My turn...

Ive read mixed reviews. Tax cuts and rebates are supposed to help with short term problems. However in the long run they can actually reduce the amount we can borrow hurting the economy. They usually hurt things like SS..

Well based on “statistics” and “facts” and the actual amount that has been generated by the Federal government every time we use them the answer is YES , but Democrats don't like “reality” so we are evidently going to use something els to make this determination !
Why are you adding rebates and stretching a point (far beyond any reason) about SS “suffering” DK ? The question was about tax cuts NOT the cutting of the prime rate or the crazy hand outs !

Well since we are on macro economics and taxes:

Politically driven taxes for example include the high tariff on imported steel. The domestic steel industry (rust belt) has been on life support only surviving because we have this tax. Meanwhile the nations effected simply raise their taxes on other goods that we export to them.

The liberal (aka progressive) analysist must remember that the rise of the President's salary is confirmed by the congress, and in Nixon's day we know who the majority was. Clinton actually raised it as well, but not to take effect until the next administration.

We hand down the second highest corporate tax rate on earth, and that stiffles domestic revenue as corperations seek better ground overseas, including escaping enormous enviromental restrictions and regulations that climate folks seem to allow a pass for everyone else.

Cheap labor is the typical drum beat of libs on why overseas goods and services, but that is barely the tip of the iceburg.

We could easily afford more tax cuts, as the govt. gets zero sympathy from the public that is asked to cut back, while stealing from the general fund for EVERYTHING from bridges to nowhere to Woodstock museum funding.

Hey man i/m not a liberal. I Dislike clinton i was making a simple point lowering taxies on people whether it is right or wrong does not increase revenue. Read an economics book. Read my lips bush raised taxes. Clinton was an idiot who got lucky because of an economic fluke in american history. Who care if you liberal or republican anyways. What exactly does blue boy mean is that some sort of predjudice remark. Well revenues increase no matter how we cut taxes unless we get rid of them because we have MORE THAN ONE TAX BASE. I'm sorry you are so informed that you think the tax cuts you so deserved are great for the economy. They are neither good nor bad because they were so insignificant and didn't effect revenue at all. your 2% figure well that i would need to see a source to believe you i have one infront of me and i doubt you do. You just made a mess of statements with not logic or facts behind them. Tell me why they creat jobs, then tell me how they raise GDP (which hasn't fallen since the 1930's) then please please explain how collecting less taxes gives us more tax revenue.... i doubt you cant no one has yet.

Tell me why they creat jobs, then tell me how they raise GDP (which hasn't fallen since the 1930's) then please please explain how collecting less taxes gives us more tax revenue.... i doubt you cant no one has yet.

OK answer this: How is it Obama pulls down more money in donations than McCain....

McCain brings in money from large donations but from fewer people. Obama brings in smaller donations but from a much larger pool of people. Results... more money overall.

Reaganomics 101... Lower taxes on EVERYONE, but have EVERYONE pay. You bring in more revenue. Lower tax rates on capital and small business affords a business to put that savings into their company, growing it, and thus more employees. More money in the consumer's pocket breads more spending. Doing it over a long period of time provides a slow, but STABLE growth. Growth too fast (more than 5%) can trigger higher interest rates, too slow and you might get inflation.

Rc I meant the amount governments can re-borrow to repay previous loans against SS.. I need to keep my bookmarks in better order :P.. Government should be considered a business when it comes to profitability and repaying loans .. The more we borrow and the less we make the less we can borrow to repay other loans.

Ive seen what your saying about import tariffs to be true. Even in great Britain and Canada they make up less than 3% of their government incomes and ours is less.. In the olden days before income taxes it may have been a different story.

Democrats won't budge on it for fear that they will upset the Unions. Nancy Pelosi of course has already done this anyways, but thats beside the point. Trade will not be allowed to threaten the vote.

We now are only about 2 full terms away from SS going into the tank too, but nobody wants to deal with it. I'm sorry but I have no sympathy when Obama sneaks global poverty bills past committee debate, and lets Joe Biden sneak it into some other bill and take .7% of our GDP and use it in the name of "global poverty" to flash money to dictators, and others around the world! They complain the Iraq war cost is too high but it is only 1% of GDP. Yet here they are, snatching up hundreds of Billions up to 2015 and blowing it like global spending money!

OK.. FIRST.. you are injecting senarios of speculation when you say "american products" That kind of comments smells of MoveON.org

As to Iraq and no business being there. I suggest you go back to schools and slap your teacher for failing to educate you! There are 17 different resolutions that call for coalition forces to intervein if breached! Iraq war is a CEASE FIRE that FINALLY ended but only after Clinton refused to do his job and let it fester!

Countries ALWAYS bid and buy each others debts! Ours is much lower than most. Some are as much as 75% wrapped up in debt against their GDP (southamerican countries)

Our healthcare system is NO.1 in the world!!! Where did you get that number! Michael Moore?

Raising taxes on ANYONE is wrong! Its time Government stopped spending for a change and had to pick and choose like the people do!

You most certainly are a victim of some very liberal talking points! Try thinking on your own! You fall for the big oil is the bad guy scam yet never realize that our liberal college system is making more money than any of them! Harvard in just ONE endowment fund stand to make 7 figures in INTEREST alone! They can on interest put every student they have oncampus though and afford another 2000 more!! Profit margins better than 75%!!!

But you libs only think about what you are told to think, and then are told what to think!

You are gonna have to step out of that in these blogs friend, or you will get chewed up and spit out! RNC08 has already debunked most of your previous posts, and likely will finish this one to

Everyone like to remember the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, but conveniently forget the corrections he made when he was smart enough to realize he went overboard.

From a National Review article written by Bruce Bartlett who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush..

"In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconcili

As for results of 2001 to now with the tax cuts being a part of the equation:

1) The stock market (DJIA) - the average yearly increase during the bush administration is less than 1% per year. Going back to Roosevelt, this is better than only Carter (-1%) & Nixon (-2%)

2)The unemployment rate was 3.9% in December 2000, the month before bush took office. It is now 5.5%.

3)Total employment has grown at a slower pace than under any President since Eisenhower, except for one President - bush #1.

4)The GDP has increased an average of 5.9% annually. During the Clinton years it was an average of 6.9% annually.

All this information is easily calculated from information on historical DJIA charts, BLS.GOV, & BEA.GOV

YES everysingle time. Dont let the left tell you different. DEOP stats are out of context. Its like saying NY Yankees stink most of the time, when they lose a bit, but they dont show the World Series championships.

The stats he uses, as one example, is bogus.

If Bush didnt do the Tax cut to save us from the Clinton 2000 recession we would be in trouble. Clinton did not have a better economy... it was all fake Internet bubble stuff. Most did well in spite of Clinton not because of him. Business owners dont like the clinton years of the highest taxes since WW2 when we fought a war.

The proportionate difference in taxation is the issue. Right now the wealthy is reaping the benefits of our tax laws, and the middle and lower income families are shouldering the burden of taxation percentages. While the wealthy industrialist are shipping out jobs, importing cheap labor, and holding money off shore, the citizens of the US are getting whacked economically. Under the present set up, the wealth disparity has significantly widened. Today’s tax laws, job lost recession, and high prices of oil, sets up a recipe for social unrest. America can’t think with narrow greedy minds, and refocus on the US as a whole. The selfishness that has driven the US into this hole in the ground still has sharp shovels to dig even deeper.

jfore - your words sound great, now let's look at reality. To repeat what I posted above:

1) The stock market (DJIA) - the average yearly increase during the bush administration is less than 1% per year. Going back to Roosevelt, this is better than only Carter (-1%) & Nixon (-2%)

2)The unemployment rate was 3.9% in December 2000, the month before bush took office. It is now 5.5%.

3)Total employment has grown at a slower pace than under any President since Eisenhower, except for one President - bush #1.

4)The GDP has increased an average of 5.9% annually. During the Clinton years it was an average of 6.9% annually.

All this information is easily calculated from information on historical DJIA charts, BLS.GOV, & BEA.GOV

As for revenue growing after tax cuts:
It was not until 2006 that the IRS gross revenue exceeded the 2001 revenue.

DEOP = What you wrote is interesting too. It's a real shame that it had absolutely nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. You also need to look at the statistics in context and not just spout numbers with no explanation. For example. Clinton was riding the creat of the Dot-com bubble. When it burst we headed for a recession real fast. Bush had to deal with that recession plus the hit we took after 9/11 plus the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, historically, GDP fluctuations have been more of a function of which party controls Congress than who was in the White House. I also noticed that you quoted unemployment numbers from December for Clinton -- a month when unemployment is usually at its lowest due to Christmas -- and then compare to to May for Bush -- which is right after we've added the recent graduates to the unemployed rolls untiul the find work. That's real honest. I do find it amusing that liberals will quote the Clinton years' stats and say how great they are and then quote the Bush years' stats, which are very close, and say how bad they are.