we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal govt. with 50 states doing much of the very same thing you want the govt. to do. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem but liberals want more revenue to pay for that 3.7 trillion dollar budget. That is total and complete bull**** and most people know it expecially when put in the words I just gave you.

You failed to respond to anything i stated, and instead invoked a straw man fallacy as a means to side step your other fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). I do not need a lecture on personal responsibility from some guy on the internet.

Government spending will always increase during economic contraction, and will continue to swell until labor markets begin to stabilize. Being angry about it accomplishes nothing.
 
You failed to respond to anything i stated, and instead invoked a straw man fallacy as a means to side step your other fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). I do not need a lecture on personal responsibility from some guy on the internet.

Government spending will always increase during economic contraction, and will continue to swell until labor markets begin to stabilize. Being angry about it accomplishes nothing.

I doubt that anything anyone else says to you is going to be considered by you as responding to your posts. You always take things personally when the fact remains all that I have ever done is interject logic and common sense into your so called 'black and white" world of numbers, numbers that you even ignore. Continue to focus on the revenue side instead of the spending side. I will let you in on a little secret, there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Don't let that reality ever get in the way of your ideology. Fact, we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and no one here has refuted that. Doubt you will ever grasp that.
 
I doubt that anything anyone else says to you is going to be considered by you as responding to your posts. You always take things personally when the fact remains all that I have ever done is interject logic and common sense into your so called 'black and white" world of numbers, numbers that you even ignore. Continue to focus on the revenue side instead of the spending side. I will let you in on a little secret, there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Don't let that reality ever get in the way of your ideology. Fact, we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and no one here has refuted that. Doubt you will ever grasp that.

You have resorted to logical fallacies at every turn. My first post for this thread was made to point it out the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The Bush Tax cuts for all taxpayers led to economic growth that increased govt. revenue

Then in an attempt to avoid admitting your fallacy, you go and state:
What I have said over the years is Govt. doesn't need to be this big and our Founders never envisioned a govt. this size or spending at this level. They put the power at the state and local level with the people and that is where it belongs.

Which is a straw man
 
You have resorted to logical fallacies at every turn. My first post for this thread was made to point it out the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Then in an attempt to avoid admitting your fallacy, you go and state:

Which is a straw man

You call them fallacies but that is your opinion, GDP growth shows that the economy grew and jobs were created after the Bush tax cuts. you seem to have a problem with taxpayers keeping more of their money. The question is why?
 
You call them fallacies but that is your opinion

You have been given the exact reason they are fallacies yet you simply refuse to accept it. Being in a state of denial ensures you will make similar mistakes in the future.

GDP growth shows that the economy grew and jobs were created after the Bush tax cuts.

Exactly! But in no way what-so-ever does that equate to the Bush tax cuts being the reason for the growth. Hence the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does imply causation.

you seem to have a problem with taxpayers keeping more of their money. The question is why?

No i do not. The better question is, why do you continue to assume my position and then attack it based on that same assumption? There is a name for such behavior.
 
You have been given the exact reason they are fallacies yet you simply refuse to accept it. Being in a state of denial ensures you will make similar mistakes in the future.



Exactly! But in no way what-so-ever does that equate to the Bush tax cuts being the reason for the growth. Hence the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does imply causation.



No i do not. The better question is, why do you continue to assume my position and then attack it based on that same assumption? There is a name for such behavior.

Let me know what affect keeping more of your income has on consumer spending, demand, and jobs. If you want to believe a consumer economy is boosted by the taxpayers having less spendable income, so be it.
 
Government spending will always increase during economic contraction, and will continue to swell until labor markets begin to stabilize. Being angry about it accomplishes nothing.
Oh, I don't know. Being angry about out of controls spending generated enough interest in voters other than the felons, dead and illegals that Republicans regained the house of representatives. They also reversed the politics in about half of the states (from memory between 1/3rd and 40%)

People are not longer talking about unrestrained spending. Being angry accomplished a great deal. Let us hope the voters continue to be angry.
 
The Bush Tax cuts for all taxpayers led to economic growth that increased govt. revenue

No, it's the interest rate that triggered the economic at that time. When Clinton left the
W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped to 1%, (in 2003 to 2004) It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from your chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004. but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.

Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)

It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy. Bush's tax cut law and the war he started increased budget deficit that caused debt problem. It's ridiculous to cover up his failed policy by these fallacy.
 
No, it's the interest rate that triggered the economic at that time. When Clinton left the
W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped to 1%, (in 2003 to 2004) It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from your chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004. but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.

Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)

It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy. Bush's tax cut law and the war he started increased budget deficit that caused debt problem. It's ridiculous to cover up his failed policy by these fallacy.

You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong you are. Please feel free to put the Bush actual numbers vs. the Obama numbers. stop buying what the media tells you as they make you look and sound foolish. Too many people have a lot invested in their Bush Derangement Syndrome so you fit into that category. We are now paying for that mental condition.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
You can get the information at BEA.gov, they get their data from the checkbook of the United States, Treasury Dept.

Here is what BEA.gov shows for Federal Income Tax revenue by year

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

You are still posting these numbers. Rest assured they are not income tax revenues, as individual + corporate income tax revenues have never exceeded $1.5T. If you numbers were correct, then we really do not have a deficit. Thanks for the link. Standby while I get to the root of your delusion, but the numbers you post are not correct.

Allow me to repost my answer to this posted on another thread (to which you did not respond) as I try to figure out where you are coming up with your numbers.....

I said Federal Revenues include payroll taxes (such as FICA), not federal income tax. It is federal revenues that exceed $2T annually... and it is federal revenue that increased after the Bush tax cuts. This is because the increase in payroll taxes masked the decrease in income tax revenue.

If we just speak of income taxes... individual income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.2T. In fact, contrary to your assertion, they decreased by 20% after the Bush tax cuts (um, cut taxes, you expect to cut tax revenue.... it worked well.) Individual income tax revenues fell from just north of $1T in 2000 to less than $.8T four years later.. a 20% drop (NOT an increase, as you continually state) Even if you threw corporate income taxes, federal income tax revenue never exceeds $1.5T... about 1/2 of what you are telling us you get from "bea.gov". Your numbers are NOT correct.

You asked where I got my numbers. Unlike you, I actually gave you a link to the actual budget and its tables (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf).
I directed you to table 2.1, where, if you bothered to follow my link you would have 1) not asked where the numbers came from, 2) not challenged me as to whether I actually have looked at the budget since that is exactly what is at the other end of the link and 3) you would have seen actual Individual Income Tax Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Revenue, Excise Tax Revenue and Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (various payroll taxes), etc.... all of the components of Federal Revenue, year by year since 1934. You will note that Federal Revenue, all in, never exceeded $2.568T....yet, your numbers are larger (you cited $2.79T per BEA.gov for 2008) That can not be.

Let's try another (in)sanity check on your numbers. You often speak of the $3.8T cost of government (2009). My numbers (from table 3.1 of the budget, see link) confirm this.... but this spending includes disbursements for social security. So, if you are stating that income tax revenue is $2.79T, and total expenditures are $3.9T (2009), then the deficit is but $1T.... but wait, the expenditures income spending on social security (see table 3.1) and your revenues do not (as you state they are federal income tax revenues)... so, to make apples be apples, we need to add the $.9T the government received from Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (see table 2.1) and our total revenues for 2008 are now, according to your intrepretation of BEA numbers are now $3.7T ($2.79T federal income tax + $.9T payroll tax). Let's see, $3.7T revenue versus $3.9T expenditures (forgive mixing 2009 and 2008), so our deficit, according to your BEA numbers is just $200B. Either you have solved our deficit problem while the rest of us are busy fussing about it, or (I think a bit more likely) your federal income tax revenue numbers are not correct and thus do not support your argument.

If its a BLS table you want, try this one: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_408.htm. You will note that 2008 personal income tax revenue was only $1.1239T, consistent with the budget.
.


Thanks for the link. As a professional numbers guy, I should be able to find where you went astray and get you on path.... including never again trying to tell us that the Bush tax cuts increased federal income tax revenue.
 
Last edited:
You are still posting these numbers. Rest assured they are not income tax revenues, as they have never exceeded $1.9T. If you numbers were correct, then we really do not have a deficit. Thanks for the link. Standby while I get to the root of your delusion, but the numbers you post are not correct.

Allow me to repost my answer to this posted on another thread (to which you did not respond) as I try to figure out where you are coming up with your numbers.....

I said Federal Revenues include payroll taxes (such as FICA), not federal income tax. It is federal revenues that exceed $2T annually... and it is federal revenue that increased after the Bush tax cuts. This is because the increase in payroll taxes masked the decrease in income tax revenue.

f we just speak of income taxes... individual income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.2T. In fact, contrary to your assertion, they decreased by 20% after the Bush tax cuts (um, cut taxes, you expect to cut tax revenue.... it worked well.) Individual income tax revenues fell from just north of $1T in 2000 to less than $.8T four years later.. a 20% drop (NOT an increase, as you continually state) Even if you threw corporate income taxes, federal income tax revenue never exceeds $1.5T... about 1/2 of what you are telling us you get from "bea.gov". Your numbers are NOT correct.

You asked where I got my numbers. Unlike you, I actually gave you a link to the actual budget and its tables (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf).
I directed you to table 2.1, where, if you bothered to follow my link you would have 1) not asked where the numbers came from, 2) not challenged me as to whether I actually have looked at the budget since that is exactly what is at the other end of the link and 3) you would have seen actual Individual Income Tax Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Revenue, Excise Tax Revenue and Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (various payroll taxes), etc.... all of the components of Federal Revenue, year by year since 1934. You will note that Federal Revenue, all in, never exceeded $2.568T....yet, your numbers are larger (you cited $2.79T per BEA.gov for 2008) That can not be.

Let's try another (in)sanity check on your numbers. You often speak of the $3.8T cost of government (2009). My numbers (from table 3.1 of the budget, see link) confirm this.... but this spending includes disbursements for social security. So, if you are stating that income tax revenue is $2.79T, and total expenditures are $3.9T (2009), then the deficit is but $1T.... but wait, the expenditures income spending on social security (see table 3.1) and your revenues do not (as you state they are federal income tax revenues)... so, to make apples be apples, we need to add the $.9T the government received from Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (see table 2.1) and our total revenues for 2008 are now, according to your intrepretation of BEA numbers are now $3.7T ($2.79T federal income tax + $.9T payroll tax). Let's see, $3.7T revenue versus $3.9T expenditures (forgive mixing 2009 and 2008), so our deficit, according to your BEA numbers is just $200B. Either you have solved our deficit problem while the rest of us are busy fussing about it, or (I think a bit more likely) your federal income tax revenue numbers are not correct and thus do not support your argument.

As a professional numbers guy, with a posted link to the actual table at BEA.gov from which you extracted, derived or otherwise created your numbers, I might be able to help you with the reconciliation.

Love your novels, now get the facts by looking at the budgets of the United States. Line item expenses are Personal Income Taxes, SOCIAL SECURITY(which includes Medicare), Corporate taxes, and Excise Taxes. Love experts like you who have never looked at the budget of the United States.

Example

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
Back
Top Bottom