Tax cut dont increase revenue
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
Are you goig to say this did not happen?
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
Are you goig to say this did not happen?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
without question it did not happen. The national debt increased year over year in fiscal year 2000.
September 30, 1999 5,656,271,000
September 30, 2000 5,674,178,000
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again, you are acting like the Congress in 1993 had a significant impact on the budget 7 years later. That is idiotic at best and we have been over this.
I have said time and again that Clinton did a good job trying to lower the debt. But that does not change the FACT that the nations debt has not been lowered in any fiscal year since 1960.
Working with the R Congress Clinton decreased the growth of the debt but he never once paid one dime toward the principal of the debt.
It is 100% irrefutable fact that the debt has increased every single year since 1962 and has never had any payment toward the principal of any debt owed by our government in that time period. That is 45 years of irresponsible government. Including Clinton and the Republican Congress who finalized the theft of the Social Security accounts into direct general funds it went. While lowering the increase of debt was good, taking the money that is supposed to be your retirement account to do it was outright theft.
It is 100% irrefutable fact that the debt has increased every single year since 1962 and has never had any payment toward the principal of any debt owed by our government in that time period. That is 45 years of irresponsible government. Including Clinton and the Republican Congress who finalized the theft of the Social Security accounts into direct general funds it went. While lowering the increase of debt was good, taking the money that is supposed to be your retirement account to do it was outright theft.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You talking fiscal year over year? Because 1960 was the last year the national debt was lowered year over year (fiscal)
evince
Truthmatters
the congressional Rs fought the 1993 bill and not one voted for it.
By 1997 they were so on board they reupped it.
They were only willing to help pay down the debt when they knew if they did not cooperate with what had proven to work that they would be outed for the hypocrits they were.
Why did they fight and say it would destroy the country and then reup it?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
again, your tired old claim has nothing to do with the fact that your article on Clinton paying down the debt being right or wrong. It was wrong. False. DID NOT HAPPEN. THAT IS FACT.
Clinton and the Rep Congress went round and round on HOW to balance the budget. It was the back and forth between the two parties that led to the attempt in the late 90's to actually stick to a balanced budget. They came close, but still failed. THAT IS FACT.
Bottom line.... the myth of surplusses was just that... a myth. Not once did we have an actual surplus. Everytime it looked as though we would, the two parties found new ways to spend the money. That is why the national debt continued to increase.
Year over year. I believe that there may have been some payment in 1961, not in 1960, and not in 1962 or since.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.realestateagent.com/glos...mnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993.html
This bill set the policy for 5 years and those five years encompaced most of the 90s successes.
This bill set the policy for 5 years and those five years encompaced most of the 90s successes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... you are quoting realestateagent.com?
It matters little what the bill was "designed" to do. It is what it ACTUALLY did. Which as posted, initially interest rates rose slowly over 1994. That moderates growth, it does not enhance it.
It also does not change the fact that your article on Clinton reducing the debt was false.
evince
Truthmatters
Omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993
Act designed to help reduce the federal deficit by approximately $496 bil*lion over five years through a restructuring of the tax code. The fol*lowing include some of the major provisions that will have an impact, on financial planning:
Establishment of a new top tax rate on ordinary income (wages, interest, dividends, etc.) of 36% on taxable income alone: Applicable Filing Status ThresholdMarried individuals filing joint returns $ 140,000Heads of households 127,500Unmarried individuals 115,000Married individuals filing separate returns 70,000Estates and trusts 5,500
Establishment of a new 10% surtax on individuals with taxable income in excess of $250,000; except for married individualsfiling separately the surtax applies to taxable income over $125,000.
Establishment of a new 39.6% marginal tax rate, which includes the above 10% surtax, to be applied to taxable income in excess ofthe $250,000. Long-term capital gains are not subject to the higher rates, and will not be taxed at a rate higher than 28%. Since thepassage of this Act, the maximum long-term capital gains tax has been reduced to 20%.
Establishment of a new two-tiered progressive Alternative Minimum Tax rate schedule for noncorporate taxpayers as follows: married individuals filing a joint return would pay a 26% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income up to $175,000, and a 28% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income in excess of $175,000; married individuals filing separate returns would pay a 28% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income in excess of $87,500.
Exemptions under the Alternative Minimum Tax increased as follows: to $45,000 from $40,000 for married individuals filing jointreturns; to $22,500 from $20,000 for married individuals filing separate returns, as well as estates and trusts; to $33,750 from $30,000 for single individuals.
Elimination of the dollar limitation cap on self-employment income and wages subject to medicare hospital insurance.
Establishment of new maximum estate and gift tax rates as follows: for transfers between $2.5 million and $3 million, a 53% rateis applied; for transfers in excess of $3 million, a 55% rate is applied.
Deductible of allowable meals and entertainment to the extent of 50% of costs.
No deduction for club dues permitted; however, particular business expenses such as meals and entertainment incurred at a clubare deductible to the extent of 50% of costs.
For the publicly held corporation, no deduction permitted for compensation paid over $1 million for any one of its highest fiveexecutives.
For qualified retirement plan contributions, a reduced compensation ceiling from $235,840 in 1993 to $150,000 beginning in1994. The $150,000 ceiling is to be indexed according to the inflation index each year beginning in 1996.
For Social Security recipients, up to 85% of Social Security benefits taxable for married retirees with income in excess of $44,000and for single retirees income in excess of $34,000.
For self-employed individuals, a deduction as a business expense up to 25% of the premiums paid for health insurance coverage forthat individual, spouse, and dependents.
Repeal of the luxury excise tax of 10% on boats, aircraft, jewelry, and furs. The luxury excise tax of 10% indexed for inflationremains for automobiles in excess of $30,000.
Maximum corporate tax rate increased to 35% on taxable income above $10 million. For the personal service corporation, the flatrate is increased to 35%.
Act designed to help reduce the federal deficit by approximately $496 bil*lion over five years through a restructuring of the tax code. The fol*lowing include some of the major provisions that will have an impact, on financial planning:
Establishment of a new top tax rate on ordinary income (wages, interest, dividends, etc.) of 36% on taxable income alone: Applicable Filing Status ThresholdMarried individuals filing joint returns $ 140,000Heads of households 127,500Unmarried individuals 115,000Married individuals filing separate returns 70,000Estates and trusts 5,500
Establishment of a new 10% surtax on individuals with taxable income in excess of $250,000; except for married individualsfiling separately the surtax applies to taxable income over $125,000.
Establishment of a new 39.6% marginal tax rate, which includes the above 10% surtax, to be applied to taxable income in excess ofthe $250,000. Long-term capital gains are not subject to the higher rates, and will not be taxed at a rate higher than 28%. Since thepassage of this Act, the maximum long-term capital gains tax has been reduced to 20%.
Establishment of a new two-tiered progressive Alternative Minimum Tax rate schedule for noncorporate taxpayers as follows: married individuals filing a joint return would pay a 26% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income up to $175,000, and a 28% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income in excess of $175,000; married individuals filing separate returns would pay a 28% rate on Alternative Minimum Taxable Income in excess of $87,500.
Exemptions under the Alternative Minimum Tax increased as follows: to $45,000 from $40,000 for married individuals filing jointreturns; to $22,500 from $20,000 for married individuals filing separate returns, as well as estates and trusts; to $33,750 from $30,000 for single individuals.
Elimination of the dollar limitation cap on self-employment income and wages subject to medicare hospital insurance.
Establishment of new maximum estate and gift tax rates as follows: for transfers between $2.5 million and $3 million, a 53% rateis applied; for transfers in excess of $3 million, a 55% rate is applied.
Deductible of allowable meals and entertainment to the extent of 50% of costs.
No deduction for club dues permitted; however, particular business expenses such as meals and entertainment incurred at a clubare deductible to the extent of 50% of costs.
For the publicly held corporation, no deduction permitted for compensation paid over $1 million for any one of its highest fiveexecutives.
For qualified retirement plan contributions, a reduced compensation ceiling from $235,840 in 1993 to $150,000 beginning in1994. The $150,000 ceiling is to be indexed according to the inflation index each year beginning in 1996.
For Social Security recipients, up to 85% of Social Security benefits taxable for married retirees with income in excess of $44,000and for single retirees income in excess of $34,000.
For self-employed individuals, a deduction as a business expense up to 25% of the premiums paid for health insurance coverage forthat individual, spouse, and dependents.
Repeal of the luxury excise tax of 10% on boats, aircraft, jewelry, and furs. The luxury excise tax of 10% indexed for inflationremains for automobiles in excess of $30,000.
Maximum corporate tax rate increased to 35% on taxable income above $10 million. For the personal service corporation, the flatrate is increased to 35%.
evince
Truthmatters
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Can I prove the national debt rose year over year? yes Desh. That is why I posted the numbers. It is direct from the Treasury Department.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
During that time period much of that bill went to the wayside and the Contract with America took the fore. No bill is permanent, especially any spending bill that passes the one year mark.
The attempt to make it solely one party is just more spin. Both parties worked towards making responsible government a reality. If one party was going to be all irresponsible all they had to do was vote another bill in place of that one and go on their merry way.
The true reality is, even while working towards a balanced budget they simply, directly, and without any apology took Social Security and put it directly into the general funds for what appears to be all time. No party yet has suggested to fix that mistake. What was supposed to be an account you donate to and get a return on has now become just more general funds. Future Congress/Presidents can't even pretend they are being fiscally responsible while stealing that cash again, because it is already gone.
I do not want such irresponsible people making life choices such as health care for me or my family. They fail at acting responsibly at every turn, and they trick people into thinking they are perfect because they have a D or R by their name. I don't want most of America making those choices for me by voting for it either, most of them are simply too stupid to see that many of these people are irresponsible at all because they have a D or an R by their name and most of America seems ever willing to attempt to absolve all responsibility from anybody with one of those letters by their name.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
again retard, you are posting an old article that is based on BUDGET numbers. NOT ACTUAL results. Is it really that hard for you to understand? Look at the treasury site I provided for you. Fiscal year 2000 saw a slight increase in the nations debt. They came close, but failed to reduce the national debt. Do try to learn the difference between a budget and actual results. It will save you embarrassment in the future.
evince
Truthmatters
http://budget.house.gov/republicans/hearings/schickstmnt062205.htm
During this period, the budget process was the most important action taken by Congress in some years, and among the least important in others. In some years, it made all the difference, in others none whatsoever. The budget resolution drove the legislative agenda when it contained reconciliation instructions; it merely rubber stamped what would have happened even if Congress did not adopt a resolution. Through reconciliation, the resolution reshaped budget policy in 1990, 1993, and 1997. (President Clinton vetoed a 1995 reconciliation bill passed by Congress.) There was no reconciliation bill in 1998 and, for the first time since the budget process was introduced, Congress failed to adopt a budget resolution.
Lets remember what really happened
During this period, the budget process was the most important action taken by Congress in some years, and among the least important in others. In some years, it made all the difference, in others none whatsoever. The budget resolution drove the legislative agenda when it contained reconciliation instructions; it merely rubber stamped what would have happened even if Congress did not adopt a resolution. Through reconciliation, the resolution reshaped budget policy in 1990, 1993, and 1997. (President Clinton vetoed a 1995 reconciliation bill passed by Congress.) There was no reconciliation bill in 1998 and, for the first time since the budget process was introduced, Congress failed to adopt a budget resolution.
Lets remember what really happened
Even "Americans for Truth" realize that the debt INCREASED by 18 Billion dollars in Clinton's last year.
http://www.co.miami.oh.us/A55969/sp...eadc41d161ebed638625711000186933!OpenDocument
Hopefully you can believe a report from a lefty blogspot...
Seriously. Increasing the debt IS NOT REALIZING A SURPLUS. It never is, it cannot be, when you increase your debt you do not have a surplus. Principle was not paid it was added to.
As I said before. In his last year of office, Congress and Clinton had decreased the growth of the debt to .32% Less than one percent is an increase not a decrease, it is not a surplus.
No surplus was ever realized, except in projected budgets. No matter how many times you try to add it up, increasing debt is not decreasing debt, and increasing debt is not realizing a surplus.
http://www.co.miami.oh.us/A55969/sp...eadc41d161ebed638625711000186933!OpenDocument
Hopefully you can believe a report from a lefty blogspot...
Seriously. Increasing the debt IS NOT REALIZING A SURPLUS. It never is, it cannot be, when you increase your debt you do not have a surplus. Principle was not paid it was added to.
As I said before. In his last year of office, Congress and Clinton had decreased the growth of the debt to .32% Less than one percent is an increase not a decrease, it is not a surplus.
No surplus was ever realized, except in projected budgets. No matter how many times you try to add it up, increasing debt is not decreasing debt, and increasing debt is not realizing a surplus.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... what really happened is what YOU continue to ignore. There was no pay down of the debt as your other articles suggest. Yet you continue to post links to more bullshit in a vain attempt to avoid recognizing that.