Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.
|
Zimmy, you are absolutely correct, much of that $85 trillion would come from tax revenue on businesses.
Here is another thing that liberals cannot seem to grasp...ZIMMY, FROM WHERE DO YOU EXPECT THOSE BUSINESSES TO GET THOSE TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Do those businesses have the ability to print money? No, they take it from us.
Many liberals think tax increases on businesses are a way to "spare" the public from tax hikes. But businesses will obviously pass that on to their customers and employees, which is us. Please ask Johnny D how he would respond if his corporate tax rate doubled? It's amazing to me, this liberal notion that there is this giant ATM out there called "business" that we can raid whenever we want without any consequences...
During the 2008 Republican Nat'l Convention, Fred Thompson made a great analogy to this in his speech. He said something like this..."Liberals believe that raising taxes on buisiness doesn't effect individual people. That's like saying 'don't worry, I'm not taking water from your side of the pail, I'm taking it from my side of the pail'. Because if you buy anything from a business, or you happen to get your paycheck from a business, then you are impacted by tax hikes on that business".
Where am I wrong Zimmy?
"When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. "
Zimmy, when the economy comes back, tax revenues will increase, that is correct. But it would take decades (at least) of a booming economy for tax revenues to marginally increase by $85 trillion.
Do you understand the math? I'm not just saying we need a total of $85 trillion...I'm saying we're $85 trillion in the hole. What that means is, we need to come up with $85 trillion to pay back debt, and that's ON TOP of what we need to cover the everyday expenditures.
Zimmy, federal income tax revenue for this year will be around $2.2 trillion, and we're spending $3.8 trillion. Let's say the economy grows by 20% (which is an enormous surge) and stays there. That gets revenue to 2.64 trillion. That's still SHORT of what we need to cover our 2011 expenses of 3.8 trillion.
We cannot grow out of this debt, Zimmy. Not with our expenditures. Do the math...for 2011, we are spending 73% more than we are taking in (3.8 trillion vs 2.2 trillion). That means if revenues increased by 72% (which is imposible), we'd still only be breaking even for this year, leaving not one penny to address the debt of $85 trillion. If revenues DOUBLED to 4.4 T, we would have an annual surplus of 0.6 trillion (4.4 - 3.8 = 0.6). Ignoring interest, we would need that to continue, uninterrupted, for 142 years to pay down that $85 trillion. How can you possibly play with those numbers and come up with a realistic solution to this mess that doesn't involve huge cuts? Answer - you can't. And then when someone like Paul Ryan has the political courage to tell the truth, Obama responds by saying that Ryan wants disabled kids to whither and die on the street. Notice that Obama never said Ryan was WRONG, rather, he tried to demonize him. Is that change? Is that leadership?
Zimmy, the math is what the math is. It's not political, and I'm not saying that the Democrats are solely to blame. But we are in deep doo-doo here.
"the economy imploded under Bush"
First Zimmy, you explicitly stated that tax revenues under Bush drcereased after the tax cuts. I proved that's not true, will you admit that? Second, you're saying Bush's tax cuts caused this mess? Sorry, it was the subprime mortgage mess that did the damage. If you deny that, you are utterly brainwashed by political contempt for those you disagree with...
Also Zimmy, the economy grew like crazy when the GOP controlled Congress (from 1994 to 2006). The Dems took over in 2006. And in our system of gov't, the legislature, way more than the President, sets the legislative agenda...I'm sorry if that fact tends to suggest that the Dems messed up, but it's a fact nonetheless...
I love it when folks say the Bush tax cuts caused this. There is absolutely no rational way to say that with a straight face...
"you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues."
Why can't I say that? THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, so why can't I say it? I can't prove that the Bush tax cuts caused the increased revenue...but I can prove that tax revenue increased for several years aftre the cuts went into place. So you can say that revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts...you can say that, even though it's irrefutably false. But I cannot say that revenues increased after the cuts, even though that's precisely what took place? In other words, you can make stuff up, but I can't state historical fact?!?! Wow. I mean, wow...
Het Detbuch, no hyperbole here, right? Just simple, irrefutable (except to liberals) child-level math.
OK liberals, where am I wrong exactly? Believe me, I want to be wrong on this issue...but I don't suspect I am...