Moderator: Nicole Marie
Shapley wrote:Giant Communist Robot wrote:...and this pays the debt
Currently, it only pays the interest on the debt.
Giant Communist Robot wrote:Your fear is that the government won't raise taxes high enough to pay in the future.
Giant Communist Robot wrote:raise taxes.
You seem to think that raising taxes actually raises revenue when the history is quite different
Giant Communist Robot wrote:You seem to think that raising taxes actually raises revenue when the history is quite different
OK, I'll bite. What do you mean by "revenue"?
the Reagan tax cuts
Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4
The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.5
piqaboo wrote:Giant Communist Robot wrote:Uncle Milty's negative income tax.
Thanks, GCR. That was interesting.
Giant Communist Robot wrote: and corporate taxes were increased.
Or was Reagan just lucky
With the statutory committee deadline having been missed by six weeks, and with 744 days gone by since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget, it was reported that this week Senate Democrats would finally produce a budget and hold a markup. But no budget was produced and the markup was delayed yet again. ... [Ranking member Jeff] Sessions summarized the "big problem" facing Democrat leaders during a joint interview with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan on Greta Van Susteren: "they cannot bring forth a budget their members support that the American people will support, and they understand that, they know that, and they've got a big problem." ...
Reports surfaced this week that Senate Democrats' long-awaited budget plan had not been scheduled for committee action, or shared outside of closed-door meetings with the Democrat caucus, because Chairman Conrad lacked the votes to move the budget out of his committee - particularly, it appeared, the vote of Senator Bernie Sanders. The Hill reported that Senator Conrad shifted the Senate Democrat budget further to the left as a result, coupling every dollar of savings with a dollar in higher taxes - even as the President asserted his so-called framework would achieve three dollars in savings for every one dollar in cuts, albeit a claim that is not borne out by the numbers. ...
Following these revelations, [Congressional Quarterly] published a report indicating that the Senate Democrat Budget had even fewer savings than advertised - cutting only $1.5 trillion over the course of 10 years.
What could be clearer evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]