• 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!

Every Leftist Voted Against Pro-Growth Middle Class Tax Cut [W:139]

code1211 said:
I'm not talented or experienced enough to understand the relative comparison of projected growth to the actual growth.

I can only figure the standard based on the actual of the year before the change was implemented to the years afterward.

IF the current rate of collection is is stated for 2004, then any increase is the difference between the 2004 total and the totals for any particular year that follows.

The opposition to the current tax reform is that the increase in collections across 10 years will not amount to 1.5 Trillion across ten years. 1.5 Trillion is said to be the amount that the cuts in taxes will reduce the receipts over 10 years.

In order to calculate this, accumulating the increases of each year compared to come sort of baseline seems like the only way to proceed.

If I collect one dollar in 2004, 2 dollars in 2005 and 3 dollars in 2006, the increase of 2006 compared to the 2004 baseline is 2 dollars. Comparing the 2006 increase to the 2005 level decreases the impact to the baseline by a dollar.

The increase of the two years following 2004 in this example is a total of 3 dollars. Comparing the outcome of the three years using your method loses one of the increased dollars and shows an increase of only 2 dollars.
Click to expand...

Using $1, $2, and $3 confuses the issue because the revenue for 2004, and the increase from 2004-2005 are the same number.

Let's say that in 2004, $8 was collected, then $11 in 2005, and $15 in 2006.
The increase in the 2nd year over the first was $3, and the increase in the 3rd year over the first was $7. To say that the total increase was $10 increase is incorrect, because as you can see, it was only $7 ($15 - $8 = $7). The $3 increase in the first year is already included in the 2nd year's increase.

Your method for computing "increases" reminds me a lot of the $2 problem ...

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.missing.dollar.html

Another problem with comparing the increases to a particular year (say, 2004) is our inability (as laymen) to determine what the increases would have been without whatever change is being debated. Which I think is what you meant in your first statement about projected growth.
 
code1211 said:
Regarding the words highlighted in red, no, that's not what I did.

I added the increases of each succeeding year taken alone compared to the level of 2004. So the level of 2005 minus 2004 plus 2006 minus 2004 and so on.

Each year is compared alone to the year of 2004 and the respective differences are then totaled.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said, but in a different way.

"...the increase from 2004-2007 and adding it to the increase from 2004-2008". What I didn't type were the other steps where you also add the increase from 2004-2006, and the increase from 2004-2005.

With regard to the Trump Bump, the Stock Market is nothing more or less than investors "betting" on whether or not the value of any particular stock will increase or decrease.

Because, as you say, an election is not a structural change, we are left with the conclusion that the election increased the amount of hope that investors hold regarding particular stocks increasing in value.

I have posted here before that the valuation of the stock market is nothing more than a measure of the hope of investors.

That valuation has increased following two discreet events: One: Paul Krugman predicted that the Stock market would Crash if Trump was elected and Two: Trump was elected.

One or the other of these non-structural events has caused the unprecedented increase in Stock Valuations.

Of course, add to these non-structural events the ongoing structural events of the elimination of 22 regulations for every regulation implemented over the last 11 or so months.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you're right. But I'm not going to hold my breath until we see some actual changes.
 
bluesmoke said:
Au contraire. I count 2001 as being Obama’s responsibility because he set the budget for that year. I do that for every president. The only economic policy enactment I know of by Bush2 that was effective in 2001 was the $300 to $600 paid to everyone filing their taxes in 2001 for 2000 as a result of the 2001 Bush2 tax plan. By the same token, the responsibility for the 2001 recession goes to Clinton. I don’t even understand how you can say that the data I show has “…no relation to the effect of any moves made by Bush within his term.” Not only would the effect of Bush2 policies be in the data of the time period I showed, it would show up in years to come.

We’re talking about different methodologies. As you said, that's okay.
Click to expand...

Bush had two rounds of tax cuts.

The second round was passed in may,2003. The Federal Receipts for 2004 were 1880.1 Billion.

In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federal Receipts were more than 500 billion higher than 2004. 2005 receipts were only about 273 billion up perhaps due to there only being a half year of impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
<snip>
The phrase Bush tax cuts refers to changes to the United States tax code passed originally during the presidency of George W. Bush and extended during the presidency of Barack Obama, through:

<snip>

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary
 
code1211 said:
Bush had two rounds of tax cuts.

The second round was passed in may,2003. The Federal Receipts for 2004 were 1880.1 Billion.

In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federal Receipts were more than 500 billion higher than 2004. 2005 receipts were only about 273 billion up perhaps due to there only being a half year of impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
<snip>
The phrase Bush tax cuts refers to changes to the United States tax code passed originally during the presidency of George W. Bush and extended during the presidency of Barack Obama, through:

<snip>

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary
Click to expand...



“In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federal Receipts were more than 500 billion higher than 2004. 2005 receipts were only about 273 billion up perhaps due to there only being a half year of impact.”

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I think you’re saying that receipts were 500 billion higher in 2007 than 2004 (actually $687.9B). What is your point? The “only half year of impact” you mention was strengthened by acceleration enactment of provisions of the 2001 act much sooner than what was planned to be over a nine-year period of time. As given in the link you referenced, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the Bush2 tax cuts did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury, as I’ve already mentioned. BTW, also in the link is the Heritage Foundation prediction the 2001 cuts alone would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.

Impact of Bush2 tax cuts:

https://www.thebalance.com/economic-growth-and-tax-relief-reconciliation-act-3305764

Info on the Bush2 era tax cuts resulting in $1,918.9 billion in lower revenue from FY2001 through FY2009:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-role-of-bush-tax-cuts-in-the-deficit/

Obama was against extending the Bush2 tax cuts. He remedied the acts’ favorability of the rich and corps with the 2012 tax act. Obama’s American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 kept the lower rate of much of the Bush2 tax cuts, while retaining the higher tax rate at upper income levels that became effective on January 1 as a result of the expiration of the Bush2 tax cuts. The Act also established caps on tax deductions and credits for those at upper income levels. It was enacted January 2, 2013, so it was effective for the tax year 2012.

Going into the gory details does not change the fact, as I said, that during Obama’s eight fiscal years of his presidency vs. Bush2’s eight FY’s, revenues went up 53.2% ($3.31T/$2.16T) under Obama vs. 29% ($2.16T/$1.99T) under Bush2. If you want to put Bush2 in the most favorable light by taking off his worst two years, being those years most impacted by the Great Recession, Obama still does considerably better.
 
Moderate Right said:
But the left argues that the bills don't have to paid, ever. The debt never has to paid. We can continue just adding to it forever.
Click to expand...

No, the left does not argue the bills never have to be paid just that it is okay to have debt. It would be impossible to ever repay all of the government debt due to interest.

Liberals just recognize the conservatives for what they are when they start screaming about the debt: Chicken Littles.

Funny how the conservatives only scream about it when liberals are in power and have no problem increasing it on behalf of the war-profiteers.
 
Critter7r said:
Which is exactly what I said, but in a different way.

"...the increase from 2004-2007 and adding it to the increase from 2004-2008". What I didn't type were the other steps where you also add the increase from 2004-2006, and the increase from 2004-2005.



I certainly hope you're right. But I'm not going to hold my breath until we see some actual changes.
Click to expand...

With a little luck there's not a new financial melt down in the near future.

If there isn't, the new tax program seems to be bearing fruit for a variety of folks.

I've heard there are several very large companies benefitting from the tax initiatives giving bonuses, benefits enhancements, increased 401 K matching and wage rate hike to their employees.

These are all some pretty immediate trickles flooding down. Should add to the consumer confidence hovering around in some pretty lofty areas right now.

I'm with you, though. I like to count the chicks after they hatch. Right now, we only have tea leaves to read.
 
bluesmoke said:
“In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Federal Receipts were more than 500 billion higher than 2004. 2005 receipts were only about 273 billion up perhaps due to there only being a half year of impact.”

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I think you’re saying that receipts were 500 billion higher in 2007 than 2004 (actually $687.9B). What is your point? The “only half year of impact” you mention was strengthened by acceleration enactment of provisions of the 2001 act much sooner than what was planned to be over a nine-year period of time. As given in the link you referenced, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the Bush2 tax cuts did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury, as I’ve already mentioned. BTW, also in the link is the Heritage Foundation prediction the 2001 cuts alone would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.

Impact of Bush2 tax cuts:

https://www.thebalance.com/economic-growth-and-tax-relief-reconciliation-act-3305764

Info on the Bush2 era tax cuts resulting in $1,918.9 billion in lower revenue from FY2001 through FY2009:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-role-of-bush-tax-cuts-in-the-deficit/

Obama was against extending the Bush2 tax cuts. He remedied the acts’ favorability of the rich and corps with the 2012 tax act. Obama’s American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 kept the lower rate of much of the Bush2 tax cuts, while retaining the higher tax rate at upper income levels that became effective on January 1 as a result of the expiration of the Bush2 tax cuts. The Act also established caps on tax deductions and credits for those at upper income levels. It was enacted January 2, 2013, so it was effective for the tax year 2012.

Going into the gory details does not change the fact, as I said, that during Obama’s eight fiscal years of his presidency vs. Bush2’s eight FY’s, revenues went up 53.2% ($3.31T/$2.16T) under Obama vs. 29% ($2.16T/$1.99T) under Bush2. If you want to put Bush2 in the most favorable light by taking off his worst two years, being those years most impacted by the Great Recession, Obama still does considerably better.
Click to expand...

By extending the consideration to include the period after the Financial meltdown in 2007, you include factors that are not a part of the impact from the tax cuts.

The Financial Melt Down was the result of decades of governmental and administrative malpractice by all members, users and beneficiaries of the political, business, legal and financial communities. In other words, everybody.

The drop off in Federal Revenue in 2009 as a result of the Meltdown was over $400 Billion. The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.

YOU are gripped by comparing one president to another. I couldn't care any less than I do about that. I freely concede that Bush and Obama were the two worst presidents in the history of the Republic.

Comparing the relative superiority of one over the other in this pair is comparing manure to cow pies. I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
With a little luck there's not a new financial melt down in the near future.

If there isn't, the new tax program seems to be bearing fruit for a variety of folks.

I've heard there are several very large companies benefitting from the tax initiatives giving bonuses, benefits enhancements, increased 401 K matching and wage rate hike to their employees.

These are all some pretty immediate trickles flooding down. Should add to the consumer confidence hovering around in some pretty lofty areas right now.

I'm with you, though. I like to count the chicks after they hatch. Right now, we only have tea leaves to read.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Someone on my FB feed was touting some list of over 100 companies that was either giving a bonus, or a raise, or some employee benefit and claiming the tax cut as the reason for it. And that's all well and good, but I had to point out that there are over 8,000 Large Businesses (those that employ over 500 people) and nearly 30 MILLION small businesses in the US. So those 100-ish companies' employee receiving benefits from the tax cuts is a great start, but that's all it is, is a *start*.
 
Critter7r said:
Agreed.

Someone on my FB feed was touting some list of over 100 companies that was either giving a bonus, or a raise, or some employee benefit and claiming the tax cut as the reason for it. And that's all well and good, but I had to point out that there are over 8,000 Large Businesses (those that employ over 500 people) and nearly 30 MILLION small businesses in the US. So those 100-ish companies' employee receiving benefits from the tax cuts is a great start, but that's all it is, is a *start*.
Click to expand...

In my company, the Big Guy has authorized a bonus program based on performance.

Not exactly like the rest of the examples and this certainly won't get any press, but it's another example to add to the 130 or so companies to date.
 
code1211 said:
By extending the consideration to include the period after the Financial meltdown in 2007, you include factors that are not a part of the impact from the tax cuts.

The Financial Melt Down was the result of decades of governmental and administrative malpractice by all members, users and beneficiaries of the political, business, legal and financial communities. In other words, everybody.

The drop off in Federal Revenue in 2009 as a result of the Meltdown was over $400 Billion. The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.

YOU are gripped by comparing one president to another. I couldn't care any less than I do about that. I freely concede that Bush and Obama were the two worst presidents in the history of the Republic.

Comparing the relative superiority of one over the other in this pair is comparing manure to cow pies. I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center
Click to expand...


“By extending the consideration to include the period after the Financial meltdown in 2007, you include factors that are not a part of the impact from the tax cuts.”

The Bush2 tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 had a life that lasted until 2012, so their impact was in fact within the period of my consideration. Obama extended the cuts in 2010 then installed his own plan in 2012.

“The Financial Melt Down was the result of decades of governmental and administrative malpractice”

Indeed it is. Even within with each presidential term there is so much more than just the President that makes a difference. However, in this life, we blame it on who had it last. That’s the reality. Who’s watch it happened on takes the responsibility of the consequence or the credit. Who made it worse or better or whatever compared to who or whatever (I’ve already pointed out what Clinton and Phil Gramm did with deregulating the financial industry to help set-up the Great Recession). Otherwise, all we’d need to is just repeat the same thing you said and excuse every president and what they do as being relatively inconsequential in the grand and historical scheme of things.

“YOU are gripped by comparing one president to another.”

Allow me to clarify. The context is measuring the performance of Obama and comparing him to Bush2 and other presidents. Please go back and read the posting between myself and Neomalthusian. Comparing presidents IS the context.

“The drop off in Federal Revenue in 2009 as a result of the Meltdown was over $400 Billion. The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.”

I agree. I’m also saying the Bush2 tax cuts just made it worse. They were too late to make any timely impact, which would have been a negative impact anyway because the return was less than the dollar cut in revenue.

“I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.”

As did I. The impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was downward while the impact of the 2012 plan that extended the middle-class tax cuts but returned the higher income and corp tax rate to the previous higher rates as were before the Bush2 cuts.
 
bluesmoke said:
“By extending the consideration to include the period after the Financial meltdown in 2007, you include factors that are not a part of the impact from the tax cuts.”

The Bush2 tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 had a life that lasted until 2012, so their impact was in fact within the period of my consideration. Obama extended the cuts in 2010 then installed his own plan in 2012.

“The Financial Melt Down was the result of decades of governmental and administrative malpractice”

Indeed it is. Even within with each presidential term there is so much more than just the President that makes a difference. However, in this life, we blame it on who had it last. That’s the reality. Who’s watch it happened on takes the responsibility of the consequence or the credit. Who made it worse or better or whatever compared to who or whatever (I’ve already pointed out what Clinton and Phil Gramm did with deregulating the financial industry to help set-up the Great Recession). Otherwise, all we’d need to is just repeat the same thing you said and excuse every president and what they do as being relatively inconsequential in the grand and historical scheme of things.

“YOU are gripped by comparing one president to another.”

Allow me to clarify. The context is measuring the performance of Obama and comparing him to Bush2 and other presidents. Please go back and read the posting between myself and Neomalthusian. Comparing presidents IS the context.

“The drop off in Federal Revenue in 2009 as a result of the Meltdown was over $400 Billion. The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.”

I agree. I’m also saying the Bush2 tax cuts just made it worse. They were too late to make any timely impact, which would have been a negative impact anyway because the return was less than the dollar cut in revenue.

“I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.”

As did I. The impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was downward while the impact of the 2012 plan that extended the middle-class tax cuts but returned the higher income and corp tax rate to the previous higher rates as were before the Bush2 cuts.
Click to expand...

You're hopeless. You are a blindly partisan ideologue incapable of freeing yourself from your partisan ideologies.

I have no idea WHY it is so important for you to divide history according to who is the president when.

WW2 started when FDR was in office. Was that his fault or did he just happen to be there when it happened? How about the moon landing or the discovery of Radium or the invention of the polio vaccine or the Boxer Rebellion?

When you are able to view the world as it is and not as an arbitrary 8 year segmentation of events, I'll be glad to discuss stuff with you.

As you are, you are blind to reality.
 
code1211 said:
You're hopeless. You are a blindly partisan ideologue incapable of freeing yourself from your partisan ideologies.

I have no idea WHY it is so important for you to divide history according to who is the president when.

WW2 started when FDR was in office. Was that his fault or did he just happen to be there when it happened? How about the moon landing or the discovery of Radium or the invention of the polio vaccine or the Boxer Rebellion?

When you are able to view the world as it is and not as an arbitrary 8 year segmentation of events, I'll be glad to discuss stuff with you.

As you are, you are blind to reality.
Click to expand...



You either did not read my post or fail to comprehend. I agreed with you as to what happens is much the result of “of governmental and administrative malpractice” when in response to that statement of yours I said, “Indeed it is”. Did you catch that? In addition to that, when you said: “The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.” I said, “I agree”. Furthermore, when you said, “I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.” I said that I did the same thing, which also confirms that you believe presidents do have a considerable impact on the economy whereas you at least seem to imply otherwise.

I also gave you the context of presidential comparison as to why such was being done. By the way, presidents do have an impact on the machinations of what impacts the economy although what happens may be decades in the making. Presidents are a big part of the whole shebang, though the multitude of parts adds up to much more, including during any presidential term.

You simply refuse to acknowledge what I post that is actually in agreement with what you say. It is quite valid to compare one president against another or others. That is quite normal, common and a valid way of comparing the positive and negative impacts of various president’s economic plans implemented. If you think they have zero or negligible impact, you’re wrong. By my practically agreeing with what you say, but for your ad hominem, your refusing to recognize what I am saying in the context of the English language, you are doing nothing but trolling.
 
bluesmoke said:
You either did not read my post or fail to comprehend. I agreed with you as to what happens is much the result of “of governmental and administrative malpractice” when in response to that statement of yours I said, “Indeed it is”. Did you catch that? In addition to that, when you said: “The Meltdown would have occurred with or without the tax cuts.” I said, “I agree”. Furthermore, when you said, “I am only trying to assess the impact of tax cuts on the increase or decrease of revenues.” I said that I did the same thing, which also confirms that you believe presidents do have a considerable impact on the economy whereas you at least seem to imply otherwise.

I also gave you the context of presidential comparison as to why such was being done. By the way, presidents do have an impact on the machinations of what impacts the economy although what happens may be decades in the making. Presidents are a big part of the whole shebang, though the multitude of parts adds up to much more, including during any presidential term.

You simply refuse to acknowledge what I post that is actually in agreement with what you say. It is quite valid to compare one president against another or others. That is quite normal, common and a valid way of comparing the positive and negative impacts of various president’s economic plans implemented. If you think they have zero or negligible impact, you’re wrong. By my practically agreeing with what you say, but for your ad hominem, your refusing to recognize what I am saying in the context of the English language, you are doing nothing but trolling.
Click to expand...

I read your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom