Down another 400, thanks Tea Party!

Bush tax cuts are still implemented to this day. That alone will tell you how effective they are at helping an economy during a recession.

 

OK, so you looked at the chart right? You saw the DIRECT correlation of the spike in revenue to the taxcuts right?

Just because the taxcuts are still in effect doesn't mean that revenues will continue to rise, we're in an environment of EXTREME deficit spending, we have a president and a congress who have created an environment of EXTREME legislation risk. No one wants to invest in a new business right now because they don't know whether taxes are going to go up or stay where they are. They don't know if the gubment is going to put additional onerous requirements on them like that healthcare POS or the financial legislation. Right now, the gubment is playing such a large role in the private sector that it's scaring people out of taking risks on new businesses or expanding current ones.

You seem to like to ignore the facts that you deem unhelpful to your argument.

 

Because that's the only variable to consider...

 

Jesus man, put your thinking cap on.

If you cut capital gains rate on the rich you always get an immediate spike in revenues since the rich adjust their portfolios to lock in the lower rates.

Reagan pulled the same trick.

The problem: the spike is followed by longterm decline in revenues, which is exactly what happened.

It is stupid from every possible perspective to cut capital gains on the rich. It make zero economic sense and zero tax policy sense.

 

The best way to make the stock market go up is to cut taxes for people like me who are enormously wealthy.

 

Ah that meme.

Debt to GDP is much less than after WWII. Given that Bush fought two unfunded wars while lowering taxes on the rich, this isn't surprising.

The response to be to raise taxes on the rich.

So why are you spouting this silly Tea Bag meme about lower taxes.

 

You're just downright amusing...

How 'bout you pony up with a link showing where raising taxes has helped with revenues long term....?

 

Raising taxes on the top bracket has several well known positive economic effects. We know this from history, as the Clinton tax hikes showed.

1. It raises revenues.

2. It increases investment in the production of real goods and services. Accumulated capital in the hands of the rich is mostly misallocated into useless investments like hedgefunds, which produce nothing.

3. This results in more employment.

4. This results in higher tax revenues.


That's how it works, as empirical data shows.

 

Jesus man, FDR, Clinton

Taxes were raised to 90% on the top bracket (probably a 50% effective rate). The result were 30 years of unprecedented ecomomic growth and increased tax revenues.

Same happened with Clinton. He raised the top rate, revenues increased year to year thereafter.

Why does that surprise you? Raising rates on those that can pay taxes OF COURSE will raise revenue. It's simple math.

 

LINK PLEASE!!!!

You can say whatever you want, but if you don't substantiate it then it doesn't mean jack.

 

How are you so sure that the Chihuahua is stupid?!

 

Because he barks like a **********?

 

oh it seems that you have forgotten about Obama's third war... and the fact Obama extended those horrible tax cuts.

and the fact that Obama gave a position as "Job czar" to a guy that is sending jobs out of the U.S. and he is the one that Obama trusted to create jobs in the U.S.

or about the billions that was set a side to start a national health care that will cost the country billions.

Or about the billions that people lost when Obama bought GM with taxpayer money. and told the stock holders to go screw themselves.

 

It is not overly complicated. A smaller percentage of a larger GDP can easily produce more revenue dollars. Clinton's GDP's were all under $10 trillion. Bush's GDP's were all over $10 trillion.

And the 35.05% and 33.39%, if they are correct, is the total revenue of the governments of the USA, including States and cities. Not the Federal revenue.

For instance Clinton's 1998 GDP was $8,793.5 trillion. 35.05% of that is $3,082 trillion and the Federal has never taken in that much revenue.

 

Reagan, Nixon, Bush... see? I can say prior presidents name too. Don't mean jack. Dude, you've wasted enough of my time with your unfounded "facts" and "figures".

 

Yeah, I'm going to give you a primer in ECON 101.

Read Robert Reich's Aftermath. All the citations are there.

 

that didn't seem like a link. so instead of trying to give people ECON lessons maybe you should go and take some reading and comprehension lessons so you can understand what somebody is asking.

 

You mean Obama sent troops to Libya. How many? Count them for us.

More disingenuous rubbish from a Bagger.

You mean the tax cuts on the rich that he tried to get taken out but the GOP wouldn't let him.

More disingenuous rubbish.

 

Hell, if Citibank can ruin my credit by my overspending my income after losing my career, then I am hopeful that everyone's credit including the US of A can go bankrupt so we all are in the same soup if possible.

I used to hate the idea of healthcare being lowered for everyone to match the lowest denominator but now that I have to live at that lowest denominator level... I'd love to you all to come and join me, ASAP please.

 

Another subliterate ********** who admits he needs to be spoon fed by an informed progressive.

A see a lot of that.

 

Yeah, history started yesterday, and how we got here doesn't mean jack.

I love ********** ahistoricism and subliteracy. Read some history and report back in.

 

so now that you have a comprehension problem. I must be spoon fed information?

and no I really don't look at politically biased information to be able to get my own opinion.

Maybe if you would pull your head out of the donkeys back side. and look at reality you wouldn't have such ignorantly biased views of the world.

 

Yes, you must.

Read some basic books like Reich's Aftermath. Then report back in.

Meantime I can only give you the Cliff's notes, but I expect you've read a lot of those in your academic career.

 

so instead of hoping for progress and a strong U.S. recovery. you want the U.S. to fail as well as other Americans. that's always a nice thing to hope for.

 

You're welcome.