• 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!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
The problem for liberals is that the tax rate cuts saw an increase in revenue after fully implemented and liberals cannot explain it. Liberals always ignore human behavior and the benefit to the taxpayer and the economy from those tax cuts. I see no valid point in discussing lost revenue that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

The problem for conservatives is that even conservative economists now admit that tax cuts reduce revenue, as they did under Bush. In his case the results were masked to some degree by the real estate bubble, but we've seen how that turned out.
 
AdamT said:
The problem for conservatives is that even conservative economists now admit that tax cuts reduce revenue, as they did under Bush. In his case the results were masked to some degree by the real estate bubble, but we've seen how that turned out.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for any economist to refute the Treasury data showing FIT revenue after the tax cuts were fully implemented. You seem to have a problem understanding the numbers again so here they are

Federal Income Tax revenue by year from the Checkbook of the United States

Bush tax cuts fulling implemented after July 2003
Reagan tax cuts fulling implemented after 1983

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

1980 298.9
1981 345.2
1982 354.1
1983 352.3
1984 377.4
1985 417.3
1986 437.2
1987 489.1
1988 504.9
1989 566.1
 
Conservative said:
I am waiting for any economist to refute the Treasury data showing FIT revenue after the tax cuts were fully implemented. You seem to have a problem understanding the numbers again so here they are

Federal Income Tax revenue by year from the Checkbook of the United States

Bush tax cuts fulling implemented after July 2003
Reagan tax cuts fulling implemented after 1983

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

1980 298.9
1981 345.2
1982 354.1
1983 352.3
1984 377.4
1985 417.3
1986 437.2
1987 489.1
1988 504.9
1989 566.1
Click to expand...

What is that you need explained, exactly? Your own numbers show revenue falling after Bush's tax cuts. Without the tax cuts revenue would have risen, as it always does when the economy is not in recession ... absent tax cuts. Accordingly, even if tax revenue starts rising again two or three years later, you have lost two or three years of revenue growth that you will never get back. And, as noted above, the revenue rise in '05 - '07 was propelled by the real estate bubble, which, as we know, was an illusion.
 
AdamT said:
What is that you need explained, exactly? Your own numbers show revenue falling after Bush's tax cuts. Without the tax cuts revenue would have risen, as it always does when the economy is not in recession ... absent tax cuts. Accordingly, even if tax revenue starts rising again two or three years later, you have lost two or three years of revenue growth that you will never get back. And, as noted above, the revenue rise in '05 - '07 was propelled by the real estate bubble, which, as we know, was an illusion.
Click to expand...

Yet you ignore what was posted, the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented after 2003 and as you continue to show you haven't a clue that the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to September. Bush's first tax cut was passed in June 2003 and it took four months to implement. It was a downpayment and then accellerated in 2003. Unbelievable how people like you have such a problem with keeping more of your own money. In spite of more taxpayers keeping more of what they earn and thus needing less govt. help, liberals have to continue their social engineering and massively grow the size of govt.

Noticed how we have a real estate bubble but never a dot.com bubble. Amazing how Bush and Reagan are evil because they gave a benefit to the taxpayer but Obama is good because he grew govt. and expanded the nanny state. Says a lot about liberalism and why Obama has a 39% JAR. Do you want congratulations for supporting someone who generated these numbers?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ 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!
 
Conservative said:
Yet you ignore what was posted, the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented after 2003 and as you continue to show you haven't a clue that the fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to September. Bush's first tax cut was passed in June 2003 and it took four months to implement. It was a downpayment and then accellerated in 2003. Unbelievable how people like you have such a problem with keeping more of your own money. In spite of more taxpayers keeping more of what they earn and thus needing less govt. help, liberals have to continue their social engineering and massively grow the size of govt.

Noticed how we have a real estate bubble but never a dot.com bubble. Amazing how Bush and Reagan are evil because they gave a benefit to the taxpayer but Obama is good because he grew govt. and expanded the nanny state. Says a lot about liberalism and why Obama has a 39% JAR. Do you want congratulations for supporting someone who generated these numbers?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ 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!
Click to expand...

Again, either your memory or your integrity is seriously flawed. Bush's first tax cut was in 2001 -- not 2003. The CBPP, the CBO, and Treasury Department have all said that the tax cuts did not pay for themselves. Bush's top economic advisor does not claim that the tax cuts paid for themselves. Arthur Laffer, the economist lauded by supply siders, never said that the Reagan tax cuts would pay for themselves. David Stockman, Reagan's economic advisor, says that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Alan Greenspan has said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In short, there is no credible economist who maintains that tax cuts have or will pay for themselves.

Take off the wingnut goggles.
 
AdamT said:
Again, either your memory or your integrity is seriously flawed. Bush's first tax cut was in 2001 -- not 2003. The CBPP, the CBO, and Treasury Department have all said that the tax cuts did not pay for themselves. Bush's top economic advisor does not claim that the tax cuts paid for themselves. Arthur Laffer, the economist lauded by supply siders, never said that the Reagan tax cuts would pay for themselves. David Stockman, Reagan's economic advisor, says that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Alan Greenspan has said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In short, there is no credible economist who maintains that tax cuts have or will pay for themselves.

Take off the wingnut goggles.
Click to expand...

Yes, June 2001 but took four months to be implemented which put it at the end of fiscal year 2001 which was Sept. You don't seem to grasp that reality. Tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves as they aren't an expense. Amazing that liberals spout that lie all the time. You keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt no matter how many times you claim it.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, June 2001 but took four months to be implemented which put it at the end of fiscal year 2001 which was Sept. You don't seem to grasp that reality. Tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves as they aren't an expense. Amazing that liberals spout that lie all the time. You keeping more of what you earn isn't an expense to the govt no matter how many times you claim it.
Click to expand...

You always seem to fall back on pointless word games. Tax cuts lower revenue and thus increase deficits.
 
AdamT said:
You always seem to fall back on pointless word games. Tax cuts lower revenue and thus increase deficits.
Click to expand...

As does increased spending and raising the debt ceiling - allowing politicians to spend more money. So we're right back to where we started. :shrug:
 
AdamT said:
You always seem to fall back on pointless word games. Tax cuts lower revenue and thus increase deficits.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, we need to send more money to D.C. and let them then send us back what they think we need for our lives. I love liberalism, no personal responsibility
 
Ockham said:
As does increased spending and raising the debt ceiling - allowing politicians to spend more money. So we're right back to where we started. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Raising the debt ceiling does not increase the deficit when you are borrowing to pay for already-committed spending. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would send the deficit into a death spiral, however.
 
Conservative said:
I totally agree, we need to send more money to D.C. and let them then send us back what they think we need for our lives. I love liberalism, no personal responsibility
Click to expand...

... and if pointless word games don't work just fall back on brainless republican talking points.
 
AdamT said:
... and if pointless word games don't work just fall back on brainless republican talking points.
Click to expand...

We definitely have to find a way to get Bush out of the WH for I hate seeing Obama get the blame for the following numbers knowing that they really are Bush's numbers

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ 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!
 
AdamT said:
Raising the debt ceiling does not increase the deficit when you are borrowing to pay for already-committed spending. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would send the deficit into a death spiral, however.
Click to expand...

Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to borrow and spend, to increase the total amount of debt incurred. Are you claiming that our politicians - ALL of them - are not spending money we do not have? The only reason to increase the debt ceiling is to incur more debt.
 
Ockham said:
Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to borrow and spend, to increase the total amount of debt incurred. Are you claiming that our politicians - ALL of them - are not spending money we do not have? The only reason to increase the debt ceiling is to incur more debt.
Click to expand...

Has the debt ceiling ever stopped them from doing otherwise?
 
j-mac said:
Demo's controlled the purse for four years unobstructed, that is evidenced by their forcing through such social spending programs as the Health Care law, and the Stimulus. But you want us to believe that they were powerless to stop the wars that in 10 years didn't cost as much as Obama, and demo spending hikes of one year?

Listen, it is simple. When you have a monetary shortfall in your house, but you wanted to spend on some things like say, a new car, or some new power equipment, do you do it anyway? Do you spend without the money to buy it? My guess is no, and that is what we are asking our government to do now....Reign it in.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Can you show any evidence that when republicans were in charge that they controlled spending? I think both spent. Do you disagree?
 
Boo Radley said:
Can you show any evidence that when republicans were in charge that they controlled spending? I think both spent. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Looks like we are going to find out in 2012 as 39% JAR isn't going to get him re-elected and don't expect it to get much better as there still isn't an Obama economic plan
 
Conservative said:
Looks like we are going to find out in 2012 as 39% JAR isn't going to get him re-elected and don't expect it to get much better as there still isn't an Obama economic plan
Click to expand...

We don't have to wait,we can look at history. Any honest look willshow you republicans spend.
 
Boo Radley said:
We don't have to wait,we can look at history. Any honest look willshow you republicans spend.
Click to expand...

Yet Ryan proposed a budget with a lot less spending, actual cuts and the Senate defeated it. Republicans passed cut, cap, and balance and Democrats tabled it and Obama threatened to veto it. Sounds to me like new Republicans
 
Conservative said:
Yet Ryan proposed a budget with a lot less spending, actual cuts and the Senate defeated it. Republicans passed cut, cap, and balance and Democrats tabled it and Obama threatened to veto it. Sounds to me like new Republicans
Click to expand...

Ryan knew it had no chance of ever passing. let's look at what they proposed when they could pass something. Care to bet they never even proposed something like that when in power? ;) :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Ryan knew it had no chance of ever passing. let's look at what they proposed when they could pass something. Care to bet they never even proposed something like that when in power? ;) :lamo
Click to expand...

I posted what the GOP proposed but didn't have the power to implement anything and that is the point.

Here are the budgets for 2010-2009-2008

Total

2010 Budget 3650.6

2009 Budget 3615.6

2008 Budget 3063.9
 
Conservative said:
I posted what the GOP proposed but didn't have the power to implement anything and that is the point.

Here are the budgets for 2010-2009-2008

Total

2010 Budget 3650.6

2009 Budget 3615.6

2008 Budget 3063.9
Click to expand...

How much of the wars are reflected in thsoe budgets? Are you really arguing republicnas don't spend? :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
How much of the wars are reflected in thsoe budgets? Are you really arguing republicnas don't spend? :lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Since Budgets are yearly they care included in the defense budgets. Iraq is winding down but Obama ramped up Afghanistan. Seems that many liberals don't seem to understand budgets and deficits vs debt
 
Conservative said:
Yet Ryan proposed a budget with a lot less spending, actual cuts and the Senate defeated it. Republicans passed cut, cap, and balance and Democrats tabled it and Obama threatened to veto it. Sounds to me like new Republicans
Click to expand...
Baloney, today Medicare is a single payer system in which the government pays only when a senior uses it. Under Ryan's plan every senior would get a voucher whether they need it or not. They would be required to buy health insurance whether they want it or not if they expect to get any healthcare in the future. The cost's would rise astronomically for seniors. Bad plan all around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom