Can the Tea Party give America a balanced budget?

[Cancel8]

Treasury's annual report showed a surplus $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion in fiscal year 2000.

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

Will the Tea Party be able to reproduce these results?

 

[Good Luck]

There is not a chance in hell of seeing an actual balanced budget anytime in the near future no matter who is in charge. Those elected under the TEA party banner can, however, be an influence in reducing spending. It may not balance the budget, but a reduction in deficit is far better than the current trend of ever increasing deficits.

 

[Cancel8]

There is not a chance in hell of seeing an actual balanced budget anytime in the near future no matter who is in charge. Those elected under the TEA party banner can, however, be an influence in reducing spending. It may not balance the budget, but a reduction in deficit is far better than the current trend of ever increasing deficits.

Should tax cuts continue in spite of the deficit and debt?

 

[cawacko]

Should tax cuts continue in spite of the deficit and debt?

Should we raise taxes in this economy?

 

[Good Luck]

Should tax cuts continue in spite of the deficit and debt?

LOL Why is it, 9 years after the 2001 cuts, and 7 years after the 2003 cuts, some people insist on calling them cuts? From the point of the rates being changed in 2003, we have the CURRENT tax rates. If we keep them at the current level, they are not "cuts". If we had allowed the 2003 rates to expire under the mandatory sunset clause forced by democrats, we would end up with INCREASED taxes over current rates.

It is truly pathetic how the democrats and leftists are so caught up in their own reality they cannot let go. They didn't want the tax cuts from the get go, and even lied throiugh the rest of the Bush adminsitration that only the rich got them. They are seemingly operating under the assumption that the tax rates increased under Clinton are some imaginary base line rate, and anything lower will remain "cuts" in their minds unto eternity.

What is equally disturbing is the numbers of people who buy their pasture patties.

Since tax revenues increased from 2003-2007, and only fell with the onset of the economic crisis, the idea that the tax cuts instigated under the Bush administration can be associated with the increased deficit is an outright lie. In reality, tax revenues went up but spending went up a lot faster. Thus it is spending (DUH!!) that is, and always has caused the deficit.

 

[Cancel8]

LOL Why is it, 9 years after the 2001 cuts, and 7 years after the 2003 cuts, some people insist on calling them cuts? From the point of the rates being changed in 2003, we have the CURRENT tax rates. If we keep them at the current level, they are not "cuts". If we had allowed the 2003 rates to expire under the mandatory sunset clause forced by democrats, we would end up with INCREASED taxes over current rates.

It is truly pathetic how the democrats and leftists are so caught up in their own reality they cannot let go. They didn't want the tax cuts from the get go, and even lied throiugh the rest of the Bush adminsitration that only the rich got them. They are seemingly operating under the assumption that the tax rates increased under Clinton are some imaginary base line rate, and anything lower will remain "cuts" in their minds unto eternity.

What is equally disturbing is the numbers of people who buy their pasture patties.

Since tax revenues increased from 2003-2007, and only fell with the onset of the economic crisis, the idea that the tax cuts instigated under the Bush administration can be associated with the increased deficit is an outright lie. In reality, tax revenues went up but spending went up a lot faster. Thus it is spending (DUH!!) that is, and always has caused the deficit.

So when President Bush called them "tax cuts", he was wrong?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Tax_Reform.htm

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Should we raise taxes in this economy?

mojo legion believes we should....but the experts of course say the opposite

 

[Good Luck]

So when President Bush called them "tax cuts", he was wrong?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Tax_Reform.htm

You really are becoming the troll asshole people have been accusing you of.

When congress cut taxes under the Bush administration, they went from a higher level to a lower level. That is a tax cut.

That was also 7 years ago. How long do tax rates have to be in place before they are simply considered the current tax rate?

Today, (You know, the day we are currently living, as opposed to 7 years ago) KEEPING taxes at the same level is NOT a "cut" because they stay at the same level. Get it? Same level means NO CUTS. If you CUT taxes, they do not stay at the same level, do they? Democrats can spin it any way they want, but keeping taxes at their current levels is not a cut. Conversely, had they not acted, or if they block action in 2012, they would be responsible for RAISING taxes. So they obfuscate their complicity by continuing to call the current rates "cuts".

And thanks to the democrats, we will face the SAME situation AGAIN in two fucking years. Stupid jerks.

 

[Cancel8]

You really are becoming the troll asshole people have been accusing you of.

When congress cut taxes under the Bush administration, they went from a higher level to a lower level. That is a tax cut.

That was also 7 years ago. How long do tax rates have to be in place before they are simply considered the current tax rate?

Today, (You know, the day we are currently living, as opposed to 7 years ago) KEEPING taxes at the same level is NOT a "cut" because they stay at the same level. Get it? Same level means NO CUTS. If you CUT taxes, they do not stay at the same level, do they? Democrats can spin it any way they want, but keeping taxes at their current levels is not a cut. Conversely, had they not acted, or if they block action in 2012, they would be responsible for RAISING taxes. So they obfuscate their complicity by continuing to call the current rates "cuts".

And thanks to the democrats, we will face the SAME situation AGAIN in two fucking years. Stupid jerks.

So after 7 years, a tax increase wouldn't be an increase any more?

Got it.

 

[Schadenfreude]

LOL Why is it, 9 years after the 2001 cuts, and 7 years after the 2003 cuts, some people insist on calling them cuts? From the point of the rates being changed in 2003, we have the CURRENT tax rates. If we keep them at the current level, they are not "cuts". If we had allowed the 2003 rates to expire under the mandatory sunset clause forced by democrats, we would end up with INCREASED taxes over current rates.

It is truly pathetic how the democrats and leftists are so caught up in their own reality they cannot let go. They didn't want the tax cuts from the get go, and even lied throiugh the rest of the Bush adminsitration that only the rich got them. They are seemingly operating under the assumption that the tax rates increased under Clinton are some imaginary base line rate, and anything lower will remain "cuts" in their minds unto eternity.

What is equally disturbing is the numbers of people who buy their pasture patties.

Since tax revenues increased from 2003-2007, and only fell with the onset of the economic crisis, the idea that the tax cuts instigated under the Bush administration can be associated with the increased deficit is an outright lie. In reality, tax revenues went up but spending went up a lot faster. Thus it is spending (DUH!!) that is, and always has caused the deficit.

the bush tax cuts are not permanent