Obama Signs Bill To Keep Taxes Lower. Adds $57 Billion In Spending!

[mawilson 2,133]

The misconception is all on you. The feds took in less as a percentage of GDP following the cuts.

They did? Not according to the US GPO:

2001: 19.8

2002: 17.9

2003: 16.5 <--- Bush tax cuts passed

2004: 16.3 <--- slightly lower than 16.5

2005: 17.6 <--- higher than 16.5

2006: 18.5 <--- even higher

2007: 18.8 <--- higher still

2008: 17.7 <--- lower than 2007 but still higher than 16.5

[Krikit 1,164]

you aren't a very smart one are ya?

Please keep the personal insults to yourself. Thank you.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

nvm

Edited December 18, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They did? Not according to the US GPO:

2001: 19.8

2002: 17.9

2003: 16.5 <--- Bush tax cuts passed

2004: 16.3 <--- slightly lower than 16.5

2005: 17.6 <--- higher than 16.5

2006: 18.5 <--- even higher

2007: 18.8 <--- higher still

2008: 17.7 <--- lower than 2007 but still higher than 16.5

Try starting with 2000 as the baseline since the first and much larger of the two tax cut packages was passed in 2001. The 2003 package was done because the 2001 package (despite reducing revenues to the feds by 1.35 trillion dollars over it's lifetime) had not spurred any job creation worth mentioning for the first two years after passage. The picture then is that revenue went from 20.86% of GDP to 16.82% in 2005 to later peak at 18.8% (still a full 2 points lower than the starting point) before eventually declining once more. That's a drop any way you look at it, no? A significant one at that.

2000: 20.9

2001: 19.8

2002: 17.9

2003: 16.5

2004: 16.3

2005: 17.6

2006: 18.5

2007: 18.8

2008: 17.7

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

they had a sunset because that was the only way it would get support.

Close but no cigar. Try again.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

and now, it's the obama tax cuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and now, it's the obama tax cuts.

Indeed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am curious, as this program to 'starve the beast' as some used to say picks up steam and major cuts in government spending cannot be 'papered' over any longer, which of the big three entitlement programs should be the first to go? Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security? There is not enough money in much else other than the military to save the kind of money necessary. I am guessing it will be medicaid. Are all of you ready for that? You do know that medicaid pays for the majority of nursing home care. Grandma may be homeless! And hospitals will be forced to turn people away or face financial ruin themselves. Many are already on the brink now. Is this the country we want to live in?

None of those are funded by income tax. Look at your check stub. You pay separate taxes for SS, Medicare and Medicaid. But you can do away with ALL of them, or at least phase them out. Fine by me.

Also, this is not a TAX CUT. It is a continuation of tax rates which have been in effect for 9 years.

[mawilson 2,133]

Try starting with 2000 as the baseline since the first and much larger of the two tax cut packages was passed in 2001.

Are you insane? Did you forget about the stock market crash of 2000-2002 and something called 9/11?

[mawilson 2,133]

That's a drop any way you look at it, no?

No. You can't use the dot-com bubble as the baseline - it wasn't real.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you insane? Did you forget about the stock market crash of 2000-2002 and something called 9/11?

That mild crash compared to the one in 2008? And how exactly does 9/11 figure into the revenue to GDP ratio?

You can't use the dot-com bubble as the baseline - it wasn't real.

Neither was the bubble that popped in 2007. Can't use the years running up to it either, then.

Slice it any way you want but the 2001/2003 tax cuts were a double whammy for the federal budget. The 2010 tax cut package is another whammy right on top of it.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[james&olya 1,121]

None of those are funded by income tax. Look at your check stub. You pay separate taxes for SS, Medicare and Medicaid. But you can do away with ALL of them, or at least phase them out. Fine by me.

Also, this is not a TAX CUT. It is a continuation of tax rates which have been in effect for 9 years.

Medcaid does not have a separate tax. And if you think that medicare and social security have separate protected funds stashed in a bank somewhere you are wrong. There is some truth to the right-wingers calling them a giant ponzi-scheme. If the money runs out, and it appears that it will, should they just print more, giving us sky-high inflation, or should the programs be cut back severely or even just terminated? This is a real question! Think a little about the real-world consequences to your glib replies!