Lower tax rates grow the economy and generate more tax revenue.

[LionsDen]

Lower tax rates grow the economy and generate more tax revenue.

Higher tax rates kill growth.

From an email from the conservative, Christian Family Research Council:

Taxes Cut, Deficit--not Sky--Falls

Liberals wrung their hands when President Bush first proposed tax cuts back in 2001. It would ruin the economy and balloon the deficit, they wailed. Now, we are seeing the deficit falling rapidly. This year's deficit of $296 billion is 30 percent lower than projected just last February. That's a $127 billion decline from that February forecast. Revenues have increased, accounting for 90 percent of the deficit reduction. This is an historic moment and President Bush is right to call attention to the success of his pro-growth economic policies.

FRC supported those tax cuts, especially the pro-family portions of the tax package. Now we see that they are working to the benefit of all Americans. It's not only a victory for President Bush, it's also vindication for Ronald Reagan. When he first proposed massive tax cuts in 1980, Reagan was criticized for "voodoo economics." Later, liberal pundits blamed President Reagan for the deepening recession that began on Carter's watch. But, as Reagan's tax cuts began to work, and America rebounded, he smilingly said: "You'll notice they don't call it Reaganomics any more." Thank you, President Bush, for staying the course

This worked for Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and G W Bush.

God made human beings to be success-motivated. When we can keep more of what we earn, we earn more, create more, and produce more. It's human nature... that's economic conservatism at its finest.

More from our President...

Together, these tax cuts left nearly $1.1 trillion in the hands of American workers and families and small business owners, and they used this money to help fuel an economic resurgence that's now in its 18th straight quarter of growth. The tax cuts we passed work. (Applause.)

Last year, our economy grew at 3.5 percent, and in the first quarter of this year, it grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent. Over the past three years, our economy has grown by more than $1.3 trillion, an amount that is larger than the size of the entire Canadian or South Korean economy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060711-1.html

For news analysis of how the biased liberal media twists the good economic news, see http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0311210905.asp

And finally from the Great Rush Limbaugh --

Bush Tax Cut Worked Better Than Expected

May 12, 2006

RUSH: (Wall Street Journal) "The Federal government ran a monthly budget surplus of $118.85 billion in April as tax receipts came in stronger than the same period last year." In fact... (AP) "A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month.

In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4% from April 2005."

Now, a question. How can this happen? How can this happen when we had tax cuts? How can it possibly happen when we have had tax cuts, ladies and gentlemen? Well, it happens because of the way we've always told you it happens: Tax cuts produce more revenue because they create more jobs equaling more taxpayers, and more taxpayers contribute more tax revenue while the aggregate tax payment per person comes down.

It works every time it is tried, if the top rate that you are reducing is not too low. You reach a point where you are not going to raise revenue if your tax rate is zero. There is a formula for this. It obviously works, especially with capital gains coming down to 15%. So this leads me to another question. What do liberals hate more than our president? Now, I'll give you a hint: it is one word. I'll give you another hint: it begins with "R." No, it is not Rush. It is not me. It has seven letters. Liberals hate more than our president, one word.

It begins with "R", and has seven letters. Don't bother figuring it out. I'll tell you. What liberals hate more than our president and me is R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. The tax cuts worked, and according to today's media, the Wall Street Journal and others, they worked better than advertised. Yet, only 15 Democrats in the house broke ranks with Pelosi and supported the extension of these tax cuts! Only three in the Senate! Only three Democrats broke ranks and supported the extension. Despite the evidence, the liberal rally cries the tax warfare cry. "Tax cuts favor the rich."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Bottom Line: Cut tax rates and grow the economy. It works every time it has been tried.

[Crumb]

his year's deficit of $296 billion is 30 percent lower than projected just last February.

This is not a falling deficit, this is an inflated projection. How do Bush's deficits compare to the deficits of the Presidents beofre him?

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Crumb

This is not a falling deficit, this is an inflated projection. How do Bush's deficits compare to the deficits of the Presidents beofre him?

Yes ofcourse this is not a falling deficit. This is not an inflated projection either.

What is the story? The projection was based upon liberal outdated views of economics... a static view that the size of economic growth is unrelated to tax rates.

The real world view of economics is dynamic, not static. This means the economy actually grows in response to reductions in tax rates.

As other conservatives have said, the problem of rising deficits is caused by increased gov't spending that devours previous years increased revenue. Both parties are guilty of this... spending more than they take in.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Lower tax rates grow the economy and generate more tax revenue.

Higher tax rates kill growth.

You give no evidence for either of these claims, nor even an interpretation of what "lower" and "higher" could mean in concrete terms.

Claims that are both vacuous and utterly lacking argument are not the sign of a substantive position nor of an engaged mind.

From an email from the conservative, Christian Family Research Council:

The phrase was coined by George H.W. Bush to attack Reagan. Is Bush a "liberal pundit" now, in the fact-free universe of the crap merchants who indulge your cognitive coprophilia?

They call it Reaganomics to this day. And there's barely such a thing, unless it means government complicity in corporate rapaciousness. Reaganomics is naively defined as "supply-side" economics; yet "demand-side" economics is defined as a willingness to use deficit-spending to stave off economic downturns. Reagan was a deficit spender the likes of which the world had never seen, and hence seems a clear case of a demand-sider.

Divorced of silly rhetoric, the economic policies implemented under Reagan were very largely Keynesian. If this succeeded, there's at least as much reason to think it succeeded because of the inflated government spending on his watch (the sort you could learn about by, you know, reading) as to think that lower taxes had anything to do with it. Especially since the real beginnings of the economic turnaround actually came after Reagan... guess what?... increased the payroll tax and reversed many of his initial tax cuts.

The rest of your post, factoring out the white noise from Limbaugh, is simply a testament to your innumeracy and misunderstanding of the Administration's use of "projections". The latter is made plain in your comically credulous treatment of Bush's "projections" as serving some purpose other than to make the eventual dismal performance of the economy seem successful by at least some standard -- and if it has to be a fictional standard, so be it. The former is clear in your awe at percentage claims of growth that in fact express how lousy the economy has done under Bush. How badly has the economy shrunk since Bush took office? First educate yourself on the facts, and then ask yourself: If you lose 50% of $100, and then experience a 50% increase in your remaining funds... does that make you an economic genius, or someone who's presided over a 25% loss?

I know, I know... arithmetic has a liberal bias.

[Javaman]

From the real world: I have experienced an increase in my Federal income tax, my state tax, and my overal tax burden (property tax, etc.) over the past five years. Although I've had several pay raises, I have less money at the end of the day than I did when the current administration took office.

But then I make less than $80,000/year.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Javaman

From the real world: I have experienced an increase in my Federal income tax, my state tax, and my overal tax burden (property tax, etc.) over the past five years. Although I've had several pay raises, I have less money at the end of the day than I did when the current administration took office.

But then I make less than $80,000/year.

You need a better tax accountant, and maybe a lower tax state!

80K a year should not be that hard to shield from taxation.

[Clutch Munny]

I'd like to remedy my hasty choice of words in my post above.

As informed readers may have guessed, I meant to say "cognitive coprophagia" rather than "cognitive coprophilia" in describing Lions Den's use of the known falsehoods peddled by his preferred sources.

My apologies for the error.

[D. Scarlatti]

I thought coprophilia was a reference to the disposition of LionsDen's fan club.

Either way, you must couch your factual rebuttals in respectful language (unlike LionsDen) because otherwise LionsDen will use the non-respectful language as an excuse to ignore the facts. Funny how that works, isn't it.

[Clutch Munny]

No, he'll ignore the demolition of his foolishness no matter what.

As I've already pointed out, though, Lions Den does not even have the regard for truth that characterizes a liar (who is at least concerned to avoid the truth). He is, in Frankfurt's sense, a devotee of bullshit: someone who simply utters words to effect ends. No concern for truth or accuracy -- not even the concern to avoid these things -- colours his utterances or gives him pause in retrospect, except occasionally as a kind of joke.

I have no interest in attempting to engage his non-existent sensitivity to facts. This is all about lurkers, whose education and entertainment (as argued by liv and others) are the only grounds to respond to this asshole.

[godfry n. glad]

Please note that the logical conclusion of his assertion is that infinitesimal taxation generates infinite tax revenues. Ergo, taxing each citizen $.01 each year will generate more than enough revenue to cover all government expenses and pay down the debt at the same time.

On the face of it, such a proposition is absurd.

It is correct that under given circumstances, reducing the tax burden can stimulate the economy. This is usually when those funds are released to be infused into the economy. Those most likely to do so are those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, because basic needs are so much a part of the economic reality. Whereas, those at the top of the economic heap are the least likely to put that money into circulation.

Also, when spending is stimulated and production does not keep pace, like when the product being used is destroyed upon use (as with munitions), it can result in cost inflation...which is basically too many dollars chasing too few goods.

Reducing the tax burden can also reduce the tax revenue. It all depends upon a multitude of other circumstances.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Please note that the logical conclusion of his assertion is that infinitesimal taxation generates infinite tax revenues. Ergo, taxing each citizen $.01 each year will generate more than enough revenue to cover all government expenses and pay down the debt at the same time.

On the face of it, such a proposition is absurd.

It is correct that under given circumstances, reducing the tax burden can stimulate the economy. This is usually when those funds are released to be infused into the economy. Those most likely to do so are those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, because basic needs are so much a part of the economic reality. Whereas, those at the top of the economic heap are the least likely to put that money into circulation.

Also, when spending is stimulated and production does not keep pace, like when the product being used is destroyed upon use (as with munitions), it can result in cost inflation...which is basically too many dollars chasing too few goods.

Reducing the tax burden can also reduce the tax revenue. It all depends upon a multitude of other circumstances.

You need to read the OP again. Rush addresses your mistake about zero tax rates.

Anyway I am glad not one poster was able to refute the facts:

Lower tax rates result in more tax revenue. It worked all four times in US history.

Take home message: Vote for conservatives and enjoy more of what you earn!

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Clutch

No, he'll ignore the demolition of his foolishness no matter what.

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Anyway I am glad not one poster was able to refute the facts

Thank you, thank you; please, no applause. I'll be here all week, reading palms and casting horoscopes for a modest fee.

[wei yau]

I'm horrible at Googling for anything other than pop culture trivia. So, maybe one of you can help me finding these figures.

Since Bush has no problem touting the fact that the deficit came in under the forecasted number, I would think that forecasted numbers are valid yardsticks for measurement.

So, can anyone tell me what was the forecasted amount of tax revenue generated by these tax cuts when they were first proposed? And how does the revenue being praised by Bush compare with this number?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

You need to read the OP again. Rush addresses your mistake about zero tax rates.

You need to read my post again, dipshit. I said nothing about zero tax rates. Infinitesimal and zero are vastly different. What tax reduction with increased deficit spending has accomplished is to vastly increase the national debt while "stimulating" the economy. Too bad the current presidential chimp couldn't do what the previous one (a Democrat!) did and grow the economy while reducing the national debt.

As I keep saying, where's the slut in the blue dress when you need her?

Oh...And it seems that what all the big money people are doing with their tax savings is buying more congressmen...Those Repugnantcans sure do seem to enjoy their hookers...Is 'Duke' Cunningham (R-CA) the official House Majority Pimp?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

You need to read the OP again. Rush addresses your mistake about zero tax rates.

You just can't stop kicking yourself in the nuts, can you?

It's awesome to watch you finding new ways to look stupid.

Anyhow, setting aside your strange belief that 1=0 and your helpless confusion when confronted with a reductio ad absurdum, let's look at what Rush actually expectorated:

It works every time it is tried, if the top rate that you are reducing is not too low. You reach a point where you are not going to raise revenue if your tax rate is zero. There is a formula for this.

Oops! Like Lions Den, Rush somehow forgot to mention what the "formula" is!

Instead we get this amazing jewel of insight: As long as the rate isn't too low -- how low? so low that revenue doesn't go up! -- then revenue goes up.

Really? And you say this works every time, eh? Go figure.

Jeez, what a shame that the utter vacuity of this silly move wasn't pointed out to you right at the outset. Or... wait...

Originally Posted by Clutch

You give no... interpretation of what "lower" and "higher" could mean in concrete terms.

That's right, peaches -- you're just plain old addicted to making a fool of yourself. Fortunately, you've picked an audience with a really high tolerance for watching morons do pratfalls. So this appears to be win-win!

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Lower tax rates grow the economy and generate more tax revenue.

Higher tax rates kill growth.[/COLOR]

A particularly bad argument.

The highest income tax rates in history (prior to 1973) also correspond with the largest growth in the American economy ever seen in history.

Oops.

[godfry n. glad]

Indeed, to do so would be wise.

That's the other side of Keynesian economics. Spend to stimulate the economy by increasing debt; then, when the economy is stimulated, increase taxation to a level that will pay off the indebtedness incurred by deficit spending.

Too bad the military industrial complex stepped in and started taking the cream of the tax revenues and requiring that the taxpayer continue to bear the burden of the national debt. Actually, it's rather like taxing your kids and grandkids for corporate aggrandizement and perpetual war.

Stupid.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Sauron

A particularly bad argument.

The highest income tax rates in history (prior to 1973) also correspond with the largest growth in the American economy ever seen in history.

Your error is showing. 1974 was a recession due in part to the tax rates of 1973.

Lowering tax rates produced more revenue all four times it was tried in American history.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Your error is showing. 1974 was a recession due in part to the tax rates of 1973.

Wrong. The recession was not due to the tax rates. Of course if you think otherwise, alphamale, then by all means -- feel free to post sources for (a) your original claim, and (b) your claim about the 1974 recession.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Wrong. The recession was not due to the tax rates. Of course if you think otherwise, alphamale, then by all means -- feel free to post sources for (a) your original claim, and (b) your claim about the 1974 recession.

I already have. This is not open to dispute. The only matter for any debate is whether the democrat party admits that lower tax rates grow the economy!

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

I already have.

No, you have not. If you think you have, then feel free to point it out to me.

This is not open to dispute.

Of course it is. I dispute it right now.

The only matter for any debate is whether the democrat party admits that lower tax rates grow the economy!

There is no data to support that wishful thinking, and apparently you can't provide any either.

Game, set, match - I win. As usual.

[Clutch Munny]

Projected deficits are proposed years in advance and are updated repeatedly. Since first taking power in 2001, the Bush White House has issued five January projected deficits for 2006. The first two projections were for surpluses rather than deficits. As 2006 grew closer, though, and as the real deficits kept exceeding the projections year after year, making for negative news reports, the remaining projected deficits kept getting revised upwards.

How did they finally get in under the projected deficit?

Unsurprisingly, in the most cynical and transparently dishonest way possible.

Starting in 2001, here are the White House's projected surpluses/deficits for 2006:
(Source)

2001: $269 billion
2002: $61 billion
2003: -$201 billion
2004: -$268 billion
2005: -$390 billion

Actual 2006 as claimed by LionsDen's spammail above: -$298 billion

Yep, it was just that simple. They were finally able to get under their own deficit projection by making the projection larger every year, until finally adding $122 billion, a mind-boggling 45%, to the 2004 projection in order to get the outrageous and terrifying 2005 projection of $390 billion. Then they were able to get not 30%, as LD's predictably false source claims, but about 25% under that grossly inflated number.

Indexed to the size of the economy, only the enormous deficits of the Reagan era stand between the Bush White House and the record for the highest deficits in American history.

No doubt this explains why such "liberal pundits" as the Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal have excoriated Bush's Big Government squandering of future Americans' tax dollars -- as all but Lions Den and his coprophagic cohort have understood for years now.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by godfry

Oh...And it seems that what all the big money people are doing with their tax savings is buying more congressmen...Those Repugnantcans sure do seem to enjoy their hookers...Is 'Duke' Cunningham (R-CA) the official House Majority Pimp?

Thanks for that link godfry. I haven't been following the story so you can imagine my surprise and delight upon reading about the antics and escapades of Brent Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. I attended Jr. & Sr. High School with both of those illustrious gentlemen. I didn't know Brent very well, but I clearly remember Dusty as a boneheaded bullying jock asshole. What a treat to read all about their successful careers since High School. Man it makes me proud to know what my classmates have achieved. Thanks again.

Angakuk

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Thanks for that link godfry. I haven't been following the story so you can imagine my surprise and delight upon reading about the antics and escapades of Brent Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. I attended Jr. & Sr. High School with both of those illustrious gentlemen. I didn't know Brent very well, but I clearly remember Dusty as a boneheaded bullying jock asshole. What a treat to read all about their successful careers since High School. Man it makes me proud to know what my classmates have achieved. Thanks again.

Angakuk

My pleasure entirely, Rev.

[Clutch Munny]

It took you that long to come up with that limp an evasion?

You really were slapped silly!