TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Michele Bachman Running For President
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Comrade Stalin being a mere socialist (something normal in Europe) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss and how is Europe doing after decades of being mere socialists? Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and especially Greece are collapsing under the weight of their entitlements and are going to bring down the Euro with them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH Unlike the US which is just thriving |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss and how is Europe doing after decades of being mere socialists? Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and especially Greece are collapsing under the weight of their entitlements and are going to bring down the Euro with them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss precisely... the more we emulate the failing European welfare state, the worse we are getting. Europe today is us in 5-10 years if we don't wake the F up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss precisely... the more we emulate the failing European welfare state, the worse we are getting. Europe today is us in 5-10 years if we don't wake the F up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Joss Weatherby No, the US is Greece now, except we are such a passified bunch of fucking pussys we dont have the god damn cajones to fucking do something. The simple fact is if we do not raise the debt ceiling we will default by the end of the fall. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I know, we should lower our tax rates more to raise revenue. Maybe even start subsidizing companies to move here by actually paying them. Then we can undercut everyone on their tax rates, and eventually we'll make lots of money by not asking for any (actually giving some). The whole world will move here, because we'd have a -5% tax rate, but we'd get money from their employee income. Which obviously would be enormous, because the income of all of our largest companies, like Exxon, GE, etc. depend highly on their employee numbers since everything's automated. |
From the c0r thread list: (to lazy to cap)
Michele Bachman Running For President
A Joke
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'd just love to see people like Grover Norquist lay out where the cost/benefit balance works out for taxes, instead of hearing "they never can go low enough." The fact that these extremist morons dominate tax policy is appalling. 25 years his "no tax increase " pledge has been going. And in 25 years, look at what happened to our deficit, mostly under Republicans that spent and still abided by this philosophy. Most of us realize that when we spend money, you eventually have to pay. Like when you go to college and you have debt, and graduate in this climate. Of course, you don't spend money. You instead hole up in your parents' basement, and expect your loans to not accrue interest, while hoping your parents get a pay raise or hit the lotto. Hey, on this thought, I'll just quit my job, default on my loans, and still have awesome credit. I'll never try to increase revenue. Why bother when I can just cut internet/cable and my rent? |
Well they are the tax less and spend less party after all. I find it all together more despicable on what they think are appropriate cuts and what arent. Cutting 868 million for food aid for WIC (women, infants and children) is more than they can afford, so it must be cut, but suggest cutting a 3 billion subsidy for corporate jets, is enough for them to walk out of negotiations and for no.2 guy in the house stating that (and im paraphrasing heree) "Cutting that loophole would save such a tny amount of money that its hardly worth bothereing with it 
...as opposed to cutting 1/4 as much that prevents babies from starving ... republicans man...evil.
Re: e
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lira What!? He's anything but an idiot! Despite our ideological differences, it'd be unfair to say he's that much wrong if/when we disagree with him (besides, we can err just as much). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith No, he's a just a right wing bigot which makes him not all that different to the left wing bigots that infest TA, I was just hoping Stupert will consign this thread to the place where people care. The PDD forum  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Haha yeah, as a foreigner I find the Right�s obsession with stupidly low taxes to be quite interesting. Ive even argued on TA (probably with kev!) with people who honestly believe that lowering taxes = higher tax revenues. Its just bizarre. |
| quote: |
| Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. 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.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false. Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4] The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.) Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending. The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7] The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue. Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. Accordingly, Chart 4 shows little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP. Chart 5 shows the nearly perfect correlation between GDP and tax revenues. Despite major fluctuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. Table 1 shows that the top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 percent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP.[13] Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases. America cannot substantially increase tax revenue with policies that reduce national income. Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues. Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim. In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 billion.[14] (See Table 2.) These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect. By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth. The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and minimizing any new revenues. |
You realize that huge economic growth was largely related to the housing market, a market that was essentially built on fraud and cheating right? In hind sight that growth really can't be something tauted as "success" when the whole thing collapsed in on itself and took everything else down around it.
Thats like having the mob build a bridge and everyone going "what a beautiful, amazing successful bridge" but then it collapses 6 months later because it was built with faulty and cheap materials. You wouldn't continue to say the bridge was wonderful would you?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You realize that huge economic growth was largely related to the housing market, a market that was essentially built on fraud and cheating right? In hind sight that growth really can't be something tauted as "success" when the whole thing collapsed in on itself and took everything else down around it. Thats like having the mob build a bridge and everyone going "what a beautiful, amazing successful bridge" but then it collapses 6 months later because it was built with faulty and cheap materials. You wouldn't continue to say the bridge was wonderful would you? |
This website is fucking hilarious.
http://www.heritage.org/
Nice link THE17SSSSSSS. I'm going to go show it to all my LIBERAL friends so that we can SMOKE POT and MASTURBATE FURIOUSLY with ILLEGAL ALIENS while we stare at pictures of OBAMA.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by enydo This website is fucking hilarious. http://www.heritage.org/ Nice link THE17SSSSSSS. I'm going to go show it to all my LIBERAL friends so that we can SMOKE POT and MASTURBATE FURIOUSLY with ILLEGAL ALIENS while we stare at pictures of OBAMA. |
I hear America is bankrupt these days. Unless they change the rules of how "bankrupt" is defined soon. Great work Comrade Obama! 
Omg guys, that website just informed me that TAX HIKES ARE UNNECESSARY TO FIX DEFICIT.
Well thank god for that. Praise Jesus.
The tragedy of illegal immigration is the people immigrating aren't white.
The founding fathers would be so proud.
FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
I heard taking all GAYS and throwing them into WORK CAMPS to rebuild our INFRASTRUCTURE is the best solution. I mean, maybe the hard work will force the GAY out of them. For Jesus.
The economy is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS so I find this a viable solution.
If we give more money to the super rich people they'll make more jobs for poor people right?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.