- Posts: 9276
- Thank you received: 31
IT'S THE REPUBLICANS ECONOMY NOW
09 Aug 2011 15:57 #154
by PrintSmith
The Clinton tax rates were taking in less as a percentage of GDP before the cuts were instituted than was being realized within a year after the cuts were made. Should Bush have left those rates in place and let the tax revenue as a percentage of GDP continue to decline? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP increased by nearly 2.5% of GDP in the time span between when the taxes were cut and the Democrats took control of Congress. That is simply fact mittra. Those cuts brought more revenue into the DC coffers, both in actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than was coming in before the cuts. Obama's strategy, on the other hand, has revenue flat as a percentage of GDP while DC spending continues to soar out of control. Raising tax rates on a select few at this point isn't going to get you an additional 2.5% of GDP in revenue within 3 years mittra. The tax cuts don't amount to that amount of money, not even when you include the shortened span of depreciation for corporate jets and the tax deduction for capital investments lost in a dry well. A 2.5% increase in revenue as a percentage of GDP equates to something around $365 Billion dollars a year, and even if all the tax increases Obama wants would do that, it would only bring us back to 17.5% of GDP in revenue against a DC government intent on spending 25% of GDP on an annual basis. It would take us from $1.6 Trillion in deficit spending over the course of a year to a much more sustainable level of only $1.2 Trillion a year in deficit spending. A huge difference, don't you think? The problem isn't revenue, it's spending in excess of a trillion dollars of the revenue each and every year without any intention of altering course. The DC government isn't ever going to get 25% of GDP in revenue, it can't even count on 20+% of GDP in revenue because that has happened exactly twice since the end of WWII. Between 19% and 20% of GDP in revenue has been realized 10 times in 65 years. 18%-19% only 13 times. That means that over the last 65 years less than 25% of the time has the federal revenue been in excess of 18% and it has not once been over 21%. Time to start figuring a DC budget on less than 18% of GDP, don't you think?
Replied by PrintSmith on topic IT'S THE REPUBLICANS ECONOMY NOW
You have got to be kidding, right? Adding the tax rate cuts to the cost of the deficit? Really? That would presume that the economy would have fared as well without those cuts, does it not? A premise which is nothing short of impossible to sustain when reason and logic are employed.mittra303 wrote:
We keep blaming George W Bush for so many of the nation's troubles because quite simply, he is to blame. Of the $14.3T debt, he's responsible for almost 1/2 of it (42.66%).
The Clinton tax rates were taking in less as a percentage of GDP before the cuts were instituted than was being realized within a year after the cuts were made. Should Bush have left those rates in place and let the tax revenue as a percentage of GDP continue to decline? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP increased by nearly 2.5% of GDP in the time span between when the taxes were cut and the Democrats took control of Congress. That is simply fact mittra. Those cuts brought more revenue into the DC coffers, both in actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than was coming in before the cuts. Obama's strategy, on the other hand, has revenue flat as a percentage of GDP while DC spending continues to soar out of control. Raising tax rates on a select few at this point isn't going to get you an additional 2.5% of GDP in revenue within 3 years mittra. The tax cuts don't amount to that amount of money, not even when you include the shortened span of depreciation for corporate jets and the tax deduction for capital investments lost in a dry well. A 2.5% increase in revenue as a percentage of GDP equates to something around $365 Billion dollars a year, and even if all the tax increases Obama wants would do that, it would only bring us back to 17.5% of GDP in revenue against a DC government intent on spending 25% of GDP on an annual basis. It would take us from $1.6 Trillion in deficit spending over the course of a year to a much more sustainable level of only $1.2 Trillion a year in deficit spending. A huge difference, don't you think? The problem isn't revenue, it's spending in excess of a trillion dollars of the revenue each and every year without any intention of altering course. The DC government isn't ever going to get 25% of GDP in revenue, it can't even count on 20+% of GDP in revenue because that has happened exactly twice since the end of WWII. Between 19% and 20% of GDP in revenue has been realized 10 times in 65 years. 18%-19% only 13 times. That means that over the last 65 years less than 25% of the time has the federal revenue been in excess of 18% and it has not once been over 21%. Time to start figuring a DC budget on less than 18% of GDP, don't you think?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.157 seconds
sponsors
