So before the Republicans make any new tax promises, it might help if they first told voters how the

[Friendly Fred]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear the
>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President [sic]
>Bush.

Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.

The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
these Christian terrorists have done to us.

---
I suspect it'll make the Jonestown Massacre look like a bible camp.
Oh wait - it was a bible camp. -- TbB

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> >costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
> >same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> >long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear the
> >depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President [sic]
> >Bush.
>
> Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.



Another leftard off his meds.

 

[Lt Gen Al E. Gator]

"Friendly Fred" <Pal@aol.COM> wrote in message
news:13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
>>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
>>the
>>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
>>[sic]
>>Bush.
>
> Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
>
> The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
> traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
> these Christian terrorists have done to us.


we don't need or want to execute the goobers, give them 20 years of
community service
picking up trash along highways, helping at homeless shelters, teaching in
the inner city,
get them a realistic view of life

 

[Lt Gen Al E. Gator]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-5DF9DA.18561716122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
> Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:
>
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>> >costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in
>> >the
>> >same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>> >long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
>> >the
>> >depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
>> >[sic]
>> >Bush.
>>
>> Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
>
>
>
> Another leftard off his meds.

ahhhh, the typical conservative, feeble minded hillbilly response to the
truth, you can take
your fingers out of your filthy ears now gomer

 

[Friendly Fred]

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
> Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>>>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
>>>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>>>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear the
>>>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President [sic]
>>>Bush.

Treason. This Christofascist regime has committed massive treason against
us.

The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
these Christian terrorists have done to us.

---
I suspect it'll make the Jonestown Massacre look like a bible camp.
Oh wait - it was a bible camp. -- TbB

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <13mbm2pkconl581@corp.supernews.com>,
Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:
> >> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> >>>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
> >>>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> >>>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
> >>>the
> >>>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
> >>>[sic]
> >>>Bush.
>
> Treason. This Christofascist regime has committed massive treason against
> us.



Would you like some cheese with that whine?

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <BLk9j.82720$YL5.64195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-5DF9DA.18561716122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:
> >
> >> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> >> >costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in
> >> >the
> >> >same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> >> >long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
> >> >the
> >> >depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
> >> >[sic]
> >> >Bush.
> >>
> >> Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another leftard off his meds.
>
> ahhhh, the typical conservative, feeble minded hillbilly response...


....that was accurate. And you're another leftard off his meds. But,
hey, keep whining it accomplishes nothing but does keep you off the
streets and out of traffic where you might injure yourself.


Snicker.

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <MKk9j.82719$YL5.76195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:

> "Friendly Fred" <Pal@aol.COM> wrote in message
> news:13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> >>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
> >>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> >>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
> >>the
> >>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
> >>[sic]
> >>Bush.
> >
> > Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
> >
> > The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
> > traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
> > these Christian terrorists have done to us.
>
>
> we don't need or want to execute the goobers...


....and more importantly, you can't. Leftards are bladeless knives
without handles, i.e eunuchs. Witness the DemocRAT congress led by the
effete Princess Pelosi. What a joke! The DemocRATs whine, while
President Bush carries on as usual. That's what makes usenet so good,
watching you losers whine ineffectively.

Snicker.

 

[Lt Gen Al E. Gator]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-25F971.22045716122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <BLk9j.82720$YL5.64195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:
>
>> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hal.i.burton-5DF9DA.18561716122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> > In article <13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com>,
>> > Pal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred) wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
> ...that was accurate. And you're another leftard off his meds. But,
> hey, keep whining it accomplishes nothing but does keep you off the
> streets and out of traffic where you might injure yourself.
>
>
> Snicker.

hey butthead,

does it occur to you ignorant hillbilly ass that you losers,failures, and
****ups have
nothing but this type of bullshit ?

you can't use anything you goobers have done over the last 7 years because
you haven't accomplished
anything positive you've ****ed up everything in sight

so all you retards have is attacking democrats, thinking most Americans are
as stupid as you are,, they aren't
you goobers are getting a professional ass whipping next November, and you
don;t even realize how bad
things are for you now,

think about all that little bush ****sucker can ****up in the next 11 months

 

[Lt Gen Al E. Gator]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-5F9AD8.22102016122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <MKk9j.82719$YL5.76195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:
>
>> "Friendly Fred" <Pal@aol.COM> wrote in message
>> news:13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>> >>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in
>> >>the
>> >>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>> >>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes
>> >>clear
>> >>the
>> >>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
>> >>[sic]
>> >>Bush.
>> >
>> > Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
>> >
>> > The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
>> > traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
>> > these Christian terrorists have done to us.
>>
>>
>> we don't need or want to execute the goobers...
>
>
> ...and more importantly, you can't. Leftards are bladeless knives
> without handles, i.e eunuchs. Witness the DemocRAT congress led by the
> effete Princess Pelosi. What a joke! The DemocRATs whine, while
> President Bush carries on as usual. That's what makes usenet so good,
> watching you losers whine ineffectively.
>
> Snicker.

right goober, keep daydreaming, you hillbillies are about to become more
extinct than the dinosaurs

 

[Salad]

Harold Burton wrote:

> In article <13ma9r5q0gpmd9a@corp.supernews.com>,
> Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:
>
>>I forgot to say Republican followers are stupid...
>
> Which makes them not at all different from DemocRAT followers.

I didn't know Democrats were goosesteppers. That's a Republican trait.
Democrats can agree to disagree. If bush asked you all to drink
tainted Kool-Aide you'd all fight to get first in line.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-64BFCA.21280915122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <EY%8j.31093$rc2.24645@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> December 14, 2007
>>
>> On the Economy
>> The Republicans' Expensive Tax Promise
>> By TOM REDBURN
>> For decades, ever since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, promising to
>> cut
>> taxes has been an essential element of every successful Republican
>> campaign
>> for the presidency. Republican politicians still vividly remember that
>> George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after agreeing to a modest tax
>> increase as part of a broad budget deal - and most have vowed never to
>> make
>> that mistake again.
>
>
> Amen to that. Let's hope they never make that mistake again.

Don't worry, they won't. Fiscal responsibility is not a Republican virtue.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:EY%8j.31093$rc2.24645@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> December 14, 2007
>
> On the Economy
> The Republicans' Expensive Tax Promise
> By TOM REDBURN
> For decades, ever since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, promising to
> cut taxes has been an essential element of every successful Republican
> campaign for the presidency. Republican politicians still vividly remember
> that George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after agreeing to a modest tax
> increase as part of a broad budget deal - and most have vowed never to
> make that mistake again.
>
> But there is a crucial twist to the campaign this time around. All of the
> Republican candidates have pledged to extend President Bush's tax cuts
> from the early 1990s beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. That
> promise, however, does not carry the same weight as in the past.
>
> That's because, rather than delivering any additional benefit that voters
> can actually take to the bank, carrying out such a pledge would do nothing
> more than maintain the status quo. Nobody's taxes would be cut further;
> they would at best stay the same. There's not as much political payoff in
> that.
>
> And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
> same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
> the depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from
> President Bush.
>
> Simply to extend the Bush tax cuts indefinitely into the future and, as
> both Republicans and Democrats have vowed, prevent the alternative minimum
> tax from imposing an increasingly heavy burden on tens of millions of
> middle-class and upper middle-class taxpayers would cost the government,
> over the next decade, roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected under
> current law. And that's just the beginning.
>
> Even without taking on any additional tasks, merely meeting the
> government's existing obligations - mostly to pay for the military and to
> keep up with the health care and retirement needs of the elderly - would
> send the budget deficit soaring, pushing overall federal debt held by the
> public from under 50 percent of the size of the nation's economy today to
> over 300 percent by 2050.
>
> "The combination of roughly constant revenues and significantly rising
> expenditures would quickly create an unstable fiscal situation," the
> budget office report notes alarmingly, but in its characteristically dry
> and understated manner.
>
> How would the Republican candidates deal with this problem? Most say they
> would try to hold down spending - and cut taxes even more.
>
> Indeed, without providing many specifics about his proposed spending cuts,
> Rudolph W. Giuliani, in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal,
> wrote that he was "committed to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
> permanent, while aiming at still-lower marginal rates. We'll give the
> death tax the death penalty, index the Alternative Minimum Tax for
> inflation as a step toward eliminating it entirely, expand tax-free
> savings accounts, and expand health-care choice through tax reform. We
> also need to reduce the corporate tax rate."
>
> Fred D. Thompson recently unveiled his own tax proposal, which would not
> only match the Giuliani promises, but would also allow taxpayers to choose
> between paying under the current system or opting for a "flat tax" with
> lower rates that would eliminate nearly all deductions. The simplified tax
> system would have just two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
>
> The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed Mr. Thompson's overall proposal
> and found that it would "represent, by far, the largest tax cut in
> history - much larger than the tax cuts enacted in 2001 or 1981. Over 10
> years, individual income and estate taxes would fall by about $6 trillion
> to $7 trillion - or as much as 20 percent of overall revenues - before
> allowing for any behavioral responses."
>
> Mr. Thompson predicted that the tax cut would largely pay for itself by
> stimulating economic growth and discouraging tax avoidance. If not, he
> suggested, any additional savings could be achieved by limiting Social
> Security benefits.
>
> But the Tax Policy Center report found that any improvements to the
> economy from lower tax rates would be modest. As a result, the Treasury
> would recover no more than about $1 trillion over the decade, resulting in
> an overall revenue loss of $5 trillion to $6 trillion. The tax cuts would
> fall far short of paying for themselves.
>
> And nearly all the money, like the earlier rounds of tax cuts this decade,
> would flow to those at the top of the income ladder.
>
> Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has proposed yet a third alternative, endorsing
> the so-called "fair tax," which vows to replace all federal revenues -
> income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, estate
> taxes, etc. - with a national sales tax on everything except education.
>
> Proponents say that a sales tax rate of 23 percent on just about all goods
> and services would generate the same revenues as the current system, but
> tax experts like Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under
> President Ronald Reagan, say that it would effectively mean raising the
> cost of everything people buy by at least 30 percent.
>
> And even if such a tax could be practically instituted, it would still not
> close the fiscal gap that is about to explode over the next few years.
>
> "Campaigns bring out the Santa Claus in politicians," said Leonard Burman,
> director of the Tax Policy Center, which is associated with the Brookings
> Institution and the Urban Institute. "But the numbers just don't add up.
> By promising more tax cuts than we can afford, they are really
> misrepresenting the choices the nation faces."
>
> Democrats certainly have their own problems balancing their spending
> proposals - particularly for health care - with the revenues available to
> pay for them, but the Republican candidates, by vowing to extend President
> Bush's tax cuts, have left themselves with a far bigger fiscal gap to
> fill.
>
> So before the Republicans make any new tax promises, it might help if they
> first told voters how they plan to pay for the old ones.

It's easy -- borrow and push the payback onto future generations. It's the
irresponsible Republican way.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:868a7dbc-279b-41fc-94bf-0388917c7d2e@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 8:19 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> December 14, 2007
>>
>> On the Economy
>> The Republicans' Expensive Tax Promise
>> By TOM REDBURN
>> For decades, ever since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, promising to
>> cut
>> taxes has been an essential element of every successful Republican
>> campaign
>> for the presidency. Republican politicians still vividly remember that
>> George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after agreeing to a modest tax
>> increase as part of a broad budget deal - and most have vowed never to
>> make
>> that mistake again.
>>
>> But there is a crucial twist to the campaign this time around. All of the
>> Republican candidates have pledged to extend President Bush's tax cuts
>> from
>> the early 1990s beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. That promise,
>> however, does not carry the same weight as in the past.
>>
>> That's because, rather than delivering any additional benefit that voters
>> can actually take to the bank, carrying out such a pledge would do
>> nothing
>> more than maintain the status quo. Nobody's taxes would be cut further;
>> they
>> would at best stay the same. There's not as much political payoff in
>> that.
>>
>> And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>> costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the
>> same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>> long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear
>> the
>> depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
>> Bush.
>>
>> Simply to extend the Bush tax cuts indefinitely into the future and, as
>> both
>> Republicans and Democrats have vowed, prevent the alternative minimum tax
>> from imposing an increasingly heavy burden on tens of millions of
>> middle-class and upper middle-class taxpayers would cost the government,
>> over the next decade, roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected
>> under
>> current law. And that's just the beginning.
>>
>> Even without taking on any additional tasks, merely meeting the
>> government's
>> existing obligations - mostly to pay for the military and to keep up with
>> the health care and retirement needs of the elderly - would send the
>> budget
>> deficit soaring, pushing overall federal debt held by the public from
>> under
>> 50 percent of the size of the nation's economy today to over 300 percent
>> by
>> 2050.
>>
>> "The combination of roughly constant revenues and significantly rising
>> expenditures would quickly create an unstable fiscal situation," the
>> budget
>> office report notes alarmingly, but in its characteristically dry and
>> understated manner.
>>
>> How would the Republican candidates deal with this problem? Most say they
>> would try to hold down spending - and cut taxes even more.
>>
>> Indeed, without providing many specifics about his proposed spending
>> cuts,
>> Rudolph W. Giuliani, in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street
>> Journal,
>> wrote that he was "committed to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
>> permanent,
>> while aiming at still-lower marginal rates. We'll give the death tax the
>> death penalty, index the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation as a step
>> toward eliminating it entirely, expand tax-free savings accounts, and
>> expand
>> health-care choice through tax reform. We also need to reduce the
>> corporate
>> tax rate."
>>
>> Fred D. Thompson recently unveiled his own tax proposal, which would not
>> only match the Giuliani promises, but would also allow taxpayers to
>> choose
>> between paying under the current system or opting for a "flat tax" with
>> lower rates that would eliminate nearly all deductions. The simplified
>> tax
>> system would have just two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
>>
>> The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed Mr. Thompson's overall
>> proposal
>> and found that it would "represent, by far, the largest tax cut in
>> history -
>> much larger than the tax cuts enacted in 2001 or 1981. Over 10 years,
>> individual income and estate taxes would fall by about $6 trillion to $7
>> trillion - or as much as 20 percent of overall revenues - before allowing
>> for any behavioral responses."
>>
>> Mr. Thompson predicted that the tax cut would largely pay for itself by
>> stimulating economic growth and discouraging tax avoidance. If not, he
>> suggested, any additional savings could be achieved by limiting Social
>> Security benefits.
>>
>> But the Tax Policy Center report found that any improvements to the
>> economy
>> from lower tax rates would be modest. As a result, the Treasury would
>> recover no more than about $1 trillion over the decade, resulting in an
>> overall revenue loss of $5 trillion to $6 trillion. The tax cuts would
>> fall
>> far short of paying for themselves.
>>
>> And nearly all the money, like the earlier rounds of tax cuts this
>> decade,
>> would flow to those at the top of the income ladder.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has proposed yet a third alternative, endorsing
>> the
>> so-called "fair tax," which vows to replace all federal revenues - income
>> taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, estate taxes,
>> etc. -
>> with a national sales tax on everything except education.
>>
>> Proponents say that a sales tax rate of 23 percent on just about all
>> goods
>> and services would generate the same revenues as the current system, but
>> tax
>> experts like Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President
>> Ronald Reagan, say that it would effectively mean raising the cost of
>> everything people buy by at least 30 percent.
>>
>> And even if such a tax could be practically instituted, it would still
>> not
>> close the fiscal gap that is about to explode over the next few years.
>>
>> "Campaigns bring out the Santa Claus in politicians," said Leonard
>> Burman,
>> director of the Tax Policy Center, which is associated with the Brookings
>> Institution and the Urban Institute. "But the numbers just don't add up.
>> By
>> promising more tax cuts than we can afford, they are really
>> misrepresenting
>> the choices the nation faces."
>>
>> Democrats certainly have their own problems balancing their spending
>> proposals - particularly for health care - with the revenues available to
>> pay for them, but the Republican candidates, by vowing to extend
>> President
>> Bush's tax cuts, have left themselves with a far bigger fiscal gap to
>> fill.
>>
>> So before the Republicans make any new tax promises, it might help if
>> they
>> first told voters how they plan to pay for the old ones.
>
> When you posted this did you have any idea that the Bush tax cuts
> resulted in INCREASED tax receipts?
>
> The national debt has reached the size it has because Bush, Democrats
> and Republicans have spent the increased revenues and more like
> drunken sailors.
>
> The article you quote notes that more tax cuts would indeed produce
> MORE tax receipts. But not enough to meet the demands of the pigs in
> Congress.
>
> So the problem would not be solved by increasing taxes, because that
> would REDUCE tax receipts while the drunken sailors continue to spend
> your money at record rates.

If increasing taxes reduces tax receipts and decreasing taxes increases tax
receipts, then we should cut all taxes to zero. Why are GOP ****suckers so
****ing stupid?

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-C6F878.22075815122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <fk2473$74i$1@aioe.org>, Balanced View <Nill@nill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Of course tax receipts will increase, that would happen in
>> any year the economy expanded and the population increased.
>> Tax receipts increase in any year there isn't a recession...
>
>
> i.e. not during the DemocRAT Carter years.

LIE. Carter increased tax revenues in 4 years by a greater percentage than
Reagan did in 8. Bush the Daddy was the worst.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

President Years # Prev yr Last yr Increase Inflation Adjusted
Revenue Revenue average
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt 34-46 13 $ 2.0 $ 39.3 1865.0% 50.8% 121.3%
Truman 47-53 7 39.3 69.6 77.1% 36.9% 3.7%
Eisenhower 54-61 8 69.6 94.4 35.6% 11.9% 2.4%
Kennedy 62-64 3 94.4 112.6 19.3% 3.7% 4.8%
L Johnson 65-69 5 112.6 186.9 66.0% 18.4% 6.9%
Nixon 70-75 6 186.9 279.1 49.3% 46.6% 0.3%
Ford 76-77 2 279.1 355.6 27.4% 12.6% 6.4%
Carter 78-81 4 355.6 599.3 68.5% 50.0% 3.0%
Reagan 82-89 8 599.3 990.7 65.3% 36.4% 2.4%
Bush 90-93 4 990.7 1153.5 16.4% 16.5% -0.0%

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-9CF1E3.11252116122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <fk28b5$fqi$1@aioe.org>, Balanced View <Nill@nill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Harold Burton wrote:
>> > In article <fk2473$74i$1@aioe.org>, Balanced View <Nill@nill.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Of course tax receipts will increase, that would happen in
>> >> any year the economy expanded and the population increased.
>> >> Tax receipts increase in any year there isn't a recession...
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > i.e. not during the DemocRAT Carter years.
>> >
>>
>> Don't know your history very well do you.
>
>
> Nor do you.
>
>
>> The American economy and most
>> of the world was in a deep recession
>> when Carter was inaugurated in January 1977. Even so from 1977-80
>> federal revenues averaged 19.5 per cent, well
>> above the post war average of 17.9%.
>
>
> Much like President bush inherited the dot com that Clinton left him,

LIE. GDP in the 4th Quarter of 2000 was greater than that of the 3rd
Quarter -- the economy was on the upswing.

> and unlike Carter he didn't produce double digit inflation AND
> unemployment while recovering from it.

Carter increased tax revenues more than Reagan did.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

President Years # Prev yr Last yr Increase Inflation Adjusted
Revenue Revenue average
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt 34-46 13 $ 2.0 $ 39.3 1865.0% 50.8% 121.3%
Truman 47-53 7 39.3 69.6 77.1% 36.9% 3.7%
Eisenhower 54-61 8 69.6 94.4 35.6% 11.9% 2.4%
Kennedy 62-64 3 94.4 112.6 19.3% 3.7% 4.8%
L Johnson 65-69 5 112.6 186.9 66.0% 18.4% 6.9%
Nixon 70-75 6 186.9 279.1 49.3% 46.6% 0.3%
Ford 76-77 2 279.1 355.6 27.4% 12.6% 6.4%
Carter 78-81 4 355.6 599.3 68.5% 50.0% 3.0%
Reagan 82-89 8 599.3 990.7 65.3% 36.4% 2.4%
Bush 90-93 4 990.7 1153.5 16.4% 16.5% -0.0%

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-5F9AD8.22102016122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <MKk9j.82719$YL5.76195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:
>
>> "Friendly Fred" <Pal@aol.COM> wrote in message
>> news:13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
>> >>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in
>> >>the
>> >>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
>> >>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes
>> >>clear
>> >>the
>> >>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
>> >>[sic]
>> >>Bush.
>> >
>> > Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
>> >
>> > The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
>> > traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
>> > these Christian terrorists have done to us.
>>
>>
>> we don't need or want to execute the goobers...
>
>
> ...and more importantly, you can't. Leftards are bladeless knives
> without handles, i.e eunuchs. Witness the DemocRAT congress led by the
> effete Princess Pelosi. What a joke! The DemocRATs whine, while
> President Bush carries on as usual. That's what makes usenet so good,
> watching you losers whine ineffectively.

Gonzo - gone.
Miers - gone.
Libby - gone.
etc.

>
> Snicker.

Mounds.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:868a7dbc-279b-41fc-94bf-0388917c7d2e@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 8:19 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> December 14, 2007
>
> So the problem would not be solved by increasing taxes, because that
> would REDUCE tax receipts while the drunken sailors continue to spend
> your money at record rates.

Voodoo economics.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

Myth: Tax cuts increase tax collections.

Fact: Tax cuts decrease tax collections.


Summary

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase tax collections.
Almost always, tax cuts have seen tax collections fall in the following
years; tax hikes have seen tax collections rise in the following years.
Which is about what you would expect!

Argument

Before reviewing the statistics revealing the relationship between tax cuts
and tax collections, we should review a few important concepts.

First, the economy grows in the long run, as both our population expands and
productive technology improves. Our tax base, of course, grows along with
the economy, so if the tax rate remains the same -- say, 18 percent -- then
absolute tax collections grow as the economy grows.

Second, when comparing tax collections across the years, it is important to
distinguish between current and constant dollars. Comparing tax collections
in current dollars is deceptive, because inflation gives a false picture of
tax growth. Economists use constant dollars instead, which account for
inflation.

Third, tax collections generally fall during a recession, and rise during a
recovery. That is because during a recession, there are more unemployed
people who do not pay taxes. During a recovery, tax collections increase as
more people go to work. Since World War II, we've had only seven years in
which the economy shrank, so growth is the norm for both our economy and our
tax base.

However, there is an opposite effect at work here also. During a recession,
the government spends more because of the greater need for unemployment and
welfare benefits, as well as counter-cyclical Keynesian spending. During a
recovery, the government doesn't need to spend as much on these things, and
as a result it can afford to lower its tax rates.

With these things in mind, we can now review the historical evidence.

Tax cuts in recent history

Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points
of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so
stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost
always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years;
otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the
economy expanded.

There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods
following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in
1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our
economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax
collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use
1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was
really collected over the next 8 years.

Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692

1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
Net 8-year loss -18,845


Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623

1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss -69,545Combined individual and corporate income tax
loss: $88 billion.

Keep in mind that this does not count the lost revenues that could be
expected from a growing economy.

Also remember that, because the economy grows in the long run, tax
collections will inevitably start rising again sooner or later as the tax
base continues to grow. Therefore, supply-siders do not have the argument
that there was a delay in increased tax collections, or that we can't expect
tax policy to have immediate effects. The simple fact is that there was a 5
year drop in tax collections, which was extremely uncharacteristic of a
growing economy. And during that time we incurred a trillion and a half
dollars in debt, so the alleged value of such a tax policy is refuted
outright.

The above figures are for income tax collections. However, general tax
revenues also took a drop in the 80s:

Total Federal Tax Collections (billions) (2)

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6 < 81 level recovered
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

The Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite
supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in
1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below,
growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:

Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U) (3)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5In 1965, the economy was in the fifth year of a
nine-year expansion, and for income tax collections to see negative growth
was, again, most uncharacteristic. Income tax collections did rise in 1966,
but by this time President Johnson was accelerating the economy with
Keynesian deficit spending on the Vietnam War. (These deficits he hid by
unifying the federal budget with Social Security.) The greater economic
activity resulted in more tax collections, and to disentangle any alleged
supply-side benefits from the Keynesian benefits is all but impossible.

Another era of tax cuts was the Roaring Twenties. At first glance,
supply-side theory seems to have worked here: taxes were cut, and revenues
climbed. But that's because only the very richest Americans paid taxes in
the 1920s, a decade which saw their incomes skyrocket. The vast majority of
Americans saw their incomes decline -- but because they paid no taxes, this
did not hurt tax collections. Of course, ordinary Americans had no reason to
celebrate increased revenues under these deteriorating conditions. Indeed,
they had every reason to oppose a tax policy that worsened income
inequality.

Specifically, between 1920 and 1925, the top rate was reduced from 73 to 25
percent. But even during the high taxes of World War I, 95 percent of all
Americans paid no income taxes. (4) By the end of the 1920s, about 80
percent of all Americans were still off the tax rolls. (5) Only the
wealthiest were taxed, but their numbers grew as inequality grew over the
decade. In fact, their ranks grew at a phenomenal pace only once equaled
this century (the Reagan years). The following chart shows by how much:

Growth in ranks of rich, 1920-1928 (6)

Number, Number,
Income 1920 1928 Percent growth
---------------------------------------------------------
Over $1 million 33 511 1,448%
$100,000 - 1 million 3,616 15,466 328To put this in perspective,
the number of people making over $100,000 in 1928 still represented only
0.01 percent of the American population. Their expanding numbers hardly
helped out the middle class. But between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93 percent
of the nonfarm population actually experienced a 4 percent drop in real
disposable per capita income. (7) Farmers suffered an even worse decline. In
one year alone -- 1927 -- the number of Americans making a middle class
income (between $2,000 and $5,000) declined from 2.17 million to 2.09
million -- almost all of the loss to the lower class. (8)

Against this backdrop, you can understand why a rich-only tax saw increasing
tax collections, and why the rich paid a higher share of those taxes.
Between 1921 and 1928, total tax collections grew from $719 million to
$1,160 million, in a period of virtually no inflation. The share of the
total tax burden paid by the rich (those making over $50,000) rose from 44.2
percent to 78.4 percent.

But what would have happened if the poor had been paying taxes as well?
Obviously, with declining incomes, they would have paid less than before.
Because the middle class is larger than the rich, this probably would have
resulted in an overall drop in tax collections. And indeed, this is
precisely what we saw happen during the Reagan years.

Tax Hikes

By contrast, almost all tax hikes have seen dramatic and indisputable growth
in tax collections. During World War I, only the richest 5 percent of the
income earners paid taxes, and the top tax rate was hiked from 15 to 73
percent. Increases in revenues were so extraordinary that they funded an
entire war. (The war did incur a debt, but this was paid off by continuing
high taxes for a few years after the war.)

After the massive tax cuts of the 1920s, President Roosevelt raised taxes on
the rich from 25 percent to 91 percent. Even the bottom rate climbed from 4
to 19 percent by the end of his presidency. (9) And tax collections under
Roosevelt shot up 121 percent a year, the most of any president in U.S.
history. By contrast, all subsequent presidents have seen tax collections
rise in the single digits. (10)

The one exception to this correlation is George Bush's 1990 tax hikes, whose
potential revenue increases were lost in the following recession. For those
who would like to think a cause-and-effect relationship exists here, they
should know that the recession of 1990 began in July, 1990, four months
before Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. Bush signed his tax increases
into law the following November. Many will recall that this recession was
also labeled the "lingering recession" or the "jobless recovery" because it
took so long for the unemployment rate to start falling afterwards. That's
because businesses were automating instead of rehiring laid-off workers --
causing productivity to jump but tax collections to remain flat for 1992 as
well.

However, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 occurred after the recession had
passed, and the increase in tax collections is clearly visible:

Individual Income Taxes (millions) (11)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1990 $466,884 $413,355
1991 467,827 397,677 < recession year
1992 475,964 392,969
1993 509,680 411,032 < Clinton tax passes
1994 543,055 429,496 < takes effect
1995 590,244 458,300

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
--------------------------------------------
1990 $93,507 $82,786
1991 98,086 83,378 < recession year
1992 100,270 82,786
1993 117,520 94,774 < Clinton tax passes
1994 140,385 111,029 < takes effect
1995 157,004 121,907This is in marked contrast to the Reagan tax cuts,
which saw tax collections fall, despite also occurring in a similar position
in the business cycle, namely, the start of a recovery.

In sum, supply-siders have no obvious success stories to point to. Indeed,
almost all the historical evidence runs against them.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical
Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from
tables located there.

2. Internal Revenue Service.

3. Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical
Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from
CPI-U.

4. Internal Revenue Service Figures cited in Barlett and Steele, America:
Who Really Pays the Taxes (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994) pp. 61-62.

5. Kevin Phillips, Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House, 1990),
pp. 76-77.

6. Barlett and Steele, pp. 66-67.

7. Charles F. Holt, "Who Benefited from the Prosperity of the Twenties?"
Explorations in Economic History, 14, July 1977, pp. 277-89.

8. Geoffrey Perritt, America in the Twenties (New York: Touchstone Books,
1982), pp. 321-22.

9. Barlett and Steele, p. 68.

10. Here is the growth in tax collections for all presidents since
Roosevelt:


President Years # Prev yr Last yr Increase Inflation Adjusted
Revenue Revenue average
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt 34-46 13 $ 2.0 $ 39.3 1865.0% 50.8% 121.3%
Truman 47-53 7 39.3 69.6 77.1% 36.9% 3.7%
Eisenhower 54-61 8 69.6 94.4 35.6% 11.9% 2.4%
Kennedy 62-64 3 94.4 112.6 19.3% 3.7% 4.8%
L Johnson 65-69 5 112.6 186.9 66.0% 18.4% 6.9%
Nixon 70-75 6 186.9 279.1 49.3% 46.6% 0.3%
Ford 76-77 2 279.1 355.6 27.4% 12.6% 6.4%
Carter 78-81 4 355.6 599.3 68.5% 50.0% 3.0%
Reagan 82-89 8 599.3 990.7 65.3% 36.4% 2.4%
Bush 90-93 4 990.7 1153.5 16.4% 16.5% -0.0%U.S.
Office of Management and Budget, Historical Table 2.1, Budget for FY 1997.
Chart derived by Steve Casburn.

11. Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical
Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from
tables located there.

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <13md74gblimhfb7@corp.supernews.com>,
Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

> Harold Burton wrote:
>
> > In article <13ma9r5q0gpmd9a@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I forgot to say Republican followers are stupid...
> >
> > Which makes them not at all different from DemocRAT followers.


> I didn't know Democrats were goosesteppers.


They are, and there's a lot else you probably don't know too.

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <fk68ji$kb3$2@news.albasani.net>,
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-5F9AD8.22102016122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <MKk9j.82719$YL5.76195@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Friendly Fred" <Pal@aol.COM> wrote in message
> >> news:13mb14qnpgkp62b@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly
> >> >>costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in
> >> >>the
> >> >>same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the
> >> >>long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes
> >> >>clear
> >> >>the
> >> >>depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President
> >> >>[sic]
> >> >>Bush.
> >> >
> >> > Treason. This fascist regime has committed massive treason against us.
> >> >
> >> > The Bush regime needs to be tried and executed. We used to execute
> >> > traitors who committed far __less__ damage to the United States than
> >> > these Christian terrorists have done to us.
> >>
> >>
> >> we don't need or want to execute the goobers...
> >
> >
> > ...and more importantly, you can't. Leftards are bladeless knives
> > without handles, i.e eunuchs. Witness the DemocRAT congress led by the
> > effete Princess Pelosi. What a joke! The DemocRATs whine, while
> > President Bush carries on as usual. That's what makes usenet so good,
> > watching you losers whine ineffectively.
>
> Gonzo - gone.
> Miers - gone.
> Libby - gone.
> etc.


Bush - still there
Cheney - still there
Rice - still there.

Whens the impeachment gonna happen?

snicker.