Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


What real conservative would...
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:28 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
JohnnyLee5 wrote:
the federal budget deficit has been cut in half in part due to tax cuts that have stimulated growth which in turn have increased federal receipts.


Prove it.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
exton wrote:
JohnnyLee5 wrote:
the federal budget deficit has been cut in half in part due to tax cuts that have stimulated growth which in turn have increased federal receipts.


Prove it.


I haven't looked into that, but just reading this the numbers just don't click.
Back to top
JohnnyLee5
Newbie


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:16 pm    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:
JohnnyLee5 wrote:
the federal budget deficit has been cut in half in part due to tax cuts that have stimulated growth which in turn have increased federal receipts.


Prove it.


I haven't looked into that, but just reading this the numbers just don't click.



I haven't provided any numbers to "click." But now that you mention it, we can look at the number $521 billion - this being the federal deficit prediction for 2003. The FD report at the end of fiscal 2006 was $250 billion. As reported by the Congessional Budget Office, federal tax receipts increased by 35% during the 13 quarters of 2004, 2005, 2006 at a rate of 5.5%, 14.5%, 11.7% respectively. Much of this due to tax revenue on corporate profits. Annual economic growth is at about 3.89% for the same 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts. This growth has only been beaten by the Reagan-Bush and Kennedy-Johnson eras when even more aggressive tax cuts were enacted.

This all occurring even with the funding for Katrina and the war on terror. So if a rate of increase in fed tax receipts of even 9% can be sustained for the remainder of the Bush term, there can possibly be a surplus when he leaves office. Not a false surplus, or projected surplus reliant on sustained taxes, as the policy of the Clinton administration, policies that lead to the NASDAQ losing four fifths of it's value and the S&P losing half of it's value. - this starting in 2000- which the Bush administration had to inherit.

What doesn't "click" with me is that some simply can't appreciate supply-side economics.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:44 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
JohnnyLee5 wrote:


I haven't provided any numbers to "click." But now that you mention it, we can look at the number $521 billion - this being the federal deficit prediction for 2003. The FD report at the end of fiscal 2006 was $250 billion. As reported by the Congessional Budget Office, federal tax receipts increased by 35% during the 13 quarters of 2004, 2005, 2006 at a rate of 5.5%, 14.5%, 11.7% respectively. Much of this due to tax revenue on corporate profits. Annual economic growth is at about 3.89% for the same 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts. This growth has only been beaten by the Reagan-Bush and Kennedy-Johnson eras when even more aggressive tax cuts were enacted.


Right.

So, what you have is: correlation.

What you need is: causation.

Can you prove that tax cuts cause higher tax revenues?

Quote:

What doesn't "click" with me is that some simply can't appreciate supply-side economics.


lol @ "supply side" economics

You know what george h.w. bush called that?

"Voodoo economics".
Back to top
JohnnyLee5
Newbie


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
exton wrote:
JohnnyLee5 wrote:


I haven't provided any numbers to "click." But now that you mention it, we can look at the number $521 billion - this being the federal deficit prediction for 2003. The FD report at the end of fiscal 2006 was $250 billion. As reported by the Congessional Budget Office, federal tax receipts increased by 35% during the 13 quarters of 2004, 2005, 2006 at a rate of 5.5%, 14.5%, 11.7% respectively. Much of this due to tax revenue on corporate profits. Annual economic growth is at about 3.89% for the same 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts. This growth has only been beaten by the Reagan-Bush and Kennedy-Johnson eras when even more aggressive tax cuts were enacted.


Right.

So, what you have is: correlation.

What you need is: causation.

Can you prove that tax cuts cause higher tax revenues?

Quote:

What doesn't "click" with me is that some simply can't appreciate supply-side economics.


lol @ "supply side" economics

You know what george h.w. bush called that?

"Voodoo economics".


So if the numbers show correlation with the effect- then they obviously do "click".
Instead of me typing needlessly and wasting my time, provide something that discredits my findings. At this juncture, I would only state that a primary foundation for "causation" can be found rooted in common sense. Obviously, a smaller tax burden gives more incentives and ability to work (produce), invest, and save. If that is beyond you ,then this debate is a lost "cause".

Showing the relation between regularly correlated phenomena does show causality. The implementation of such economic strategies can also be viewed as an antecedent for economic growth and increased federal revenue.

More importantely, the PROOF is that tax increases are NOT neccessary for increased revenue or even comparable revenue- THAT BEING THE WHOLE POINT. Furthermore, being of the philosophy that most of the DEFICIT issue is nothing but a political weapon, over dramatized, and a way for most politicians to blow smoke up the asses of their opponents, and also that most entitlements are overtly unconstitutional- why would I ever consciously approve any tax increases whatsoever. Even if such increases could shrink the FD- their surely not going to spur economic growth- which is much more of a tangeble benefit to the public. I find it amazing that anyone in America can be so brainwashed to believe that any part of the private sector needs to pay more taxes instead of less- because no matter who is taxed now - they will be targeting you next- ALSO A STRONG CORRELATION. I also agree with a simplified or flat tax system that would pick-up where the current policy leaves off.

As far as "voodoo economics", yes Bush used that term as a weapon- until of course he became Reagan's running mate- then he hailed these conservative ideals with great acclaim. I'm not much for political and bumper sticker slogantry myself. This also provides no correlation, causation ,proof, or evidence of anything pertaining to this debate.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:32 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
JohnnyLee5 wrote:

So if the numbers show correlation with the effect- then they obviously do "click".


Oh really?

Hm.

Well, did you know that almost all people who get cancer, wear socks?

I guess socks cause cancer....


Quote:

Instead of me typing needlessly and wasting my time, provide something that discredits my findings. At this juncture, I would only state that a primary foundation for "causation" can be found rooted in common sense.


"Common sense" is rarely trully sensible.

Quote:

Obviously, a smaller tax burden gives more incentives and ability to work (produce), invest, and save.


Well if that's so obviously the case, then why can't you prove it?

Quote:

Showing the relation between regularly correlated phenomena does show causality.


No, it doesn't. In order to show causality, you have to propose a specific mechanism through which the causation happens, and then you have to prove that that mechanism actually happens and actually works as you claim that it does.

Quote:

More importantely, the PROOF is that tax increases are NOT neccessary for increased revenue or even comparable revenue- THAT BEING THE WHOLE POINT.


I was under the impression that the whole point was that tax cuts = increased tax revenue.

Nobody here claims that ONLY tax increases can increase tax revenue.

Quote:

Furthermore, being of the philosophy that most of the DEFICIT issue is nothing but a political weapon, over dramatized, and a way for most politicians to blow smoke up the asses of their opponents,


How can you possibly believe that a multi-trillion dollar deficit is not a huge problem?

Quote:

and also that most entitlements are overtly unconstitutional- why would I ever consciously approve any tax increases whatsoever.


There's a constitutional ammendment providing for income taxes, in case you weren't aware.

Quote:

Even if such increases could shrink the FD- their surely not going to spur economic growth- which is much more of a tangeble benefit to the public.


You know what else is of tangible benefit to the public?

Having the american dollar be worth something.

Huge deficits damage the value of the dollar.

Quote:

I find it amazing that anyone in America can be so brainwashed to believe that any part of the private sector needs to pay more taxes instead of less- because no matter who is taxed now - they will be targeting you next- ALSO A STRONG CORRELATION.


"They" will be "targeting" me next?

That sounds remarkably paranoid.
Back to top
JohnnyLee5
Newbie


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:41 pm    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
exton wrote:
JohnnyLee5 wrote:

So if the numbers show correlation with the effect- then they obviously do "click".


Oh really?

Hm.

Well, did you know that almost all people who get cancer, wear socks?

I guess socks cause cancer....

What are you talking about? That makes no sense.
The fact that there is no correlation between socks and cancer can be easily shown by the fact that those who do not wear socks also are prone to the same degree of cancer.
Tax revenue and economic growth are not present to the same degree when there are implemented tax increases as opposed to decreases.


Quote:

Instead of me typing needlessly and wasting my time, provide something that discredits my findings. At this juncture, I would only state that a primary foundation for "causation" can be found rooted in common sense.


"Common sense" is rarely trully sensible.

Common sense is quite subjective, and while your belief that it is rarely truly sensible may apply to your indulgence in it, others such as myself have not experienced the same failings. I tend to trust my instincts. Since the terms "common sense" and "rarely truly sensible" are oxymoronic, I unfortunately feel that you are experiencing the latter.

Quote:

Obviously, a smaller tax burden gives more incentives and ability to work (produce), invest, and save.


Well if that's so obviously the case, then why can't you prove it?

I have proven it. I have exemplified that this rate of economic growth has only been present when similar tax cuts have been initiated, And greater growth only present when greater cuts were initiated. Please feel free to counter with actual figures or historical foundations.
Even greater testimony to this can be seen thru my own experiences. I have been a business owner for many years and thru various administrations. My tax receipts, profits, savings and investments have all increased over the last 3 years or so, and more paramount is the fact that my tax liabilities haven't increased at the same time causing me to close up shop. (BTW- the CBO attributes much of the increased tax receipts to businesses with 20 or less employees- like my own) Unlike yourself, obviously, I know exactly where my savings are (regulatory fees, cap gains, margin tax, etc.) I would only hope that the state will follow the lead of the Fed in these regards.
Life is the best teacher, my friend.


Quote:

Showing the relation between regularly correlated phenomena does show causality.


No, it doesn't. In order to show causality, you have to propose a specific mechanism through which the causation happens, and then you have to prove that that mechanism actually happens and actually works as you claim that it does.

Then Webster’s and myself are wrong? Maybe you shouldn't be commenting on causality if you are not familiar with the words meaning.

If regularly correlated phenomena (lowering tax burdens) yields a certain effect ( superior economic growth)- and showing another regularly correlated phenomena (increasing tax burdens) yields another effect ( inferior economic growth)- we have shown a relation between the phenomena and effect, which in turn promotes causality- unlike socks and cancer.

Quote:

More importantely, the PROOF is that tax increases are NOT neccessary for increased revenue or even comparable revenue- THAT BEING THE WHOLE POINT.


I was under the impression that the whole point was that tax cuts = increased tax revenue.

[b]Which would also make true the statement - "tax increases are NOT necessary for increased revenue."

Nobody here claims that ONLY tax increases can increase tax revenue.

The federal government doesn't produce anything- so their revenue has to come as an effect of either tax increases or decreases.

So, you must be agreeing that decreased taxes can also increase federal revenue?

Quote:

Furthermore, being of the philosophy that most of the DEFICIT issue is nothing but a political weapon, over dramatized, and a way for most politicians to blow smoke up the asses of their opponents,


How can you possibly believe that a multi-trillion dollar deficit is not a huge problem?

PROVE IT !

Your answer is for Washington to take more of our money to pay for frivolous spending on their part- I don't think so. The largest expense to the national deficit is from income redistribution- that’s the Dept. of Health and Human Services, HUD, food stamps, etc. You want to cut the deficit- there's a good starting point. Also, the bottom 50% of American tax payers only pay 3.3% to the federal income tax.

Quote:

and also that most entitlements are overtly unconstitutional- why would I ever consciously approve any tax increases whatsoever.


There's a constitutional ammendment providing for income taxes, in case you weren't aware.

I think that we both know that I am aware of the Constitution. You failed to address any of my points in a previous thread that dealt with basically the same issue as the on at hand. But I see that I must reiterate. First of all, the fact that there is an amendment allowing income tax, the 16th, doesn't begin to explain or justify how much and for what. Maybe you should go back and read article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified by the 3/4 state approval necessary- an injustice that those in power have ignored for almost a century.
As I stated in another thread-
Our Constitution and the framework for government that it lays out is one of inherently limited powers. One which embraces the natural rights of individuals. As individuals, we did enter a social contract to create a political society- but retained inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and private property. Creating any other social contracts (such as funding entitlements) effectively eliminates these individual rights by asserting that individuals, upon entering political society, surrender those rights and make themselves subject to “the general will.” It’s called “TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY” and promotes socialism in the form of redistribution of wealth and seizure of property. This "general will" enables regulation and control of all aspects of economic, corporate and private life, Also, the "general will" negates the entire Bill of Rights, which is expressly and solely aimed at guaranteeing inalienable individual rights against the tyranny of the majority implicit in the "general will."
Furthermore, the truth is that in 1944, when FDR began his fourth term, he candidly acknowledged in his State of the Union message that the New Deal welfare state ( something unheard of in the last 300 years) was not part of the original Constitutional government of the United States and that the Constitution had never been amended, in accordance with the express provision of Article V, to legitimize the welfare state. It is this "Second Bill of Rights", as FDR called it, that defines the liberal paradigm that leads today's public, ignorant of history, to believe that job security, healthcare, and other welfare benefits are literally "constitutional rights."

I will go back to this as long as I have too to get the point across.

Quote:

Even if such increases could shrink the FD- their surely not going to spur economic growth- which is much more of a tangeble benefit to the public.


You know what else is of tangible benefit to the public?

Having the american dollar be worth something.

Huge deficits damage the value of the dollar.

PROVE IT !

If this is what you choose to believe, then you must also accept the fact that entitlements are a major factor in this devaluing of the dollar since they are the greatest expenditure to the deficit.

The fact is that none of this has “tangibly” effected the American public as inflation and interest rates remain low and the market has reached all time highs. To paraphrase John Paul Getty: If you owe the bank a hundred dollars, you’ve got a problem. If you owe the bank three trillion dollars, the bank’s got a problem. The bank being nations such as China, Japan, etc. I doubt will see them stop their lending practices as the U.S. is their best customer of exports- which in turn keeps their own economies afloat. The American consumer is just as guilty as anyone in influencing the value of the dollar, as most purchase far to much on credit. I personally am not perpetuating the problem as I rarely by anything on credit. Also add to the mix that we have inane morons like George Soros that manipulate currency value thru unfounded predictions and rhetoric. The sad truth is that even when there has been projected surpluses- the government spends more than it has- maybe even more so.


Quote:

I find it amazing that anyone in America can be so brainwashed to believe that any part of the private sector needs to pay more taxes instead of less- because no matter who is taxed now - they will be targeting you next- ALSO A STRONG CORRELATION.


"They" will be "targeting" me next?

That sounds remarkably paranoid.


It's not paranoid at all. It's realistic. Making tax increases an accepted policy is a dangerous precedent to set. Again, live and learn. If those such as John Edwards gets his way, anyone making 200k or more, especially in states such as California will be paying about 52% (state and Federal) of their income to tax- That’s just unacceptable for anyone in America.

What you are doing is equivalent to engaging in a child’s game of "I know you are, but what am I." You continue to provide no evidence to support your points of view – but instead attempt to cast doubt on my arguments with no more than basic statements of disbelief, but none that discredit. So please, if you wish to debate- PROVE that your point of view is correct, constitutional, and should be hailed by anyone but a raving socialist.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:29 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
JohnnyLee5 wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
exton wrote:
JohnnyLee5 wrote:
the federal budget deficit has been cut in half in part due to tax cuts that have stimulated growth which in turn have increased federal receipts.


Prove it.


I haven't looked into that, but just reading this the numbers just don't click.



I haven't provided any numbers to "click." But now that you mention it, we can look at the number $521 billion - this being the federal deficit prediction for 2003. The FD report at the end of fiscal 2006 was $250 billion. As reported by the Congessional Budget Office, federal tax receipts increased by 35% during the 13 quarters of 2004, 2005, 2006 at a rate of 5.5%, 14.5%, 11.7% respectively. Much of this due to tax revenue on corporate profits. Annual economic growth is at about 3.89% for the same 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts. This growth has only been beaten by the Reagan-Bush and Kennedy-Johnson eras when even more aggressive tax cuts were enacted.

This all occurring even with the funding for Katrina and the war on terror. So if a rate of increase in fed tax receipts of even 9% can be sustained for the remainder of the Bush term, there can possibly be a surplus when he leaves office. Not a false surplus, or projected surplus reliant on sustained taxes, as the policy of the Clinton administration, policies that lead to the NASDAQ losing four fifths of it's value and the S&P losing half of it's value. - this starting in 2000- which the Bush administration had to inherit.

What doesn't "click" with me is that some simply can't appreciate supply-side economics.


Right, what doesn't "click" with me is how literal this country is, and please start living outside the box..

federal budget deficit has been cut in half in part due to tax cuts that have stimulated growth which in turn have increased federal receipts.

Unless the english languaged has changed those would be numbers.

X/2 due to tax cuts, that have what stimulated growth.. I believe that can be represented with numbers right? And an increased federal receipts, numbers... Holy shit mate, is that numbers in english, or did they not teach word problems in school.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1101

PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:53 am    Post subject: Re: What real conservative would... Reply with quote
Quote:
...advocate small government by proposing to increase the size of the armed forces by 92,000 troops in the next five years?

it is a fundamental disagreement that cons have with libs about the function of govt. we beleive that the PRIMARY function of govt is to protect its citizens. we beleive that the war on terror is a necessary fight that we have to have to protect our liberties.
Quote:

Why do we need 92000 more unless someone has an enormous war planned?

we are at war. the war on terror. we have to fight it.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites