Unemployment claims jump to 368,000

Have you heard the news today? They are predicting a slowdown this year, one big thing happens and bam, back into a recession. Whatever happened to recovery summer?

 

You do realize you missed it by about 40%?

 

Sure.

And Romney's going to kick Obama's ass in the election.

Any other predictions you wanna share with us?

 

No evidence.

Just the opinions of big government libs.

 

Income taxes make up much less than half of all federal tax revenues and just looking at income taxes gives a false, distorted picture of who bears how much of the federal tax burden.

You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Our federal tax system is only marginally progressive. The top 1% take about 20% of the nation's income but pay about 20% of federal taxes.

He had to address the Great Recession Bush left him and deal with the obstructionist Tea Party of Grover.

You've made an error. Your figures include corporate taxes, which they don't pay.

Inaccurate description, but irrelevant.

False, as to the rate paid. The rate Romney pays is lower than a typical median income family. Which is outrageous.

Not specious at all. Unlike you, I can prove my claims.

A new ad from the Obama campaign claims that Mitt Romney “paid only 14 percent in taxes—probably less than you.” That depends. Romney paid a federal income tax rate that is higher than the income tax rate paid by 97 percent of tax filers. But if you include a combination of income taxes and payroll taxes — which make up the bulk of federal taxes for most taxpayers — the ad is accurate.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-romney-pay-a-lower-rate-in-taxes-than-you/

I don't know. What?

I'm glad you admit your greed is ugly.

 

There's lots of evidence.

Here are the inflation adjusted figures showing revenue increases in real dollars comparing the effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and Clinton tax increase:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310.0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%


Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Adjusted for inflation, we see an accurate picture. Revenues under Reagan grew only 18%. During the same period of time, after Clinton's tax increase, revenues grew by a whopping 57% real. Bush shows the real failure of "supply side" theory. His tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy and promote superior revenue growth. Instead, revenues didn't even keep up with inflation.

And it is not simply a function of the economy. Both Reagan and Clinton (contrary to conservative predictions) had strong economies. Bush (contrary to conservative predictions) had a subpar economic performance, but still had growth.

Regardless of the growth, when we compare growth in revenues with growth in the economy, we can see the fallacy of your claim that the economy drives revenues. In both the case of tax cutting Reagan and Bush, revenues failed to keep up with the economy. In the case of tax increasing Clinton, revenue growth far surpassed economic growth:

Actual figures.

Reagan
Year - GDP
1980 2,789.5
1988 5,103.8
% Chng: 83.0%

Year - Revenues
1980 517.1
1988 909.3
% Chng: 75.8%


Clinton
year - GDP
1992 6,337.7
2000 9,817.0
% Chng: 54.9%

Year - Revenues
1992 1091.3
2000 2025.2
% Chng: 85.6%


Bush

Year – GDP
2000 9,817.0
2008 14,264.6
% Chng: 45.3%

Year – Revenues
2000 2025.2
2008 2523.6
% Chng: 24.6%

Sources: Revenues - CBO.gov; GDP - BEA.gov.

Lots of evidence

 

Income taxes make up much less than half of all federal tax revenues and just looking at income taxes gives a false, distorted picture of who bears how much of the federal tax burden.

You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Our federal tax system is only marginally progressive. The top 1% take about 20% of the nation's income but pay about 20% of federal taxes.

He had to address the Great Recession Bush left him and deal with the obstructionist Tea Party of Grover.

You've made an error. Your figures include corporate taxes, which they don't pay.

Inaccurate description, but irrelevant.

False, as to the rate paid. The rate Romney pays is lower than a typical median income family. Which is outrageous.

Not specious at all. Unlike you, I can prove my claims.

A new ad from the Obama campaign claims that Mitt Romney “paid only 14 percent in taxes—probably less than you.” That depends. Romney paid a federal income tax rate that is higher than the income tax rate paid by 97 percent of tax filers. But if you include a combination of income taxes and payroll taxes — which make up the bulk of federal taxes for most taxpayers — the ad is accurate.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-romney-pay-a-lower-rate-in-taxes-than-you/

I don't know. What?

I'm glad you admit your greed is ugly.

 

That is not evidence that raising taxes is good for the economy.

Chances are growth would have been even greater without the tax increase.

 

Why are you off topic? Romney has nothing to do with this thread. Only that he would have cleaned up the (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich that is now the Obama America that you have helped create.

 

That is absolutely untrue.

 

I never said it was. Nice try at a diversion now that I've proved your statement wrong.

It certainly is evidence that a tax increase increases revenues and does not hinder growth.

Baseless nonsense, directly contradicted by the evidence. Feel free to prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not off topic at all.

Just reminding everyone your great record with predictions since you were making them.

 

Bush had massive growth until the Dems took over Congress,and the Fannie/Freddie fomented economelt happened.
the largest revenues in US HISTORY happened under Bush; 2006,2007,and 2008 were the HIGHEST TAX REVENUE YEARS IN US HISTORY...but then, that would be the Truth,and you don't really like that, do you?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200



Tell us all again about the "6.4 million Obama jobs" , and how that "blows away jobs under Bush"....

 

Growth under Bush sucked, even after those massive tax cuts that squandered the surplus Clinton left and ran up trillions more debt. Those tax cuts for the "job creators" were supposed to great great economic growth and create jobs. Instead we got subpar performance on both. Bush's best year would have been Clinton's 7th best, and there was a net decrease in private sector jobs while Bush was president.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


Naturally, the ACTUAL FACTS completely contradict your always nonsense claims. Bush's post tax cuts revenues were the GREATEST in US HISTORY, while still taking aSMALLER % of the GDP to do so.

Make up some more bullcrap why dontcha?

Sleazocrat SPENDING INCREASES, as easily tracked in the link I provided, are what happened to the money.

Feel free to just make up whatever you need to be "true"....

 

Tax revenues after the Bush tax cuts sucked compared to after Clinton's tax increase. Your own source proves it.

Here are the inflation adjusted figures showing revenue increases in real dollars comparing the effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and Clinton tax increase:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310.0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%


Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Adjusted for inflation, we see an accurate picture. Revenues under Reagan grew only 18%. During the same period of time, after Clinton's tax increase, revenues grew by a whopping 57% real. Bush shows the real failure of "supply side" theory. His tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy and promote superior revenue growth. Instead, revenues didn't even keep up with inflation.

And it is not simply a function of the economy. Both Reagan and Clinton (contrary to conservative predictions) had strong economies. Bush (contrary to conservative predictions) had a subpar economic performance, but still had growth.

Regardless of the growth, when we compare growth in revenues with growth in the economy, we can see the fallacy of your claim that the economy drives revenues. In both the case of tax cutting Reagan and Bush, revenues failed to keep up with the economy. In the case of tax increasing Clinton, revenue growth far surpassed economic growth:

Actual figures.

Reagan
Year - GDP
1980 2,789.5
1988 5,103.8
% Chng: 83.0%

Year - Revenues
1980 517.1
1988 909.3
% Chng: 75.8%


Clinton
year - GDP
1992 6,337.7
2000 9,817.0
% Chng: 54.9%

Year - Revenues
1992 1091.3
2000 2025.2
% Chng: 85.6%


Bush

Year – GDP
2000 9,817.0
2008 14,264.6
% Chng: 45.3%

Year – Revenues
2000 2025.2
2008 2523.6
% Chng: 24.6%

Sources: Revenues - CBO.gov; GDP - BEA.gov.

And those figures don't show how revenues tanked hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the first 4 years of the Bush presidency, squandering the golden opportunity of the surplus Clinton left us.

I just can't fathom the thinking process that must go on for someone to think that a reasonable increase in tax rates result in lower tax revenues, when that never happened.

It is just fiction created to justify further tax cuts at a time our nation is dangerously in debt, I reckon. For the folks that are ignorant of history of what happened when we did it under Reagan and Bush.

 

So what is Obama's plan? What is his budget? What is going to do?

 

They should. It shows everything I've stated is completely accurate.

That is absolutely untrue. you're just resorting to personal attacks when your own data proved you wrong, as is typical of you.

Big deal. Clinton had the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY every single year he was president. Every single president in modern history has had the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY. We should have the highest tax revenues in history every single year because of population and economic growth.

Bush became president in 2001, not 2006. Here's the rest of the story:

Year - Revenues - GDP
2000 2,025.2 20.4%
2001 1,991.2 19.4%
2002 1,853.2 17.4%
2003 1,782.3 16.0%
2004 1,880.1 15.9%
2005 2,153.9 17.1%
2006 2,406.7 18.0%
2007 2,567.7 18.3%
2008 2,523.6 17.7%

Revenues grew less than 25% under Bush, way below GDP growth 45%. Revenues didn't even keep up with inflation, much less GDP growth, much less Bush's wild military spending increases. By 2008, tax collections were 2.7 percentage points lower than in 2000, representing almost $400 billion in lower revenues for a $14.3 trillion GDP.

As I stated, the ACTUAL FACTS show that revenues under Bush sucked, squander the surplus budget Clinton left, and ran up trillions more debt.

Hardly something any informed person would brag about.

When they STOPPED CUTTING TAXES revenues grew again, but as I've demonstrated, by the top he left office, they hadn't even kept up with inflation.

And Obama and Clinton had far higher revenues than Reagan. In ACTUAL FACT, last year, revenues under Obama were 2.5x times more than under Reagan.

Which under your analysis proves Obama's policies are FAR BETTER THAN REAGAN's for raising taxes, right? LOL

I'll trust most our members have a basic understanding of inflation and population and economic growth and can understand how those factors affect numbers over time, and can see why Grok's bragging about Bush's pathetic revenue numbers is really infantile.

Thank you for sharing the conservative understanding of budget and finance. It helps explain a lot whey some of them hold the views they do. But it's actually kind of pathetic.

 

Uh..no. More ridiculous spin. Clinton's highest total revenues, were BILLIONS LESS that Bush's THRID HIGHEST REVENUES, but were a higher % of GDP, which is not a "good thing".

If you want to continue playing Leftninny Word Dance, feel free.

Bush's revenues were HIGHER THAN CLINTON's BEST, but at a LOWER % of the GDP, with LOWER TAXES.

None of your nonsense changes those SIMPLE FACTS.

As far as your claim about "history"...NOT TRUE of OBAMA, is it?

 

Grok talks about the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY as if that was some sort of great accomplishment by Bush.

But a look at the historic record shows how silly his point is:


1960 92.5 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1961 94.4 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1962 99.7 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1963 106.6 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1964 112.6 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1965 116.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1966 130.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1967 148.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1968 153.0 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1969 186.9 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1970 192.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1971 187.1
1972 207.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1973 230.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1974 263.2 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1975 279.1 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1976 298.1 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1977 355.6 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1978 399.6 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1979 463.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1980 517.1 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1981 599.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1982 617.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1983 600.6
1984 666.5 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1985 734.1 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1986 769.2 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1987 854.4 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1988 909.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1989 991.2 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1990 1,032.0 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1991 1,055.0 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1992 1,091.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1993 1,154.4 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1994 1,258.6 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1995 1,351.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1996 1,453.1 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1997 1,579.3 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1998 1,721.8 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
1999 1,827.5 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
2000 2,025.2 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
2001 1,991.2
2002 1,853.2
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.9 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
2006 2,406.7 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
2007 2,567.7 HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY
2008 2,523.6

As everyone can see for themselves, having the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY is the normal, expected, natural event each year. It's actually pretty rare, before the Bush tax cuts, for revenues not to be the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY. In the past 50 years, that only happened a couple times, once under Reagan and once under Nixon.

But even using the Grok test, we can see how badly revenues sucked under Bush. No other president managed to not have the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY more than one time. Bush did not have the HIGHEST TAX REVENUES IN US HISTORY a whopping 5 times.

Revenues should have been far higher and weren't because of the Bush tax cuts. As a result of those tax cuts and the military spending, we went from a surplus budget to 5 trillion more debt, and ended up being dangerously in debt at the very worst time, when the Great Recession hit.

Hardly something for any informed person to think is something to brag about.

 

Repetitive and uninformed. See my posts above and below.

Obama's revenues, even in the worst recession in 80 years, are 2.5x higher than Reagan's ever were. So are you conceding that Obama's policies for revenues must be far better than Reagan's?

 

How idiotic. 2006,2007 AND 2008 remain the highest revenue years in history, at a LOWER % of the GDP than Clinton's best year. Sorry. Deal with it.

Adn keep up the Leftninny Word Dance...it's hysterical...

 

Repetitive and uninformed. See my posts above and below.

Obama's revenues, even in the worst recession in 80 years, are 2.5x higher than Reagan's ever were. So are you conceding that Obama's policies for revenues must be far better than Reagan's?

- - - Updated - - -

How idiotic. Revenues sucked after Bush's tax cuts, just like the economy. Deal with it. And keep up the contard misinformation show. It's hysterical.

 

Revenues exceeded anything under Clinton, despite his being handed the greatest bull economy in since WW2.

All while taking a SMALLER % of Americans' hard earned money. Sorry,but math doesn't lie....

 

So, why do we have such high unemployment after the previous republican administration tax cuts? Shouldn't we still be booming?

 

Let's see revenue growth

1991 2.23%
1992 3.43%
1993 5.79% Clinton comes into office during a strong recovery revenue growth headed to double digits, passes tax rate increase
1994 9.03% tax rate increase goes into full effect
1995 7.41% Revenue growth slows
1996 7.49% Gingrich and Kasich pass tax rate decreases economy gets back on track
1997 8.68%
1998 9.02%
1999 6.14%
2000 10.82% Hits double digit at the lower rate
2001 -1.68% Bush comes into office during a slowdown/recession and revenue growth falls
2002 -6.93%
2003 -3.82% Bush tax rate cuts go into full effect
2004 5.49%
2005 14.55% record growth
2006 11.76%
2007 6.69% end of Republican control of Congress
2008 -1.71%
2009 -16.60% Obama becomes President threatening higher taxes, expensive medical plans, more regulations, stimulus fails, fails to deal with housing and unemployment
2010 2.74%
2011 0.51%

- - - Updated - - -

Already documented.