DescentBB

and the airhead Dems are once again wrong (regarding tax rebates)

"The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September."

http://tinyurl.com/beyrr

Of course a reduction in peoples and business taxes does not correct things right away and that allowed the Libs to deride the plan (even though Reagan showed otherwise). So do you think we will hear any apologies from the naysayers? Don't hold your breath

Heh!

I hate posts like this. It sounds like the evening news. Whatever happened to intellectual debate?

How about something along the lines of "Interesting, maybe Bush's tax plan worked after all... <link>" instead of this baseball-team pissing contest we call "political discourse". And I'm sure that this upswing in tax revenue has nothing to do with the rebounding economy that the administration will take full credit for.

[/disillusioned with politics]

As much as I hate to admit this...DC has a point.

oh and btw...*biatch slaps woody upside the head*

HA! Haven't done that in a while. Felt good

Tyranny wrote:As much as I hate to admit this...DC has a point.

oh and btw...*biatch slaps woody upside the head*

HA! Haven't done that in a while. Felt good

ROFLMAO ... hahahahaahah .. that even made Me feel better. wait.. what were we talkin about again?

Anyone got a graphic representation of someone smoking some pole? I have an idea...

I apologize woodchip.

keep on trollin

DCrazy wrote:I hate posts like this. It sounds like the evening news. Whatever happened to intellectual debate?

Indeed. It takes a intelligent response to make a intelligent debate.

Me feels Tyranny's love....just what head you be slapping?

If it does indeed happen, I'm sure Bush would find a way to squander it. BTW, what happened to the economic cycle? You people said that Bush inherited the crash and didn't cause it, now is he inhereting this upswing because of something Clinton did? Think about it...

Zuruck wrote:BTW, what happened to the economic cycle? You people said that Bush inherited the crash and didn't cause it, now is he inhereting this upswing because of something Clinton did?

Two things:

1) the economic cycle happens no matter who's president or what policy they have. All they can really do is make it more severe or less severe, or make recovery come a little faster or slower.

2) Whatever the president does takes about a year or two to have a significant effect on the economy. Therefore, when Bush had a recession within a few months of taking office (one that could be traced back to the last few months of Clinton's presidency), it had to have been due to a combination of the business cycle and Clinton policies (it's arguable whether Clinton made it worse or better) -- Bush had no way to cause it that quickly. Now that he's been in office a little over 4 years, any economic happenings can be blamed on the business cycle and Bush (again, it's arguable whether Bush is making this business cycle upswing bigger or smaller than it should be.)

I'd like to take this moment to say that Clinton took advantage of this same situation Lothar. At the end of his "100 days" the economy was doing very well. .. and guess who got credit for it? Bush Sr.? lol yea right. .. clinton got up and said .. looky see what I did??!! go me! (that's a paraphrase) As much as people bad mouthed Bush and his trickel-down economics. It seemed to have worked. It took some time, but it worked.

Bush inherited the economic downswing from the economy. Bush inherited the economic upswing from the economy. His economic policy could only possibly affect a tiny portion of that number. I'm sick of people blaming/giving credit to Clinton or Bush for vast swings in economic health.

We'll all be better off when we realize that all our base are belong to Alan Greenspan.

Kyouryuu wrote:We'll all be better off when we realize that all our base are belong to Alan Greenspan.

x2

Try reading the whole article before posting your right wing rantings next time. It says people payed their taxes early so they have more money than expected this quarter.

(all quotes from the article)

Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived.

For that fiscal year, the government recorded a $412 billion deficit, the largest ever in nominal dollar terms, although not as large as some of the deficits of the 1980s when measured against the size of the economy.

So Bush has the largest defecit since Reagan. Is that what you mean by them both getting it right?

In January, Bush administration officials projected that the streak would continue, with a deficit of $427 billion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. But that estimate was widely regarded as inflated and many forecasters believed the total would be more like $400 billion.

So Bushs peeps over estimated the defecit and are now saying "wow its lower than we thought it was gonna be". Great economic news? I think not.

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, "it's still a high number," said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. "It needs to come down."

So yeah the deficit IS lower than predicted but it is still way TOO HIGH.

Taxpayers were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich but that is increasingly pinching the middle class.

Few economists say the U.S. government is out of the woods. One of the reasons for the turnaround, the alternative minimum tax, should be reduced or eliminated before it starts impinging on economic growth, Bethune said.

So an additional tax that IS NOT working the way Bush planned is the main reason for the reduction. Great economic planning? Obviously not.


And one final thought for all the bleeding heart republicans

But forecasted surpluses turned into huge, forecasted deficits. Since President Bush entered office, the total federal debt -- including debt to the public and debt owed the Social Security system -- has risen from $5.7 trillion to $7.8 trillion.

The country is in HUGE debt and the US currency is artificailly being kept bouyant by asian banks. The middle classes carry more of the tax burden than ever before. We now have more billionaires than ever. While the number of people under the poverty line grows faster here than in any other country?

So what exactly is it that Reagan and Bush got right?

Pugwash, why do you hate America so much?

How do you get that I hate America from that post Goob? I <3 America, I wouldnt live here if I didnt.
Im just sick of people reading only the headline on a story, interpreting it the way they want and claiming their misguided or ill informed views to be solid fact.

I do hate the huge deficit(and people that drive too slow in the left lane) (and those coconut candy bars) but thats about it.

I love that one.

hehe

Asking someone why they hate America here is like saying "good post."

Good post

I'm wondering what Clintons great surplus would have been if 9/11 occured during his first tour of the white house? Oh thats right, it did occur but the WTB's didn't fall down. Or conversley, how big would the deficit be now if Clinton had taken the Sudanese up on their Bin Laden offer? In a way you can put this whole economic scenario on Clintons lap...after, of course you get Monica off.

Oh and Pugsly...by April 15 you have to have your taxes paid. So why is this early?

"After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers"

Perhaps you should try understanding what you are reading.

woodchip wrote: Oh and Pugsly...by April 15 you have to have your taxes paid. So why is this early?

oh no. it's the knick name game. the big goldfish in the little pond is calling you out, pugwash.

Few economists say the U.S. government is out of the woods. One of the reasons for the turnaround, the alternative minimum tax, should be reduced or eliminated before it starts impinging on economic growth, Bethune said.

So an additional tax that IS NOT working the way Bush planned is the main reason for the reduction. Great economic planning? Obviously not.

As a point of clarification, GWB did not institute the AMT; Congress foisted this on us in something like 1970 or so. It's been around for a long time.

As a point of clarification, GWB did not institute the AMT; Congress foisted this on us in something like 1970 or so. It's been around for a long time.

Thank you Dissent for the clarification, from the article I thought Bush had instituted this tax.

woodchip wrote: by April 15 you have to have your taxes paid. So why is this early?

I am by no means an expert but I believe corporations pay tax quarterly from date they are created. Thus Taxes can ebb and flow as business does better or worse. The time frame being set by the date of incorporation.

Chipper.....I could be wrong about the tax schedule but that does not disprove my statement that the article does not support your post.

Pug, I've owned a corporation for twenty five years. Taxes were only paid just prior to April 15th even though my year end is end of December. You may be confusing corporate taxes on profit with payroll taxes (which are due quarterly). Corporations that are public held do file quarterly reports and for all I know may pay their taxes quarterly also. Do not forget over 80% of business in America is small business. Many are not corporations and as such do not pay taxes on profits until the April 15th deadline.

As to supporting my claim you have to understand that both Reagan and Bush inherited their predecessors recession. Do you remember who was President before Reagan and the term "Stagflation". To turn the economy around tax cuts were used to stimulate the economy (note I said stimulate as ultimately it is business that drives the economy). Since all the plans the Dems were trying during the Carter years did not work, we can give some credence to Reagans tax cuts did work. Another recession and now Bushs tax cut seem to be taking hold. Unemployment is down, economy is going up. Is there something wrong?
I suppose the real supposition may be is if Reagan or Bush did not give tax break, would the economy come back at a different pace?