• 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

Sorry, but I posted the revenue per BEA.gov and that shows tax revenue higher in 2004 than 2000 and that isn't 6 years. What is it about liberals that creates this kind of loyalty as well as inability to even read data.

Your right about the tax revenue being heigher in 2004, than it was in 2000 at the bea site.OMB must have a different way of looking at things. :2wave:

While you were perusing the site did you happen to notice “Line 27”? “Net government savings”, Thats’ the title. An interesting thing on that line caught my attention. In year 2000, the year before part one of the bush tax-cuts kicked in, we had positive savings of, in billions,$226.5.

In 2001 it dwindled to a savings of $ 24.6, 2002,still on the positive side though.

In 2002 we went to a negative number for the first time. $ -306.9… Whoo Doggies, the bush tax-cuts clicked in big time.:shock: 2003=$-415.2. In an attempt not to be out done 2004 brought us,$-387.8.

By the way while all of this was going on, line #2(Titled Current tax receipts) read 2000=$ 2,202.8 2001=$ 2,163.7,..2002=$ 2,002.1 …2003=$ 2,047.9 …2004, a minuscule climb up to a whopping.=$ 2,213.2,our debt went from a positive $ 226.5 to a negative of $-387.8.

Only to winger-land is this stroll down the rabbit hole looked upon as a good thing.:(


http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ar=2004&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
 
Your right about the tax revenue being heigher in 2004, than it was in 2000 at the bea site.OMB must have a different way of looking at things. :2wave:

While you were perusing the site did you happen to notice “Line 27”? “Net government savings”, Thats’ the title. An interesting thing on that line caught my attention. In year 2000, the year before part one of the bush tax-cuts kicked in, we had positive savings of, in billions,$226.5.

In 2001 it dwindled to a savings of $ 24.6, 2002,still on the positive side though.

In 2002 we went to a negative number for the first time. $ -306.9… Whoo Doggies, the bush tax-cuts clicked in big time.:shock: 2003=$-415.2. In an attempt not to be out done 2004 brought us,$-387.8.

By the way while all of this was going on, line #2(Titled Current tax receipts) read 2000=$ 2,202.8 2001=$ 2,163.7,..2002=$ 2,002.1 …2003=$ 2,047.9 …2004, a minuscule climb up to a whopping.=$ 2,213.2,our debt went from a positive $ 226.5 to a negative of $-387.8.

Only to winger-land is this stroll down the rabbit hole looked upon as a good thing.:(


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

What you and far too many don't seem to understand is that the fiscal year of the United States thus the budget period runs from October to September. The Bush tax cuts were in two stages with the first rebate checks being destributed by the end of September 2001, the last month of fiscal year 2001. Lost revenue in 2001 was due mostly to the recession that Bush inherited. The real tax cuts went into effect in July 2003 or almost the end of fiscal year 2003
 
Your right about the tax revenue being heigher in 2004, than it was in 2000 at the bea site.OMB must have a different way of looking at things. :2wave:

While you were perusing the site did you happen to notice “Line 27”? “Net government savings”, Thats’ the title. An interesting thing on that line caught my attention. In year 2000, the year before part one of the bush tax-cuts kicked in, we had positive savings of, in billions,$226.5.

In 2001 it dwindled to a savings of $ 24.6, 2002,still on the positive side though.

In 2002 we went to a negative number for the first time. $ -306.9… Whoo Doggies, the bush tax-cuts clicked in big time.:shock: 2003=$-415.2. In an attempt not to be out done 2004 brought us,$-387.8.

By the way while all of this was going on, line #2(Titled Current tax receipts) read 2000=$ 2,202.8 2001=$ 2,163.7,..2002=$ 2,002.1 …2003=$ 2,047.9 …2004, a minuscule climb up to a whopping.=$ 2,213.2,our debt went from a positive $ 226.5 to a negative of $-387.8.

Only to winger-land is this stroll down the rabbit hole looked upon as a good thing.:(


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Do you know what line #28 'Social Insurance fund' and #29 'Other' is? I looked but didn't find any reference.
 
QUOTE Conservative

What you and far too many don't seem to understand is that the fiscal year of the United States thus the budget period runs from October to September. The Bush tax cuts were in two stages with the first rebate checks being destributed by the end of September 2001, the last month of fiscal year 2001.

Yep,and in 2002 we went to a negative number from a positive number. $ -306.9 "



Lost revenue in 2001 was due mostly to the recession that Bush inherited. The real tax cuts went into effect in July 2003 or almost the end of fiscal year 2003


and in 2004 we had a negative of $-387.8.

HMmm… in four years, bush went from a positive + $226.5, in billions, to a negative a negative $-387.8. According to my Bill Gates calculator that spread is about $614 Billion.If i felt like it i would go into BLS and check how it looked from October, to October.

It seems to me that the BLS site would have fiscal year postings instead of January to January.Gotta get with Obvious Child and check that one out.He keeps up on that stuff.But I,m sure if it were less than i posted you would be the first to let me know about it.SO I think I,ll go with the numbers I posted.
:2wave:


 
Here is what you said and my post refutes that




What I am waiting for some liberal to do is explain why tax revenue grew AFTER the Tax cuts were fully implemented?

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Do your part and send your tax cuts back out of each paycheck since you believe the govt. needs the money more than you do?

From 2000 to 2006, GDP rose from 34% from $9.8T to $13.3T, while individual income taxes rose 4% from $1T to $1.04T (though total income tax receipts, corporate and individual rose 15% from $1.2T to $1.4T.) That said, in the interim period, while GDP rose year over year, income tax revenue fell 20%. Why, the Bush tax cuts were just a tax cut; a government give away. The Bush tax cuts cost Americans at least $1T over the last decade. Combine that with two unfunded wars with a direct cost in excess of $1T and an indirect cost of $3T and an unfunded programs including Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind and you have yourself arguably the most fiscally irresponsible presidency and congress in US history. You honestly think we should give these fools another chance? They won't even own up to the mess they created. Sorry, but you are the one that has bought the FOX News rhetoric.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

BTW... the burden of proof of substantiating the Bush tax cuts as having any positive effect on the economy remains on you, as you are asserting something that is against conventional wisdom.
 

Attachments

  • Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
From 2000 to 2006, GDP rose from 34% from $9.8T to $13.3T, while individual income taxes rose 4% from $1T to $1.04T (though total income tax receipts, corporate and individual rose 15% from $1.2T to $1.4T.) That said, in the interim period, while GDP rose year over year, income tax revenue fell 20%. Why, the Bush tax cuts were just a tax cut; a government give away. The Bush tax cuts cost Americans at least $1T over the last decade. Combine that with two unfunded wars with a direct cost in excess of $1T and an indirect cost of $3T and an unfunded programs including Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind and you have yourself arguably the most fiscally irresponsible presidency and congress in US history. You honestly think we should give these fools another chance? They won't even own up to the mess they created. Sorry, but you are the one that has bought the FOX News rhetoric.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

BTW... the burden of proof of substantiating the Bush tax cuts as having any positive effect on the economy remains on you, as you are asserting something that is against conventional wisdom.
I'd say that its continual renewal is the proof. If it wasn't having the desired effect, it wouldn't get renewed. That's one thing you can count on with a tax cut.
 
Back
Top Bottom