Activism Discussion: Cheney Says: Tax Cuts Will Increase Taxes

Cheney Says: Tax Cuts Will Increase Taxes
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Tuttle's Almanac
2006-02-20 15:10:48 EST
Cheney Says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001855.html

Cheney said some forecasters have underestimated
the degree to which tax cuts would stimulate economic
growth and tax revenue.

Some tax-cut proponents contend that tax cuts can
essentially pay for themselves by spurring such strong
economic growth that the additional tax revenue more
than offsets the money lost to the cuts.
___________________________________________

Translation: pyramid scheme.



Steven Douglas
2006-02-20 17:02:45 EST

Tuttle's Almanac wrote:
> Cheney Says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001855.html
>
> Cheney said some forecasters have underestimated
> the degree to which tax cuts would stimulate economic
> growth and tax revenue.
>
> Some tax-cut proponents contend that tax cuts can
> essentially pay for themselves by spurring such strong
> economic growth that the additional tax revenue more
> than offsets the money lost to the cuts.
> ___________________________________________
>
> Translation: pyramid scheme.

Do you know that revenue to the government is higher today than when
President Bush took office?

Here is a quote I particularly like, from one former President of the
United States -- and when you read the quote, I'm sure you'll
immediately *know* which former President it was:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today
and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues
in the long run is to cut the rates."

And he was right.


Veritas
2006-02-20 22:27:58 EST
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:10:48 -0000, Tuttle's Almanac
<*e@brazil.plumbing.gov> wrote:

>Cheney Says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001855.html
>
>Cheney said some forecasters have underestimated
>the degree to which tax cuts would stimulate economic
>growth and tax revenue.
>
>Some tax-cut proponents contend that tax cuts can
>essentially pay for themselves by spurring such strong
>economic growth that the additional tax revenue more
>than offsets the money lost to the cuts.
>___________________________________________
>
>Translation: pyramid scheme.
>
Translation: the original poster understands nothing of economics.
Tax cuts, as in the '60's under Kennedy and now, result in increased
wealth for everyone, increased business activity and increased
revenues, creating jobs and lowering deficits. That happened then, it
got us out of the Clinton recession and it is giving us additional
growth now. The deficit is lower than expected because revenues are
up. Tax cuts cost nothing. They help everything.

Don
2006-02-21 01:35:44 EST

>Translation: the original poster understands nothing of economics.
>Tax cuts, as in the '60's under Kennedy and now, result in increased
>wealth for everyone, increased business activity and increased
>revenues, creating jobs and lowering deficits. That happened then, it
>got us out of the Clinton recession and it is giving us additional
>growth now. The deficit is lower than expected because revenues are
>up. Tax cuts cost nothing. They help everything.

Oh great master, tell us, just what was the tax rate in 1960?
And Reductio ad Absurdum, zero taxes should really pull in the revenue.


Steven Douglas
2006-02-21 23:27:56 EST

Don wrote:
> >Translation: the original poster understands nothing of economics.
> >Tax cuts, as in the '60's under Kennedy and now, result in increased
> >wealth for everyone, increased business activity and increased
> >revenues, creating jobs and lowering deficits. That happened then, it
> >got us out of the Clinton recession and it is giving us additional
> >growth now. The deficit is lower than expected because revenues are
> >up. Tax cuts cost nothing. They help everything.
>
> Oh great master, tell us, just what was the tax rate in 1960?
> And Reductio ad Absurdum, zero taxes should really pull in the revenue.

Do you deny the Bush tax cuts have resulted in increased revenue? Take
a look at the chart linked below (sourced at the bottom of the web
page), and see what happened to revenue just prior to the end of the
Clinton administration, and then look at what is happening to revenue
since the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_R/R1.cfm


Bushsucks
2006-02-22 21:31:51 EST
Learn a little something, pal:

AGI, Income Tax and FICA collected in the 80's:
$ bil AGI IncTx FICA AGI IncTx FICA
80 1626 250,2 158 86* 2524 367.0 289
81 1791 284.0 179 87* 2814 369.0 322
82* 1875 277.5 201 88* 3124 412.7 339
83* 1969 274.0 223 89* 3298 432.6 358
84* 2173 301.5 246 90 3451 447.0 380
85* 2344 325.5 265 91 3508 448.4 396
* = Reagan's Budgets

After Reagan SLASHED tax rates on the rich in 1981,
Income tax receipts DROPPED the next two years.

After the two biggest tax hikes in HISTORY, '84 &'86,
Income tax revenues began to RISE dramatically.
~~~~~~
Don't believe the GOP / Limbaugh LIE that cutting tax
rates INCREASES revenue. It's a LIE, pure and simple.

Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> Tuttle's Almanac wrote:
> > Cheney Says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001855.html
> >
> > Cheney said some forecasters have underestimated
> > the degree to which tax cuts would stimulate economic
> > growth and tax revenue.
> >
> > Some tax-cut proponents contend that tax cuts can
> > essentially pay for themselves by spurring such strong
> > economic growth that the additional tax revenue more
> > than offsets the money lost to the cuts.
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> > Translation: pyramid scheme.
>
> Do you know that revenue to the government is higher today than when
> President Bush took office?
>
> Here is a quote I particularly like, from one former President of the
> United States -- and when you read the quote, I'm sure you'll
> immediately *know* which former President it was:
>
> "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today
> and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues
> in the long run is to cut the rates."
>
> And he was right.

Steven Douglas
2006-02-22 23:45:48 EST

Bushsucks wrote:
> Learn a little something, pal:
>
> AGI, Income Tax and FICA collected in the 80's:
> $ bil AGI IncTx FICA AGI IncTx FICA
> 80 1626 250,2 158 86* 2524 367.0 289
> 81 1791 284.0 179 87* 2814 369.0 322
> 82* 1875 277.5 201 88* 3124 412.7 339
> 83* 1969 274.0 223 89* 3298 432.6 358
> 84* 2173 301.5 246 90 3451 447.0 380
> 85* 2344 325.5 265 91 3508 448.4 396
> * = Reagan's Budgets
>
> After Reagan SLASHED tax rates on the rich in 1981,
> Income tax receipts DROPPED the next two years.
>
> After the two biggest tax hikes in HISTORY, '84 &'86,
> Income tax revenues began to RISE dramatically.
> ~~~~~~
> Don't believe the GOP / Limbaugh LIE that cutting tax
> rates INCREASES revenue. It's a LIE, pure and simple.

So I should take the word of someone with that "classy" internet ID
that you use for yourself? Meanwhile, I'm actually living in a time
that effectively dismisses what you wrote in your final paragraph just
above.

Also, please back up your assertion that the two biggest tax hikes in
HISTORY were in '84 and '86. Cite a legitimate source if you can.


MANFRED The Heat Seeking OBOE
2006-02-23 01:01:01 EST
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10369632
Former United States President Bill Clinton headed for his sick bed
yesterday in Sydney after complaining of feeling unwell.

Won't you feel their pain?
Everybody loves you when you're dead,
then she can have the WH all to herself, and Ellen.

Bushsucks
2006-02-23 15:43:29 EST
Look at the NUMBERS, Dipshitz. And read THIS:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2003/10/28/168618.html
Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> Bushsucks wrote:
> > Learn a little something, pal:
> >
> > AGI, Income Tax and FICA collected in the 80's:
> > $ bil AGI IncTx FICA AGI IncTx FICA
> > 80 1626 250,2 158 86* 2524 367.0 289
> > 81 1791 284.0 179 87* 2814 369.0 322
> > 82* 1875 277.5 201 88* 3124 412.7 339
> > 83* 1969 274.0 223 89* 3298 432.6 358
> > 84* 2173 301.5 246 90 3451 447.0 380
> > 85* 2344 325.5 265 91 3508 448.4 396
> > * = Reagan's Budgets
> >
> > After Reagan SLASHED tax rates on the rich in 1981,
> > Income tax receipts DROPPED the next two years.
> >
> > After the two biggest tax hikes in HISTORY, '84 &'86,
> > Income tax revenues began to RISE dramatically.
> > ~~~~~~
> > Don't believe the GOP / Limbaugh LIE that cutting tax
> > rates INCREASES revenue. It's a LIE, pure and simple.
>
> So I should take the word of someone with that "classy" internet ID
> that you use for yourself? Meanwhile, I'm actually living in a time
> that effectively dismisses what you wrote in your final paragraph just
> above.
>
> Also, please back up your assertion that the two biggest tax hikes in
> HISTORY were in '84 and '86. Cite a legitimate source if you can.

Steven Douglas
2006-02-23 23:59:05 EST

Bushsucks wrote:
> Look at the NUMBERS, Dipshitz. And read THIS:
>
> http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2003/10/28/168618.html

That article does NOT back up your assertion (you said the two biggest
tax hikes in HISTORY were in '84 and '86). Try again.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron