The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

did anyone catch the 800+ billion dollar stimulus package the democrats in congress want to pass.

No offense, but when history has showed that a stimulus package doesn't work, why the hell are they trying to pass it in congress. I guess my financial markets teacher was right. "The elected individuals that are leaving were dumb, and the people we elected appear to be even dumber"

Why doesn't the government just go from a payroll tax system to a consumption tax system (I.E fair tax) and give people more money in their pockets. It seems like the logical way to go, but of course the government doesn't seem to understand logic.

I'd like to see more of the money go towards construction and infrastructure.

The GOP wants to make sure that the Dems own this bill.  They did from the start, and the reason why is simple: they (the Republicans) have nothing to gain by supporting it.  If it works, Obama and the Democrats will get all of the credit, so why not vote No in lockstep and set yourself up for a big boost if it fails?

You can make the argument that they should have put the needs of the nation ahead of cynical politics, but it's mostly semantic; the bill was certain to pass in the House with or without the votes of the GOP.  The Dems had to make concessions (even while knowing that the GOP is going to bail anyway) in order to make it appear like they are trying to be bipartisan.  But House Republicans are paper tigers anyway; the House Democrats can steamroll them at will.  The real test will come in the Senate, where "No" votes will actually be held accountable if the package fails.

Politically, the best outcome for the GOP (with regards to the various bailouts/stimuli) is:

1) they cram in as many tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy as they can manage
2) Every Dem Senator votes Yes
3) GOP Senators vote "No" in overwhelming numbers, with a few GOP Senators (in safe seats for their next election) contributing just enough "Yes" votes to get it to pass
4) everything fails horribly and the nation goes into a (worse) downward spiral
5) 2012

However, 3) and 4) are the important part.  Given the results of the last two elections, if there are enough GOP "No" votes to actually kill the package, and the nation then continues to crater, the GOP will be blamed as the obstructionists who prevented Obama from fixing the problem because of petty partisanship.  And the GOP definitely doesn't want that.

So ideally, they want to get the maximum possible "No" votes that they can without actually stopping the bill from passing.

  While being correct on why they did.  Where is the stimulus? 

  This is stimulus?

$25 million for new ATV trails;
$400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;
$400 million for global warming research;
$335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases
$650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion.

The Congressional Budget Office says borrowing $820 billion will cost $347 billion more in interest, which of course pushes the total cost of the stimulus package to more than $1 trillion.

If paid back by 2020?    Paid back 3 Yrs after Obama leaves office if re-elected.  Anyone want to bet 99% of the pay back happens in 2018, 2019?  There is that 10 Yr plan I have said they all have.

Convenient you left out that almost $300B is going towards tax cuts for individuals and businesses.

$275 billion in tax relief offered in the stimulus package focuses more on lower-income families. 

$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing

$4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid

$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program

$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”

$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)

$500 million for “Defense Environmental Cleanup”

$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry

$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings

$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles

$426 million in small business loans

$100 million for “non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry

$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry

$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security

$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges

$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program

$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects

$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries

$1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance” in the National Park System

$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs

$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities

$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs

$800 million for Superfund programs

$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup

$8.4 billion in “State and Tribal Assistance Grants”

$650 million in “Capital Improvement and Maintenance” at the Agriculture Dept.

$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”

$550 million for Indian Health facilties

$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums

$50 million in grants to fund “arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn” through the National Endowment for the Arts

$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities

$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities

$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve

$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments

$300 million for “construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers”

$250 million for public health centers

$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers

$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training

$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control

$1.5 billion for “National Center for Research Resources”

$500 million for “Buildlings and Facilties” at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.

$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs

$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states

$1 billion for Head Start programs

$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs

$100 million for Social Security research programs

$200 million for “Aging Services Programs”

$2 billion for “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”

$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds

$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs

$5.5 billion in targeted education grants

$5.5 billion in “education finance incentive grants”

$2 billion in “school improvement grants”

$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

$250 million for statewide education data systems

$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair

$160 million for AmeriCorps grants

$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Security Administration

$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims

$920 million for Army housing and child development centers

$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers

$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers

$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction

$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects

$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects

$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects

$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects

$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects

$950 million for VA Medical Facilities

$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries

$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department

$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative

$3 billion for “Grants-in-Aid for Airports”

$300 million for Indian Reservation roads

$300 million for Amtrak capital needs

$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades

$5.4 billion in federal transit grants

$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways

$5 billion for public housing capital

$1 billion in competitive housing grants

$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing

$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants

$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes

$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities

$79 billion in education funds for states

$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Se

Where do you get the ACORN stat?

  This is stimulus?

$25 million for new ATV trails;
$400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;
$400 million for global warming research;
$335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases
$650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion.

So the middle American is basically left out?

Why are groups like ACORN eligible for 4.2 Billion?

Why is Amtrak getting 300 million?

When is the last time Amtrak turned a profit?

There is a widely believed theory that any extra money going to the wealthy is going to end up being put into savings. Lower income people are actually going to need to spend the money so that is going to help the economy. Imagine that, a stimulus package actually created to stimulate the economy. What a weird idea.

Where do you get the ACORN stat?

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds

Amtrak is basically run by the DOT. Should the postal service not receive government money?

It was made up.  As are many of the false claims about the stimulus package. 

And all of these items combined comprise less than 0.3 percent (that is, one-third of one percent) of the stimulus.  What a great example!

If I say that when buying a car, I "focused more" on fuel economy than passenger capacity, do you take that to mean that I can't carry any passengers at all?

Because their area of involvement is relevant to people that are having homes foreclosed?

Because one of Obama's major campaign platforms was more energy independence, and expanded public transportation is a big part of that?

Why is this even relevant?

Once you lose your job you technically are No Income so let's split hairs.

America cannot continue to spend money it does not have. We do not have this money.  Spending is what put us in the position we are in & we are not going to spend ourselves out it.

The only true stimulus needed is big cut in spending & tax relief on money being earned.  Yes, its slower, but solid.  There is no magic wand here.

There is a difference between tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend.  If you are willing to increase tax revenue, then spending can be accounted for.

Um, we have already tried giving tax cuts to the obscenely wealthy and the whole trickle-down Reaganomics junk.  It failed.

If we, as a nation, really wanted to stay the course of tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation, the GOP would still be in power.  They are not.

  Unless you go out & find another job.

I tell you what. Just for giggles why don't you quit your job tomorrow and then come back and let us know how that job search is going. We just had a job fair in Orlando. Over 6000 people showed up for less than 400 job openings.

Spending before having the money in any way is still borrowing.  Where it comes from after the fact does not change the fact you are still borrowing the cash from someone.

  Who said anything about tax cuts for just the wealthy? You put 25% more dollars into working citizens pockets each month, then they are more likely to spend it on goods & services. Which gets the economy rolling.

Not building new ATV trails, which if anyone truly believes its actually going to ATV trails then you are ignorant..

Why is it when people say tax cut you go to wealthy?   Why is it when someone critizes something Gov now, its circle the wagons around Obama?

     If you think this stimulus plan is going to put people back to work anytime soon, then do a little research & stop with the little soundbites that do nothing but try to take the topic off on a tangent. 

The package has very little to do with stimulating the economy.

Not building new ATV trails, which if anyone truly believes its actually going to ATV trails then you are ignorant..

Color me ignorant.  

This isn't a "save the world, tidy up the woods" portion of this package.  Believe it or not, ATV trails generate economy for states.  Hard to grasp, I know - seems the easy thing to do is dismiss this as a "throw away" portion of the package and laugh at it versus actually looking at something in a subjective way.

This is from a New York Times article from a few years ago:

Indeed, the snowmobile infrastructure that has been developed in recent years accounts for much of the success, said Stephen Reiling, a University of Maine economist (and sometime snowmobiler) who is the principal author of the report. Snowmobile clubs and volunteers have built and maintained an elaborate 12,000-mile interstate trail system stretching into Canada and New Hampshire. In this area, the clubs, Chambers of Commerce and town officials cooperate to buy the grooming machines -- municipalities get lower interest rates on loans and are exempt from sales taxes -- and they are eventually repaid by state grants coming from snowmobile registration fees and a tiny share of gasoline taxes.

There is even a state snowmobile czar, Scott Ramsey of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, who last year took care of about 200 miles of state trails and distributed $902,000 in grants to towns and $344,000 to clubs to maintain club trails. Part of the $20 snowmobile registration fee goes to the Fish and Wildlife Service, whose game wardens are the state's most powerful police agency. The wardens set up roadblocks along the trails to nab drunken snowmobilers.

Northern Maine - used as one example of one little state - pulls in 300 million dollars to Maine's economy in the SNOWMOBILE SEASON ALONE.  Do you think people randomly go out and cut their own trails?  That isn't how it works.

Those same trails are used in spring / summer and fall as well - which generates money and jobs.  People flock to northern Maine.  This means the mom and pop stores have customers, the state needs game wardens, people are buying the sleds in the first place, people need places to sleep...

So let's put a little thought into this ATV trail thing that you are laughing so hard it first.  You want to talk objectively-do it.  

I guess you could consider taxes "borrowing," but "borrowing" implies that you intend to repay it.

Doesn't this stimulus plan have a $275B tax relief plan in it?

And again, said ATV trails comprise comprise 0.003% (that's three-thousandths of ONE PERCENT) of the package.

When the opponents spend such a large amount of time heavily criticizing less than one percent of the bill, it kind of makes you wonder why they are avoiding the rest of the bill.

Huh?  I'm arguing against the supply-sider libertarian mentality... the one that proposes that we cut taxes to those that are the most well-off in order to benefit everyone else.  This argument predates Obama by many decades.

.64% of the $816B making its way into the economy in the first 19 months[/url].

     If you think this stimulus plan is going to put people back to work anytime soon, then do a little research & stop with the little soundbites that do nothing but try to take the topic off on a tangent. 

The package has very little to do with stimulating the economy. 

Northern Maine - used as one example of one little state - pulls in 300 million dollars to Maine's economy in the SNOWMOBILE SEASON ALONE.  Do you think people randomly go out and cut their own trails?  That isn't how it works.

You are so full of it. Did I say the stimulus package was putting anyone back to work anytime soon? Please find where I said that and point it out to me.

How do you figure I am going on a tangent?

We get it, you don't like government spending. The problem is no one is going to be doing anything to help the economy without government assistance. The people who are poor need help. The people who aren't ppor are afraid to spend for fear that they will soon be in the poor category. If people with money aren't spending and people without money cannot spend that only leaves one group to spend, the government. Like it or hate it it is going to be done. If it is going to be done we need to hope it works.

  Not knocking you Maine, because you are just stating the facts on this.  Thanks BTW.

My question is citizens who do not have jobs will still have the money to go do this?

Which is why I said tax cut is the only way to go.  More money in everyone's pocket will increase spending.

   Just for giggles post ring a bell?   Once you lose your job you technically are No Income so let's split hairs post ring a bell?

What was the point of those post?
   

And how will "more money in everyone's pocket" increase spending more than taking money out of their pocket and spending it?

You're trying to throw up a smokescreen here.  If the issue was really getting more dollars into the economy, why are you complaining about an bill that's creating $820B in spending?  The only logical complaint you should have is that it's not spending fast enough.

We've already been over this in another thread.  You need to divorce your opposition to taxes from your stated objective of creating spending.  They are not linked.

To respond to your dribble.

For one, its money already earned.  This money is from the future.

Why is not allowing the citizen who earn the money the right to spend it? Because they are the ones that worked for it.

You take $100 away from someone then they not only do not have that $100 to spend, but then will cut back more on discretionary spending to make up for the $100 lost in taxes.

And yet it spends just as well.  Funny, that.

Once again: you are trying to confuse the discussion.  Your belief that taxation is inherently unjust has nothing to do with whether or not the stimulus package will work.  Smokescreen.

So essentially, you are saying that (for example) the citizen with the $1000 paycheck will spend $200 (leaving $800 remaining), but the man with the $900 paycheck will only spend, say, $50 (leaving $850 remaining)?

Setting aside the seeming absurdity of this statement, why isn't this a good thing?  Aren't you complaining about the spend-spend-spend mentality as we speak?  Is it not a good idea for him to be saving/investing $850 instead of $800?

Nice try, there... I almost got baited into making a response about whether or not gov't is a good thing.  Almost.

Let me see if I can summarize your position.  Citizen who:

1) does not support taxpayer funding of anything but the barest essentials
2) is philosophically against gov't expansion on general principle

...is against a bill containing a wide-ranging gov't expansion, funded by taxes.

Why are you arguing over details like ATV trails and STD prevention when you are fundamentally opposed to the core concepts of the stimulus package to begin with?  This is like a vegan arguing over bacon vs. steak.

...we have already tried giving tax cuts to the obscenely wealthy and the whole trickle-down Reaganomics junk.  It failed.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut income tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal income tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal income tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut.  The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.

In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.

How so?

Income levels have stratified more and more; the rich are becoming the insanely rich, while the middle class is steadily shrinking. 

It seems to me that the era of gov't as a mechanism to turn multimillionaires into billionaires has passed

and the era of gov't as a mechanism to help expand the middle class has returned.

Prior to the housing crunch, where were the middle class going - up or down?  I've heard talking heads argue both explanations.

I'd agree, but government never served this function as government doesn't create wealth. 

By moving the poor up or the rich down?

Defense contractors would disagree with you.

But the point I was getting at was primarily the increasing deregulation; the policies that have removed any restraints from corporations (and their increasing super-wealthy executives) gouging the middle class in the name of "free market capitalism."

...as opposed to the amount that will be in the economy in the next 12 months if we sit around and do nothing?

It's not like this is some sort of surprise action.  Obama has been saying that this would be coming since, what, September?  He campaigned on it.

  Sounds like you just want a knee jerk reaction instead a well thought out action.  The first half of this bail out was a knee jerk reaction & as you can tell.  It did little to nothing.

Been reading that something like .13 cents for every dollar in this package is actually considered stimulus.  The rest is agenda related.

Again, why the rush if we are not going to be seeing any of this money for over 12 months?

Again, one of Obama's main concerns with the Patriot Act was it was rushed through.  Why is this different?

Gouging in what way?

The TARP bailout was a joke.  We went from "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" to "the sky is falling and we need to act NOW" in the course of a couple of weeks.

This stimulus has been planned since September; Obama campaigned heavily on it.  To act like this is being suddenly sprung upon the American people (like the TARP bailout was) is silly.

Semantics.  If, say, half of the package was in green energy infrastructure creation, is that "stimulus" or is that "agenda?" 

There is such a thing as long-term stimulus; it doesn't necessarily mean handing out paper cash.
You do realize why this money is taking time to enter the market, right?

Unlike the TARP bailout, this package is not designed to throw money at problems without any sort of plan.  The reason why it will take a while to execute is because it is being rolled out as the other pieces come into play.  You can't just say, "OK, we are going to spend $100B on roads and bridges... what can we get started by next week?"

Fast spending is not better than smart spending, as the TARP bailout shows us.
9/11 happened on, well, 9/11/01.  PATRIOT ACT was signed into law on 10/26/01.  6 weeks.
Fannie and Freddie takeover was on 9/7/08.  It has been nearly six months since then.

See, normally I'd be less inclined to pursue such a class-combative pseudo-socialist tack, but the events of the last six months have convinced me otherwise.  The story that I've been sold is that capitalism allows you to rise and fall based on your own merit and hard work.  But apparently, if you are really rich (like, a FREAKING BANK rich) and you completely screw up, then you get to go to the gov't and have them pay for your mistakes (using money from people who AREN'T rich).  Then you get to STAY rich.

Sorry, f*ck that.  I'm getting off of that train.

It's one thing to argue that the rich should be able to keep their own money, but when my tax dollars go directly to helping wealthy screwups maintain their wealth, the veil is lifted. 

It is now clear that despite the arguments of the wealthy, they are quite content with socialist actions when it benefits them...

We knew it was coming.  What we didn't know was what was in it.  Slight detail that most should consider important.

[...]

This is a economic stimulus package.  Not a policy package.  Going "Green" is not stimulus & this not going to put people back to work.

Very few want to go "Green" more than I.  However, this is not the format to do it.

I guess I don't see why we can't have both reasonable taxes on the rich so they're not encouraged to hide their assets, while not funding them with taxpayer money.

Doesn't make it right, but this sounds like human nature.

Your responses illustrate my point.

How long should we debate ideas that you are already opposed to?  A month?  2 months?

Obama said during the campaign that upon assuming office, one of his first priorities would be to push through a wide-ranging infrastructure plan, designed to both create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign energy.  If you have a problem with the very concept, how long do we need to discuss the details of it?  You aren't on board, you weren't on board, you won't be on board.  Your objection is noted, now let's move on.  This is precisely what played out in the House of Representatives.

The difference between this package and TARP/PATRIOT is that for those, there was a very short, hectic period of time where the (Bush) administration insisted that there's no time to discuss whether or not these drastic steps are needed and we must act NOW NOW NOW.  We've had six f'ing months (and three since Obama was elected) for the GOP to step up and say "Um, do we really need green energy?  Let's just do more tax cuts instead."  Instead, they have done nothing.  Now it is time to act..

Once again: these plans have been on Obama's website for MONTHS.  Any politician that has a philosophical objection to what he's doing should have spoken up a LONG TIME AGO.

Then essentially, your only real objection is that they should stop calling it a stimulus plan?

Do you suggest that he NOT follow through on a major campaign promise?

Yes - for the long term health of the country.  We'll be better off in the long run without $850,000,000,000 more debt.

Obama is implementing a plan that he campaigned on.  Do you suggest that he NOT follow through on a major campaign promise?

Many people (myself included) voted for him specifically to see a plan like this put into effect.

The people who believe this had the opportunity to voice their concerns in the candidate that they voted for.  Obama was quite clear in his intentions, months before the election took place.

I expect the candidate that I elected, based on promises made, to fulfill his promises in good faith.  Had Obama said, "My plan is to institute more tax cuts across the board, and that's it," I wouldn't have voted for him.

Yes, and he got elected.  Therefore...

 Plus, the America people are lazy & wanting other people to do their work for them.

All this negativity about the Dem's plan, yet I still have not seen a viable plan yet from the GOP other than the same shit they have been pushing the last 8 years.

Funny how when the GOP is in power and they have the ability to curb spending, it's all about tax cuts+foreign wars.  Yet when they are forced to give up the reigns, suddenly fiscal responsibility is the order of the day?  Obstructionism at its finest.

Funny how when the GOP is in power and they have the ability to curb spending, it's all about tax cuts+foreign wars. 

I grow tired of the GOP crying "tax cuts, less gov't!" to try to get into office and then spending just like Democrats when they get in.

Here's the thing: Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal conservatism and limited government.  Obama was pretty upfront with his plans to increase taxes on the upper tiers of earners, and also pretty upfront with his plans to significantly grow the gov't.

I grow tired of the GOP crying "tax cuts, less gov't!" to try to get into office and then spending just like Democrats when they get in.

So then, if you are concerned with fiscal policy, shouldn't you be more in favor of the Dems than the GOP?

Democrats tax-and-spend, but that's still better than borrow-and-spend.

So then, if you are concerned with fiscal policy, shouldn't you be more in favor of the Dems than the GOP?

Democrats tax-and-spend, but that's still better than borrow-and-spend.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut income tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal income tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal income tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut.  The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.
 
In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.

Tax cuts for people who pay taxes tends to increase government revenues.  http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

Too bad the "rhinos"didn't combine tax cuts with reduced spending. 

Foreign wars?  How many 2/26s, 11/13s, 6/25s, 8/7s, 10/12s and 9/11s are you willing to take?

The majority of us supported Iraq based on the evidence at the time.

Yes, but one of them is upfront about it.  The other one tells you that they are going to shrink gov't and cut spending, then does the opposite.

That statement just shows that democrats don't understand how tax cuts/increases affect revenue.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

Isn't the national debt the bottom line?

Its a sad day to be an American. 

I don't know that it's a sad day, but is a scary day with an uncertain future.  Some economists claim that we've already begun to right the ship.  For example, housing sales are actually up in many areas. 

I've heard that without any government action this would have lasted 18 months at most.  With government action ... all I can think about is FDRs New Deal extending the Great Depression by 7 years.  WWII ultimately pulled of out of that - in large part because approximately 20% of the work force got drafted and were put to work over the course of the war. 

I vaguely remember the Carter years and the claims of "here comes inflation on steroids" sends a chill down my back. 

I don't know that it's a sad day, but is a scary day with an uncertain future.  Some economists claim that we've already begun to right the ship.  For example, housing sales are actually up in many areas. 

I've heard that without any government action this would have lasted 18 months at most.  With government action ... all I can think about is FDRs New Deal extending the Great Depression by 7 years.  WWII ultimately pulled of out of that - in large part because approximately 20% of the work force got drafted and were put to work over the course of the war.

I vaguely remember the Carter years and the claims of "here comes inflation on steroids" sends a chill down my back.