Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
It slowed down the economy and tax revenues in 1995 and 1996, instead of going to double digit growth where it was headed it slowed. Then Gingrich and Kasich forced him to sign tax rate cuts and it took off again.

Lack of rebuttal noted, my statement stands. Profanity does not refute the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Calculate the rate of increase.

 

This is what happens when their points are made out to represent the non-sense they are made of.

Complete and utter flame wasting and avoidance of the topic.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

There's nothing to refute.

Here, I'll do it for him:

1991 2.2%
1992 3.4%
1993 5.8% <-Clinton tax increase passed.
1994 9.0%
1995 7.4%
1996 7.5%
1997 8.7%
1998 9.0%
1999 6.1%
2000 10.8%

Yep. We can sure see those revenues tanking after the Clinton tax increase.

Only a person like Bluesguy could say that the Clinton tax increase "slowed down growth" of revenues.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Revenue growth "slowed down" after Clinton's tax increase. Have you ever heard anything so preposterous?

 

1990 <- Windows 3.0, released in 1990 <-The Microsoft Office for Windows October 1990
1991 2.2%
1992 3.4% <- Windows 3.1 released <-The Microsoft Office for Windows 3.0 released
1993 5.8% <-Clinton tax increase passed. <- Windows NT4 released
1994 9.0% <- Microsoft Office 4.2 for Windows NT released
1995 7.4% <- Windows 95 was released <- Microsoft Office '95 released
1996 7.5%
1997 8.7% <- Microsoft Office '97 released
1998 9.0% <- Windows 98 released
1999 6.1%
2000 10.8% <- Microsoft Windows 2000 released <- Microsoft Office 2000 released

The economy flourished in spite of Clinton tax hikes, NOT because of them.....say thank you Bill Gates!

 

LMAO!

Conservatives told us the Clinton tax increase would kill jobs and destroy the economy, just like they do today:




Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93: I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93: Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 2/2/93: I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: ...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: ...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: ...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

On jobs:

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93: ...your economic program is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93: The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93: The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93: Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93: I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.

Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: ...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit....

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: ...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.


http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/92441/0913/399/636
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/?mobile=nc

++++

Instead of these (same) predictions coming true, we had the longest period of sustained growth post GD, 22 million net jobs added, the lowest level of poverty ever, stock markets tripled, unemployment dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

 

But income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP from 94-99 rose from 8.0% to 9.6%. If the increases in tax receipts were solely due to a continued increase in GDP, then tax receipt percentages should have stayed around the same. They didn't. They increased.

 

Wow, great analysis. But you're going way over their heads with that one. They 'll be writing baseless posts about how you "cherry pick" the numbers when you post stuff like that.

Your talking income tax receipts:

Year - Inc. tax : GDP
1990 8.0%
1991 7.8%
1992 7.5%
1993 7.6%
1994 7.7%
1995 8.0%
1996 8.4%
1997 8.9%
1998 9.4%
1999 9.4%
2000 10.1%
2001 9.7%
2002 8.1%
2003 7.1%
2004 6.8%
2005 7.3%
2006 7.8%
2007 8.3%
2008 8.0%
2009 6.6%
2010 6.2%

Source: BEA.gov; CBO.gov

As you pointed out, income tax receipts jumped as a percentage of GDP after the Clinton tax increase, and then crashed with the Bush tax cuts and again with the Great Recession tax cuts.

But I'm sure it was all just a big coincidence.

 

Just for reference, the difference between 10.1% in 2000 and 6.2% in 2010 is about $600 billion in revenues in a $15 trillion economy.

 

Thank God for Gingrich and the contract with America he forced on Clinton.

 

1st off post a real GDP chart not one in 2005 dollars - percent change. Why are you so intent on being deceptive?
2nd since you so conveniently ignored the fact that Obama adopted 99% of Bush’s evil tax cuts, grow some actual balls an answer why its suddenly ok with the *******s?

 

Gringich and the Republicans tried to get Clinton to accept a massive tax cut. Clinton used his veto power to block their efforts because he knew that slashing tax revenues would wreck the budget he was in the process of balancing.

In 2001 the Republicans got one of their own selected and got their way and slashed taxes. Revenues tanked by hundreds of billions and within a couple years the rare opportunity of a surplus budget was squandered and we had new record deficits.

In 2000 the biggest budget problem we had was whether the surplus would get too big. Boy did we make a wrong turn.

 

Do your own damned research.

How is that possible deceptive? What is a "real GDP" chart to you?

You'll have to ask the "*******s".

 

There was no surplus in 2000 unless you use voodoo accounting gimmicks overlooking the increase in total national debt; which BTW went up every year Clinton was in office. As it was, I voted for him because I considered him to be a moderate, not knowing he was a morally corrupt degenerate. He did do a better job fiscally than most, helped along by the restraints put on him by a conservative congress.

- - - Updated - - -

One adjusted for inflation!

 

Gee, and I thought you were such a trained economist. If so, it would have been easy for you to verify the surplus.



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43904

And who said anything about the debt?

Constraints by a conservative congress? You mean the folks who took the golden opportunity of a surplus and squandered it within a few years with tax cuts and military spending increases?

- - - Updated - - -

No kidding. I meant the one cicero was talking about.

 

Because I have studied economics, and accounting in Grad school, I know how to calculate a true surplus. Clinton didn't have one. When you only look at one side of the equation (debt held by the public) you screw up. In reality when all new debt created by the T-Notes issued to the trust funds, there was no real surplus.

The treasury. When you borrow to pay down debt you have really not done anything but shift the debt from one place to the other. Obviously you are economics and accounting impaired

I agree Bush spent too much money, But the GDP continued to rise during Bush's administration until the domestically caused recession which came about mostly because of bad monetary policy starting in 1990s. Had Clinton or Bush recognized that the price of housing was inflating and corrected the excessively low interest rates the housing balloon would never have happened. There were many errors during that period, but the biggest ones were: 1. low interest; 2. Abuse of ARMs by people gambling that interest would not go up; 3. Speculation. Combined those were the 3 most important issues which caused the housing balloon, subsequent crash, then the recession, from which we have recovered only very slowly.

 

It doesn't show.

LOL, he claims he's studied all this economics, and then tries to measure a budget surplus from the debt.

Let me guess, you got this from the computer programmer blog, right?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the surplus Clinton left. But housing prices were within a normal historical range when Clinton left office and there was no bubble.

 

Nope! The deficit shows the lack of a surplus and the deficit added to the debt annually. Ergo no surplus. USTreasury site proves it.

Nope, easy to look at the numbers on the US Treasury site. When debt goes up in a year it reflects what that years deficit is. But then you don't understand either accounting or economics.

You should really look more carefully.

Even your own chart shows prices going up faster than value starting in 1998.Bush was worse, but Clinton did his part.

Question: What do you call the amount of money added to the national debt during any one fiscal or calendar year?

 

That is our esteemed self proclaimed highly trained economist's claim, no doubt based on a right wing computer programmer's blog.

The Congressional Budget Office's definition:

surplus: The amount by which the federal government&#8217;s total revenues exceed its total outlays in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf

Folks can decide for themselves which is more credible.

Please cite the link to the US Treasury page that says there was a deficit in 2000.

That is true. But it does not contradict what I stated. Housing prices were within a historically normal range. There was no bubble while Clinton was in office.

 

And those with a brain can see that the deficit for each of Clinton's years in office added to the debt every year. The CBO has been using gimmick accounting for years such that it only concerns itself with the debt held by the public being paid down as a surplus without considering the additional debt added to intragovernmental debt. Real accountants call that voodoo accounting, or an accounting convention, neither of which tells the whole story. The unified budget takes all revenue including what is collected for SS and MC and plunks it down into the general treasury, WITHOUT considering the new debt to the off budget trust funds. In fact what we actually have is:

1. a surplus in the on budget

2. a deficit in the off budget

3. a combined deficit equal to 2-1=total deficit

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Insert Oct 1, 1993 as a beginning date.. Debt=4,406,339,573,433.47
..........Sep 30, 1994................................Debt=4,692,749,910,013.32
..........Sep 29, 1995................................Debt=4,973,982,900,709.39
..........Sep 30, 1996................................Debt=5,224,810,939,135.73
..........Sep 30, 1997................................Debt=5,413,146,011,397.34
..........Sep 30, 1998................................Debt=5,526,193,008,897.62
..........Sep 30, 1999................................Debt=5,656,270,901,633.43
..........Sep 29, 2000................................Debt=5,674,178,209,886.86
Insert Sep 28, 2001 as an end date.........Debt=5,807,463,412,200.06

Even simple minded people like you can look at the numbers and recognize that there was a total deficit every year Clinton was in office. Of course simple minded folks like you like to cite the CBO's unified budget which used SS/MC income to pay down debt held by the public without considering all of the new debt to the SS/MC trust funds as bonafide debt.

I didn't say there was a bubble during Clinton's presidency. I said the price relative to value started to show signs of inflation from mid-1998 to the end of his term. Then bush multiplied that inflation until the balloon burst and the housing crash caused the recession.

 

Those with a lick of training in economics as opposed to reading right wing computer programmer's blogs can see that Clinton had a budget surplus.

But in fact the total dead decreased $114 billion in 2000.

The CBO surplus is calculated both with and without SS. There was a surplus in 2000 in both cases.

You're wrong. There was a surplus in both on budget and total deficits. As the CBO page I cited proved.

I'm sorry. I asked you to cite the US Treasury page that says their was a deficit. You've cited the debt. Do you understand the difference? Was that not simple minded enough for you?

That page doesn't even have the words "deficit" or "surplus" in it.

Again, please cite the link to the US Treasury page that says there was a deficit in 2000 as you've claimed.

 

Obviously you are not smart enough to know that an increase in debt in a FY equals the deficit that year. The deficit in FY 2001, Clinton's last budget year was over $133 billion. It not my fault you are not smart enough to know what a deficit is.

 

Iriemon or other Liberal, I will ask again for the 3rd time since you so conveniently ignored the question twice now:
Obama just adopted 99% of Bush&#8217;s evil tax cuts, grow some actual balls an answer why it&#8217;s suddenly ok with the Liberals?

 

Let’s face it if the Dem’s couldn’t count on their sheep to not understand what a deficit was they wouldn’t have the slightest chance of winning an election at all.

 

Because a right wing computer programmer told you so, right?

Bush was president for 2/3 of FY2001, and gave about 40 billion in a tax refund.

Only someone who's knowledge of the budget came from a right wing blog by a computer programmer would say that.

Again, please cite the link to the US Treasury page that says there was a deficit in 2000 as you've claimed.

This is the 3d or 4th time now you've dodged this simple request.

 

You think? Tell us what a government budget deficit is. Source please.

I cited the Congressional Budget Office definition. Dnsmith went with the right wing computer programmer's blog. I said folks could decide for themselves which they thought was more credible. It's no surprise which one you've chosen.

By the way, you didn't respond to my post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ngry-new-tax-increases-67.html#post1062275817

I am curious as to what "real GDP" is to you after complained about the figures I posted in 2005 dollars.