Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (64295)	4/3/2018 2:39:07 PM
From: Sam	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Mannie Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364371

Both of the above statements are ignorantly false. The Bush tax cuts raised tax revenue for the ensuing years, and the cost of the wars doesn't even begin to touch the unfunded liability for SS. Really, i-node? I guess you must believe you win every argument because you just make stuff up. Or maybe you get your beliefs from guys like Sessions. Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts By FactCheck.org Posted on July 11, 2011 Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues "went up every single year" after the Bush tax cuts were "put in." Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001. The Alabama Republican made his statement on " Face the Nation." Sessions, July 10: The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in. The revenue is down now because of the low economy. The first tax cut — the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 — was signed into law June 7, 2001. It began to affect revenues almost immediately as "advance rebate" checks were mailed to millions of taxpayers starting that July. After the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that those rebates had already amounted to $35 billion. As a result, CBO said, federal income tax receipts fell that year, rather than posting an increase. continues at factcheck.org And as for the cost of the wars--that depends on how they are figured. If you just include the fighting and immediate pacification in 2003-4, sure. But most honest people include the longer term consequences as well. It is hard to compute, I've seen estimates in the trillions when health care costs for vets are included. But that all ignores (as you conveniently do as well) the basic fact that Bush was handed a budget that was in surplus and instead of using that surplus to account for the future liabilities of the government, he used it to give large tax cuts to the country, cuts that we could only afford if we ignored those future liabilities and then when (Surprise!) the deficit grew again, Bush claimed we couldn't afford SS anymore.