Page 53 of 87 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #521
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If there was a surplus then the U.S. Treasury Dept. would show it and they don't. Debt increased every year during the Clinton Administration and that should be the bottom line for anyone. If anyone can show me where the U.S. Treasury Dept showed the debt dropping then I will apologize and accept your statement. Stealing from the SS fund to show a lower deficit is slight of hand and dispicable as you will find out someday when your SS contributions won't be there.
    I already did show you, from your link to the treasury that debt held by the public decreased. Thats it. Discussion is over. A unified budget does not include internal borrowing, and therefore the whole intragovernmental holdings, national debt is an irrelevent point. I know, it sucks, you think it is dispicable, but that is how the budget works. Sorry, some things are true whether you like it or not.

  2. #522
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    I already did show you, from your link to the treasury that debt held by the public decreased. Thats it. Discussion is over. A unified budget does not include internal borrowing, and therefore the whole intragovernmental holdings, national debt is an irrelevent point. I know, it sucks, you think it is dispicable, but that is how the budget works. Sorry, some things are true whether you like it or not.
    Here is all that matters, sorry

    Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

    Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

    Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

  3. #523
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.

    Please review my signature again.


  4. #524
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    YOu seem to be engaging in evasion Pbauer in an effort to justify soaking a group that already pay way too much of the federal income tax share



  5. #525
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.

    Please review my signature again.
    Be my guest, do all the research you want. Interesting that you don't seem to care that the rich paid a greater share of the taxes AFTER the tax cuts and instead now want to get to the individual rich person as if that really matters. 47% of the income earners in this country do not pay any income taxes, where is your outrage? You seem more concerned about getting more out of the upper income groups and the questionis why?

    Individual Tax Statistics

  6. #526
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.

    Please review my signature again.
    This should put to rest the myth about the Bush tax cuts cutting govt. revenue. In this article click on the IRS link to see what the various income earners paid in taxes by year.

    RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases

  7. #527
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Here is all that matters, sorry

    Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

    Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

    Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
    How does the federal government calculate its budget? Using a unified budget. Does the unified budget include intragovernmental borrowing? No. Does the national debt include intragovernmental borrowing? Yes.

  8. #528
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    How does the federal government calculate its budget? Using a unified budget. Does the unified budget include intragovernmental borrowing? No. Does the national debt include intragovernmental borrowing? Yes.
    Exactly and that is all that matters because debt service is part of that budget and every year debt service went up thus no pay down of the debt. Were it not for taking the SS surplus there wouldn't have been a surplus on the budget and anyone that supports taking SS funds to show a surplus don't understand the affects that has on their benefits when they retire. The govt. is going to have to borrow more money to meet those obligations due to very poor management.

  9. #529
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    This should put to rest the myth about the Bush tax cuts cutting govt. revenue. In this article click on the IRS link to see what the various income earners paid in taxes by year.

    RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases

    The Wall Street ponzi schemers, that was let to run wild during the bush presidency generated a lot of taxes before they destroyed the economy didn't they?
    Last edited by Donc; 08-26-10 at 12:37 AM.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  10. #530
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    The Wall Street ponzi schemers, that was let to run wild during the bush presidency generated a lot of taxes before they destroyed the economy didn't they?
    So did the dot com speculators in the 90's and the savings and loans in the 80's. In a couple of years we will be talking about the bubble in US treasuries as the reason why the economy gets whacked. Blaming a president for speculative bubbles is in my view partisan nonsense to avoid talking about the real problems facing our economy.

Page 53 of 87 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... 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
  •