Studies Say Tax Cuts Now Will Bring Bigger Bill Later

[Pexster]

You're pretty slippery, AR. You change your argument and logic every single post!

Who would you say is the "core constituency" of Social Security and Medicare? "The liberals?"

Puh-lease!

[Atomic Rooster]

Them too. . .

Not slippery at all Pex. I'm pretty consistent.

[tony_j15]

They reduced the national debt until Bush squandered the surpluses.

next question. When you say "national debt" do you mean debt held by the public, intragovernmental holdings, or total outstanding debt?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Yeah, cut defense. Who needs to defend a nation anyway...

TRB, I'm surprised that you would stoop to such a fallacious argument. I expect more from you. The entire world's military spending was $910.6 billion in 2003 (the last year that I have figures.) There isn't two choices, a defense budget greater than all other nations combined or, no defense budget at all.

The current Defense budget is $647 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2008, which dwarfs the 2007 budget of $439.3 billion. The 2004 budget was $401 billion. I'd like to hear someone clarify how we couldn't defend ourselves if the defense budget was only, let's say, $420 billion.

Originally Posted by tony_j15

next question. When you say "national debt" do you mean debt held by the public, intragovernmental holdings, or total outstanding debt?

By the "national debt" I mean debt owed by the government (e.g. borrowed money, which is currently about $11 Trillion.) When we run surpluses, we can either buy back our bonds and retire the debt or hold the funds in the Treasury.

[Chuckiechan]

Ok, MTA. How much tax revenue is enough for Uncle Sam and the states, counties, cities, etc. - all of the other taxes we pay.

To ignore the fact the a lower tax rate produces more net dollars is just beyond me, since it's been proven over and over.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

To ignore the fact the a lower tax rate produces more net dollars is just beyond me, since it's been proven over and over.

Not only is it not true, it's blatantly not true. Reagan lowered taxes and then was forced to raise taxes in 1983 to cover the deficit that the tax-cuts created. Bush lowered taxes and we got heavier deficits than if he did not lower taxes.

Supply-side economics is based upon the discredited theory that talented people won't bother to be creative if they only get to keep most of what they earn and that if taxes are lowered, these people will create so much more that tax revenues increase. History has proven that it does not work.

In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. When the 1981 tax cuts were being debated, some supporters contended the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Similarly, opponents of the 1990 and 1993 tax increases claimed they would damage the economy and cause tax receipts to grow more slowly in the 1990s than in the 1980s.

In fact, the economy grew at about the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s, while tax revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s as in the 1980s: 3.5 percent (after adjustment for inflation and the increase in the size of the population), compared to 1.7 percent in the 1980s.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

TRB, I'm surprised that you would stoop to such a fallacious argument. I expect more from you. The entire world's military spending was $910.6 billion in 2003 (the last year that I have figures.) There isn't two choices, a defense budget greater than all other nations combined or, no defense budget at all.

The current Defense budget is $647 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2008, which dwarfs the 2007 budget of $439.3 billion. The 2004 budget was $401 billion. I'd like to hear someone clarify how we couldn't defend ourselves if the defense budget was only, let's say, $420 billion.

Like I said, it's not the money; it's efficiency. Make the whole system more efficient and a dollar can go a lot farther.

Frankly, the only responsibility the government has to its people is to protect their liberties and freedom. In other words, to defend them. You can take all the social programs and shove 'em. All they have to do is keep the country safe, and they can't even do that right with over a half-trillion dollars of spending. For some reason, they don't want to secure our borders.