Notices
On Topic Serious discussion and debate. No nonsense will be tolerated.

GOP using voter intimidation? IMPOSSIBLE

Thread Tools
 
Old 11-09-2006 | 09:04 AM
  #41  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DVPGSR
Thank you for NOT reading the articles.

From the first article, second sentance...



For the first time means it was never done before which means it is the highest it has ever been, during a period of time when taxes were lowered.
Yearly growth. Remember those record high profits the oil companies made? Guess what, they pay taxes on that.

The budget agency, in its monthly review released Friday, estimated that corporate receipts would exceed $330 billion in fiscal 2006, up 18% from 2005. That is double the increase that the agency estimated at the beginning of the government's fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
More than was estimated, but still less than you would have had if the tax rate had been higher.


You're preaching to the choir DVP, I am a fiscally conservative economist and believe that tax rates should be as low as possible to stimulate the economy, but the plain fact remains that lower tax rates = lower tax receipts in the short run. Reagonomics is factually wrong.
Old 11-09-2006 | 05:57 PM
  #42  
Duff Man's Avatar
Duff Man
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,644
Likes: 0
Default

*edit* found out I'm closer to the election auto call centers then I thought...disclosed too much info, hence the edit :P

Last edited by Duff Man; 11-09-2006 at 06:04 PM.
Old 11-12-2006 | 08:50 AM
  #43  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DVPGSR
Exactly, the cost to defend this country from Islamic Terrorism is not a budgetary item. You cannot put a price tag on winning a war. The fact remains that the DOD budget is less than the others, and unless you do not want to defend the country then the discretionary funding is needed.
I agree. We should seperate the spending to defend this country from Islamic terrorism from the money being spent on the war in Iraq, which has absolutely diddly to do with terrorism. I will support the terrorism spending completely.
Old 11-12-2006 | 04:55 PM
  #44  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Originally Posted by qtiger
I agree. We should seperate the spending to defend this country from Islamic terrorism from the money being spent on the war in Iraq, which has absolutely diddly to do with terrorism. I will support the terrorism spending completely.
Well I am in the camp that views the two as one in the same. And if we really wanted to end the violence going on in Iraq we need to go after Iran. They are the ones that are funding, fueling, and providing weapons to the terrorists fighting in Iraq.
Old 11-12-2006 | 05:00 PM
  #45  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Originally Posted by qtiger
More than was estimated, but still less than you would have had if the tax rate had been higher.


You're preaching to the choir DVP, I am a fiscally conservative economist and believe that tax rates should be as low as possible to stimulate the economy, but the plain fact remains that lower tax rates = lower tax receipts in the short run. Reagonomics is factually wrong.
Well unless your tax rate is 100% you will always be able to take in more money by raising taxes even higher.

I never knew you were a fiscal conservative, but as for Reaganomics being wrong I would say it really depends. In the right environment it would work well, in others not so.
Old 11-12-2006 | 09:52 PM
  #46  
qtiger's Avatar
qtiger
Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Default

Lower taxes = less revenue.


I don't like taxes but we have to seriously curb the deficit spending. It's out of control and we should at least make an effort towards paying off the debt.

Less debt = less interest = less taxes in the future.



Reagonomics is always wrong. Supply side econ is a falsehood, the trickle down effect doesn't work, etc. etc. etc.




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.