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 (64376)	4/3/2018 5:38:06 PM
From: Sam	3 Recommendations Recommended By J_F_Shepard John Koligman Steve Lokness Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 364393

Hmm, that's funny, because the actual keeper of the numbers, the CBO, says on page 131 of this document that tax revenues went down the first three years of the Bush tax cut. cbo.gov In 2000, tax revenues were 2025 (rounded, and in billions); the tax act went into effect immediately in 2001. 2001 -- 1991 2002 -- 1853 2003 -- 1782 2004 was the first year revenues rose, to 1880, but still not up even the 2001 level. In 2005, it rose to 2153, the first year it surpassed 2000. Of course, 2005 was the beginning the credit/real estate bubble. The revenues rose again in 2006 and 2007 before falling in 2008 due to the collapse of the bubble and then of course fell sharply in 2009, which was the last Bush budget year (which I know you love to ascribe to Obama, lol). Factcheck.org isn't bogus, they give references for everything they do. I've used the site that you used before, but you have to check them. They are another faux conservative site that can either make things up or slant them in unorthodox ways. Well, they are orthodox for people who think like you. And BTW, the projected surplus plus the waste from the Iraq war plus honestly trying to pay for SS and Medicare instead of trying to sabotage them at every turn would have easily been enough. Well, we still have to rein in medical costs somehow. Hard to do that when Congress won't allow Medicare to actually negotiate drug prices. Gosh, I wonder how every other country does it and still gets good results. And BTW, it is mostly nonsense to claim that " the overwhelming majority of all the world's health care innovation at that time was either done in the US or at least financed by US companies" is just silly. The government finances much of the medical basic research done in this country, either through NIH, the military, NASA or through grants given to researchers in universities and yes, private companies. It is true that private companies do do the "final mile" research to commercialize and test that basic research. But even that is often financed either by the govt or by grants from foundations and NGOs of some sort. And other countries do plenty of research on their own. Sheesh, you are such a yahoo booster.

To: i-node who wrote (64376)	4/3/2018 8:35:14 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 364393

There was no recession in 2000 or 2001. So what are you talking about?

To: i-node who wrote (64376)	4/4/2018 4:17:45 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 364393

Its easy to see if revenue went up or down after tax cuts and your right that it did go up. What's hard to see is was it up or down compared to the counterfactual where the tax cuts didn't happen.

To: i-node who wrote (64376)	4/8/2018 6:02:26 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364393

i-node: As you can see, the federal tax cuts brought increased revenue every year after the 2003 cuts were passed, at least 1.5 Trillion dollars over that span of time. TimF: Its easy to see if revenue went up or down after tax cuts and you're right that it did go up. What's hard to see is was it up or down compared to the counterfactual where the tax cuts didn't happen. W. had to deal with the dot-com bust and the start of the Great Recession. For Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Obama, with or without tax cuts, federal tax revenues increased steadily. Obama seems to have had the highest rate increases.