News today Bush "tax cuts for rich" have increased tax revenues how can that be bad?

You are totally right bro, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

If you cut taxes, then you allow people to put their money back into the economy which improves business and the total taxable income actually increases.

Government actually freezes money.

Capital creates more capital. Taxation stymies economic growth.

So even if you tax less there is more money out there to tax.

These are such obvious things. Unless you are an agenda driven socialist nut job.

The main problem liberals have with these kinds of ideas, it that lazy people don't get to have anyone feel sorry for them.

These ideas return us to the age old and well proven idea of WORK as a means of personal advancement rather than federal aid.

Well, where do I start?

No, Democrats do not think this is a good idea because taxes have not been raised for the RICH. They have, however, been raised for the POOR.

The big increase comes from corporate tax receipts, which have tripled since 2003, as well as an increase in stock profits and executive bonuses.

Keep in mind that they have not risen to where they were in perhaps, say, 2000. The government, in turn, has borrowed MORE money than any administration in history.

For the long term, the future is very dim, especially since this Administration has no plan to deal with what happens after the current moron gets out of office.

The other reason this looks so good to Republicans is because the past five years have been the worst Administration in history, And Bush is thinking of making these cuts permanent.

.

I'm sorry to say that all of this still doesn't do anything to balance the budget and it won't, because of all of the money that Bush has borrowed and put our country into debt for.

I know that this looks good on paper to Republicans when all it is in actuality is smoke and mirrors.

Remember that Bush never includes any spending for Iraq in his budget. These have totaled more than $300 BILLION dollars since 2003.

The federal debt is more than $8.3 TRILLION dollars. And this is since Bush took office. And Republiicans are trying to RAISE the debt ceiling.

Spending is STILL going UP, it's NOT coming DOWN.

The wealthy persons' income is based more on their stock portfolio, rather than their incomes. The people who make at least $300,000 per year only pay 1/3 of the taxes in this country.

In a nutshell, this all means that when the market is doing well, and stocks are up, revenues will be up..

Unfortunately, the poor do not have stock portfolios.

Is it fun being so dumb?

Here's a link to the story. You might want to read IT ALL before pretending like you are reporting good news.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/09/news/defici...

Among the highlights:

"The increase in tax revenues looks good only because the last five years have looked so bad."

and....

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow, I can't get much happiness out of this year."

You state that the extra taxes will be "payed (sic) down quicker". Hmmm....Funny, before Bush took office, THERE WAS NO DEFICIT. The government was running at a surplus. So basically, your arguing that Bush's policies are helping to solve the very problems his policies created.

Secondly, if you looked at the breakdown of where these revenues are coming from, the vast majority are CORPORATE TAXES, which have nothing to do with the individual tax rates you discuss above. The rest of these taxes derive from the obscene bonuses being given to executives at these corporations. How exactly are corporations making these profits? By slashing their pensions. By foisting the burden of healthcare costs onto their workers. By keeping wages for workers stagnent.

So a tiny percent of Americans are doing great. They make 200+ times more than the average worker, so they are doing dandy. Unfortunately, the average worker makes the same or less as they did 3 years ago. But gas is $2 a gallon higher. Heating bills are up dramatically. Electricity bills are up dramatically. Their healthcare burden is up dramatically. Their pension plans are being stripped or reneged on....

And the deficit is still DRAMATICALLY WORSE than when Bush took office. Why, again, are we supposed to be pleased with these policies?

Oh, and GEORGE D, you are an idiot. Bush Sr. raised taxes, and then Clinton raised them again. The result? The greatest economic expansion in history. Try to be at least a little bit honest about historical fact when spewing your right-wing BS.

It is more than just tax cuts. It is that we have dramatically increased spending as well. Plus with a wartime economy the US economy will do better as the government provides thousands more jobs and takes 100,000 soldiers away from current jobs middle income that they are working while paying them.

It isn't just the tax cuts the are responsible, that is a stupid idea, it is a combination of things. In the long run tax cuts, spending, etc is just encouragement. It is the consumer spending that causes the economy to move. Most of the encouragements in history that have been tried have failed to bring about a response from the consumers that didn't start spending and failed to help the economy.

Bush has tried this twice in the past with no success. Third time coupled with huge spending increases must be a charm. The real test is however is what will happen when spending is brought down. Where we end up, I don't think anyone knows. That is the likely reason many aren't eager to do so.

Uh..40% compared to last year, ok. What about the past 5 years? Decade? Sorry, this seems meaningless without longer timespans with which to compare tax revenues. Great to see it's going up; can someone link to an explanation on exactly HOW tax cuts cause increased tax revenue?

... how can something gain 40 percent due to tax cuts? I can understand some growth, but 40 PERCENT?

I'm not saying you're lying, but I haven't seen that kind of growth anywhere... do you have a link?

this sounds like vodoo economics at it's best...

fuzzy math?

I'm pretty sure that a Republican could "increase tax revenues" by cutting taxes to 0 percent for everyone... I'm just not sure how they would do it though?

I agree with lamoviemaven. I will not agree with your sorry weak stance.Your caught up in the cow-dung to make you feel better about your political position. It's hard to criticize this great country, but one has to be willing to have the integrity and competence to tell the truth. If GW Bush had the humility and courage to carry the ball("economy") he would have been admired by all Americans. But we know the truth. He obviously brought this country backwards and worsened the country's economic and world relationships.For what to be right! He had hidden agendas planned for this country with a blind eye and a deaf ear to the American people. From the beginning, his intent in office was for his own benefit, the New World Order and the ones that played along with him in his game of greed, abusive power, control, high treason and murder.

This has always been the case but most of the younger set on this board are too ignorant of the facts to understand that this is always the situation with tax cuts. Tax cuts stimulate growth. Tax increases stifle growth because companies will not try to expand when it costs them more money in taxes.

Well I believe its good and bad. If the rich get tax cuts, they will have more money to put out more business and more jobs for us. But Its also bad in the sense that if they get tax cuts, we get our taxes raised.

Regardless of how you look at it, the fact remains that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer because any tax cut does not have any effect on a person making under $40,000.00 period.......