Tax revenues - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Tax revenues

Posted by Shakka on Oct-15-2003 15:19:

Tax revenues

Something from Boortz for the Bush haters and Reaganomics critics...Go Lieberman!!

quote:
A few weeks ago you were hearing a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Democrats and some Republicans in Washington about the size of the projected budget deficit. Democrats almost exclusively blamed this deficit on the Bush tax cuts and stood in line to say that these tax cuts should be turned around.

Funny ... you haven't heard a lot about this budget deficit lately, have you? Do you know why? It's because the projected budget deficit is actually shrinking, not growing. When the budget deficit grows that's bad news for the President and, therefore, good enough news to put on the TV newscasts and the front pages of the major newspapers. But, when that projected deficit shrinks it's actually good news for the President, and good news is news that's not fit to print or broadcast for many "journalists" out there.

Now ... just why have the projected deficits been shrinking? No, it's not because government is scaling back its spending. It's because the Imperial Federal Government is experiencing a sharp increase in tax revenues. That's right, an increase! It's no small increase in federal tax revenues either. Try this figure ---- $85 Billion. That's with a "B." The current estimate of tax revenues to the federal government is $85,000,000,000 higher right now than it was one month ago. The left and the Democrats have been warning that the Bush tax cuts would lead to lower tax revenues, the fiscal conservatives have been saying just the opposite. Well ... guess who wins this one. Hint: It's not the left.

Once again .. just as with both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, we're seeing an increase in government revenues. Don't you Democrats just hate it?

Posted by ResonantDrag on Oct-15-2003 16:16:

85 billion!!!!!

oh wait.... that $2 billion less than what bush is asking for in iraq.
nice try d00d

Posted by Shakka on Oct-15-2003 16:18:

quote:
Originally posted by ResonantDrag
85 billion!!!!!

oh wait.... that $2 billion less than what bush is asking for in iraq.
nice try d00d

What do you mean 'nice try'? I never said anything about the $87 supplemental. This topic is about tax revenues

Posted by occrider on Oct-15-2003 16:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
What do you mean 'nice try'? I never said anything about the $87 supplemental. This topic is about tax revenues

Hmmm interesting. Well that most certainly bolsters my belief that the government should keep its fingers out of my pockets. Trust me, I'm a MUCH more efficient spender

Posted by ResonantDrag on Oct-15-2003 16:27:

on tax revenues... is this the pre-refund revenue? more than likely

Posted by occrider on Oct-15-2003 16:29:

quote:
Originally posted by ResonantDrag
on tax revenues... is this the pre-refund revenue? more than likely

No, that was a while ago. This is the revenue change from last month to this month.

Posted by occrider on Oct-15-2003 16:35:

No doubt part of this substantial increase was as a result of the better than expected profit earnings that a ton of companies have been reporting this quarter. I wonder how much of that was influenced by the second round of tax cuts. I know that consumer spending was significantly bolstered by it .... I initially thought it was a bad idea, but perhaps I might just change my mind about it ...

Posted by Shakka on Oct-15-2003 17:05:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
No doubt part of this substantial increase was as a result of the better than expected profit earnings that a ton of companies have been reporting this quarter. I wonder how much of that was influenced by the second round of tax cuts. I know that consumer spending was significantly bolstered by it .... I initially thought it was a bad idea, but perhaps I might just change my mind about it ...

I think they call that good ole' pump priming. I sincerely hope that the positive data points are real.

Posted by occrider on Oct-15-2003 20:25:

Perhaps we were just a tad bit off to the right on the good old laffer curve.

Posted by Izzy on Oct-15-2003 20:44:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Perhaps we were just a tad bit off to the right on the good old laffer curve.

possibly... ************, when the economy is going sour you want to lower taxes and give it back to people so they can spend and invest but when the economy is booming you want to tax higher so that there is no over-spending and you have something to give back when it goes sour agian. even out the business cycle to a smoother line and less of a rollercoaster

good post shakka, you're right it seems that through all the fuss the economic policies of bush's advisors and the federal reserve have really done their job.