Evil lefty Liberal subversive media lies about Bush, the war, the vets, and Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction!!!!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 19:45
VIEWED: 8008
PAGE 12 of 13
Quote:
So which are you Kwicko? Are you an enlightenend liberal whose 'gotten' their education or are you a poor dumb conservative needing to be told what to think?
Enlightened? Hardly. I try to satisfy myself with the knowledge that I am more enlightened today than I was yesterday, and less than I will be tomorrow.
Quote:
On second thought was you statement meant to be a joke and I"m just to dumb to get it.
You're getting warmer... ;)
Frankly, pretty much EVERY statement I make is meant to be somewhat of a joke - a kernel of truth packed with a grain of salt. Take it as such.
Remember, Kiddies, you can't spell "QUAGMIRE" without "I", "R", "A", & "Q"!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURAPTOR Finally have enough time to answer. Sorry for the long delay.
I read your answer, I went to the Heritage Foundation links. What I found what a lot of misunderstanding (on your part) and misleading word-smithing at the Heritage website.
The usual theory behind tax cuts is to remove money from government hands, which “stimulates” the economy, leading to an increase in GDP and therefore an increase in (real) revenues. (BTW, I only use inflation adjusted, i.e. ‘real”, dollars unless I specify otherwise.) So theoretically, what we SHOULD have seen after the tax cut was an increase in GDP, and an increase in revenues. Correct? Instead, what we see in year to year GDP growth is:
1992 3.32
1993 2.67
1994 4.02
1995 2.50
1997 8.34
1998 4.17
1997 4.50
1998 4.17
1999 4.45
2000 3.66
------------------------------
2001 0.75
2002 1.60
2003 2.51
2004 3.64
2005 3.07
2006 2.87
www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
BEA footnote: "Real" estimates are in chained (2000) dollars.
www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Similarly, from the President’s OMB, Federal revenues in “real” (Y2000) dollars are as follows
1992 1,282.7
1993 1,323.1
1994 1,413.9
1995 1,482.3
1996 1,557.7
1997 1,661.0
1998 1,793.0
1999 1,874.7
2000 2,025.2
----------------------------------------------
2001 1,945.7
2002 1,780.5
2003 1,677.7
2004 1,661.8
2005 1,849.6
2006 1,952.6
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist01z3.xls
In other words, stripping the words and just looking at the numbers, real revenues declined and real GDP growth slowed drastically after the tax cuts. One of the things that right-wingers like to claim in that the drop in 2000 was due to an expected recession after the go-go years of 1997-1999.
Quote:But Bush did have an equivalent economic stimulus working, and that was the housing bubble due to the Fed’s low interest rate policy. Now that the housing bubble is bursting we’ll get another unvarnished view of how well tax cuts “work” to stimulate the economy.
it is now clear that the pre-recession {i.e pre-2000} level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.
Looking at Heritage’s verbiage, I find many misleading things in it. I can’t possibly list them all, but here are a few examples:
Quote:If you’ll notice, this quote says nothing about actual, constant-dollar revenues. Also, they claim that tax revenues were "18.4% of GDP." But actually tax revenues were 17.5% of GDP in FY2006, which is a big difference. The figures can be found in table 1.3 of the big pdf that they cite. So Heritage fudged the numbers.
Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.
You might find these interesting
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bump for rap.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
read that as 'bum rap'
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dangit Rue! You made me snort coffee on my keyboard!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor? Dija read this? Last bump. If you don't reply, I'll consider the subject settled.
Also KIRKULES, I read the Heritage Foundation's interview with Laffer. I found a MAJOR erroneous assumption on his part. Let me know if you want to discuss. Thanks.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, one LAST bump for Rap!
Rap, if you EVER come up with that stupid Heritage Foundation tax-cut stuff again, I'll barf on you!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lol, that would frighten me.
Want to see what the government is doing for you today?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bil
ls&docid=f:s1959is.txt.pdf
Making you afraid to speak your mind, that's what.
Oley
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that's vaguely enough worded that everyone on this board could be hauled off as subversives I conjure...
Originally posted by CaptainOley:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bil
ls&docid=f:s1959is.txt.pdf
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yea, and I reckon that would be the problem there good sir.
Oley
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME