The NUMBERS ARE INDISPUTABLE -- from $1.7 trillion to $2.6 trillion.

THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS -- I didn't make them up, nor did anyone else.

You might not like THE FACT that revenues increased that much after the tax cuts, and some others might not like it either because it doesn't fit their argument, BUT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS.

Please quit distorting the truth about the FACT that tax revenues increased after the Bush "tax cuts".

QuakerOats;1273629 wrote:The NUMBERS ARE INDISPUTABLE -- from $1.7 trillion to $2.6 trillion.

THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS -- I didn't make them up, nor did anyone else.

You might not like THE FACT that revenues increased that much after the tax cuts, and some others might not like it either because it doesn't fit their argument, BUT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS.

Please quit distorting the truth about the FACT that tax revenues increased after the Bush "tax cuts".

:laugh: I understand that it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the best economic minds in your own party would call you a crank.

gosh a ruddies Reagan became president and he nearly triples the national debt, georgie jr doubles it. gosh a ruddies the biggest increase for a year was under bush not obama
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

jmog;1273004 wrote:Sure, I can compromise, eliminate negative tax liabilities and you can raise corporate taxes. Sound good Boat?

Well I think you're missing the point. The general point is that I'm not sure that the maxim "people should not get more from the government than they paid in regardless of circumstance" would be a good maxim for creating policy.

For instance, many medicare beneficiaries get more from the government than what they paid in but it has allowed seniors to live dignified and decent lives in retirement whereas previously a great many seniors were impoverished.

Earned Income Tax Credits also, despite creating negative tax liability, actually encourage teh m00cher class in our society that Mitt Romney apparently disdaisn to go and take that job as a gas station clerk and contribute to economic growth rather than rely on the local church's food bank or something.

etc. etc.

In fact in most cases, it's not a year-to-year occurrence and it may be ok for folks to get a negative tax liability in a down year.

But, if I had to guess, you're probably in the belief that one of the "huge drains" on our society is teh moocher underclass getting negative tax liabilities and loves teh gubmint hand outs on teh m0dern day plantation and that's the real reason negative tax liabilities should be repudiated.

And, are we going to start capping all other types of things at zero? Should my water shut off if I've used more than my taxes warrant? Should I only get so many hours in the public park?

(libertarians have answers for these questions I understand because there'd be no taxation and there'd be fees etc...I get it...I'm just not sure it's workable in a taxation type system with public goods).

BoatShoes;1273679 wrote:
:laugh: I understand that it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the best economic minds in your own party would call you a crank.

So you hide behind the opinions of a few others rather than examine the numbers and understand simple math. Is that what we are now down to? How pathetic that you resort to deflecting the conversation to what others think, as opposed to discussing the factual increase in revenues from $1.7 trillion to $2.6 trillion after the Bush tax cuts. Can you not stay on focus and draw your own conclusion from these actual numbers? Do you have to rely on others to convince you that even though we truly increased revenues by 900 billion, that somehow, we really didn't.

You are so blind to the facts it is sad.

QuakerOats;1274056 wrote:So you hide behind the opinions of a few others rather than examine the numbers and understand simple math. Is that what we are now down to? How pathetic that you resort to deflecting the conversation to what others think, as opposed to discussing the factual increase in revenues from $1.7 trillion to $2.6 trillion after the Bush tax cuts. Can you not stay on focus and draw your own conclusion from these actual numbers? Do you have to rely on others to convince you that even though we truly increased revenues by 900 billion, that somehow, we really didn't.

You are so blind to the facts it is sad.

We have covered that. It did not change your mind. You might as well believe that a Rooster's crow causes the sun to rise. They caused a substantial decrease in receipts as a percentage of gdp and in nominal dollars which both eventually returned...not in response to a growth explosion from supply side effects as we actually experienced the slowest growth during an expansion in the post-war era but rather as a result of the long run growth rate and the housing bubble.

That's all been covered and it doesn't change your mind. As a matter of fact this can be expected as it turns out ideologues such as yourself don't change their minds in response to factual assertions (especially when they come from a liberal such as myself...poisoning the well).

Instead, there's evidence that people change their minds if the facts come from a source that the ideologue cannot deny...i.e. a fellow card carrying republican of high stature.

As a result, I thought I would show you that every single reputable republican economist from the Bush Administration agrees with me in hopes that this different tack would persuade you. So, if all of Bush's economic team were sitting here with me, they would be making the same arguments I have made against this laughable assertion.

If what you say is true, all Romney and Ryan would have to say to the press in response to their lack of specificity on their tax "loophole" closing is;

"haha don't you know that the supply-side effects of marginal rate cuts are so dynamic that we need not make any effort to close loopholes to make our proposal revenue neutral??? Are you stupid???"

But they're not because such a statement is equivalent to saying "Unicorns are real." In other words, a statement only made by charlatans and cranks.

All tax cuts are good for the economy, but they alone can not "stimulate" it. You need a proper capital structure and real market prices to have any kind of real economic growth.

BoatShoes;1274094 wrote:If what you say is true, all Romney and Ryan would have to say to the press in response to their lack of specificity on their tax "loophole" closing is;

"haha don't you know that the supply-side effects of marginal rate cuts are so dynamic that we need not make any effort to close loopholes to make our proposal revenue neutral??? Are you stupid???"

Throwing bones to the media blowhards because the cuts have been demagogued to such an extent that no one even bothers to look at the facts and the actual numbers anymore, and the liberal fools who dominate the media would simply be saying what you are saying, because they can, uncontested.

The Reagan revolution which lasted 20 years, is a great example of the economic dynamism created by tax cuts and pro-growth policy. The Bush tax cuts were similar, despite the 9/11 attacks and severe recession. However, once the liberals took over congress in '06 the spending spree began, and despite the tax cuts generating nearly 50% increase in revenues, and millions of new jobs, the liberals insatiable appetite to spend other people's money began to take hold.

Anyhow, those who own small businesses which drive this nation and which employ the majority of Americans are the living proof of the economics of tax cuts. You disdain them because you cannot come to grips with the idea that reducing someone's tax burden is 'fair', despite the incontrovertible evidence of growth that it provides, and the resultant new jobs, let alone the boon to the treasury. You have apparently never been in the trenches with business owners who weigh tax policy, regulatory policy, and fiscal policy in order to make investment decisions .....and I don't mean business owners of law firms or others who never built a widget.

There is no debating the numbers: the dramatic growth in tax revenue due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. In fact, the growth is stunning and far, far outpaced growth in CPI and GDP. Only democrats in congress could have found a way to spend all this incremental revenue, and have nothing to show for it today.

So, keep believing all your intellectual friends, and pay no attention to the 50% -100% revenue increases brought about by Reagan and Bush, but spent by liberal democrats, and then some. I'm sure these liberal intellectuals also think nothing of a $16 trillion debt, with 40% of that coming in just 3 1/2 years of obamanomics.

The intellectual ego: standing in the way of reality for decades.

Just listen to yourself.

stlouiedipalma;1274651 wrote:Just listen to yourself.

Quaker's rants are for the most part right on target.

It's amazing. Guys like you and Boatshoes have become convinced that government is the driving force behind the economy. Guys like Quaker and myself believe that without wealth created by the private sector, the government would have nothing to confiscate and redistribute.

We can argue 24/7 and never convince each other of the "truth" in our points of view. This only serves to demonstrate just how politically divided this country has become.

It should be of no surprise then why our government is still inept and why the private economy is still in the tank.

stlouiedipalma;1274651 wrote:Just listen to yourself.

Which of my numbers is incorrect.