Forum Post: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 14, 2012, 9:19 p.m. EST by aries
(463)
from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Heritage?????
Are you trying to make me laugh??
You could try Karl's main site for even more skewed results.
Do any of them mention the cost of contracts to Halliburton ( A foreign entity ), and the like?
What do contracts to Halliburton have to do with tax receipts to the IRS? Please try to focus on the topic.
Anything from Heritage is focused on one thing alone...........
Just wondering, if revenues are so fantastic, where did the money go?
It's not building schools, or fixing roads or anything.
Please try and focus. It's not one thing, it's everything.
OccupyWallStreet!!!!!!!!
that's a good question were the money went. in 08 the fed budget was 2.5 trillion. in 09, 10, 11 it is 3.7 trillion. were's the money? we take in 2.2 trillion.
Here's one place...............
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-ticker-on-whats-lost/
Ooooops, there went another school.
[Removed]
Yea - I saw that. however it is not a reflection of revenue lost. we have maintained the same tax revenue more or less. 2.5T in 2008 2.2T today. However SPENDING IS UP to 3.7 TRILLION. Your ticker doesn't reflect the spending.
You ignored my question about Halliburton, and other such contracts.
You've also ignored the simple fact that revenue stagnation is a death in a capitalist environment.
It's like pulling the plug in a sink full of water, without the water running hard enough to keep it full.
What does Halliburton have to do with the Bush Tax cuts?
You keep asking where the monies are going.
Couple that with the inflationary money drain and revenue stagnation and you will find the answer.
There's also the fact that at least some of the cost of two expensive military occupations, have been put on budget.
the wars were 1.5 trillion. we are in debt 15 trillion. Bush inherited 5 trillion, obama inherited 10 trillion, we are now up to 15 trillion.
Bandying numbers looks impressive, yet it is still not a response.
You've asked where, and I'm trying to tell you.
The numbers they give you, are probably the biggest lies of all.
"probably" ? lets look at one specifically shall we. Pick where you have a disagreement specifically.
When you actually begin to respond to what I said, I'll consider it.
There's also the cost of administering the Patriot Act, another money sink.
It would be a matter of national security, to admit what is actually spent.
Where do you think it's going?
hahaha! Classic response from a liberal. discredit your opponents information as lies lol! How do you know the information you rely on to support your position are not lies?
military industrial complex - sounds like a federal spending issue not a Bush Tax cut issue. Please stay on topic.
I've been trying to tell you that those number you quoted are lies.
You say nothing's changed. It did.
that's my question lol! Where did the money go - that's what I want to know.
And that's what I told you.
Consider that the military industrial complex has been growing exponentially.
It's cost, is a matter of national security.
what was your question again? It must have gotten lost along the way. my apologies.
Where did the money go?
Heritage Foundation Clings To Myths To Defend Bush Tax Cuts
Among the highlights:
The Heritage Foundation Itself Said Tax Cuts Would Lead To "A Growth In Tax Revenues."
Heritage Predicted That Under The Bush Tax Cuts, "The National Debt Would Effectively Be Paid Off By FY 2010."
Heritage Foundation "We Lower Taxes To Encourage Economic Growth."
Bloomberg News: "Give The Wealthiest Americans A Tax Cut And History Suggests They Will Save The Money Rather Than Spend It."
CBO: Among Eleven Proposals To Spur Economic Growth, Cutting Income Taxes Ranks Last.
Bush Policies Resulted In The Weakest Economic Cycle Since 1945.
During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record.
Bush Tax Cuts Were Inefficient And Didn't Stimulate The Economy.
Bloomberg is wrong, Seems that we had pretty good years 2002 -2008 Dow 15000 record - unemployment 5%. ,
My link in better.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
so you've shifted the issue from tax revenue to the govt to how taxes affects people income. I thought the point of taxes was to have money to run the govt. I didnt realize it was to redistribute fairness.