At least a dozen, I'm sure! :excited:

You'd think they'd make them stand in the front of the audience all week so they could get diverse photos.

 

No I didn't miss the point, I made this statement "Since almost every tax cut has resulted in an increase in revenue, your statement is false".

DL was responding to it, notice the word "almost"?

 

Excuse me, Kimiko. tenguy is a successful business man. His opinions matter, even when they are wrong. He has so much more experience than both of us put together.

Don't you feel any deference for rich people?

 

huh, my head hurts...and I don't think the British are revolting at all.

 

Cute, why does that make my statement incorrect?

C'mon DL, even you could do better than that. Since I was, what you consider to be, a successful businessman does that render my opinions invalid?

 

I gave you three counter-examples. How many do you need to disprove your point?

 

Out of curiosity, what degree did you go up to?

 

There were no corresponding tax cuts for the years 1973, 1983 and 2003. Plus in the post I responded to there was only 1983 until you edited.

 

Americans aren't that educated, huh?

 

1793 Upper Canada (Ontario, Canada), abolished the import of slaves by Act Against Slavery. That is the reason The Underground Railway came into existence.

 

What are you talking about? First of all, I said 1971, not 1973. And Nixon enacted a tax cut in 1971. Reagan enacted a major tax cut in late-1981, while Bush enacted tax cuts in mid-2001 and 2003. Here's a relevant description of the impact of the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, from Wikipedia:

So now, since I've edited, are you willing to admit that there HAVE been three instances of revenue losses, and that they are closely related to prior tax cuts?

 

The fluctuating revenues average out over the term of the President. Every Presidential term since Truman has seen increases in federal tax revenues, no one left office with revenues falling below the level of the year prior their inauguration. This President might break that record.

 

Your opinions are as valid as your arguments.

 

I loooove lists posts - have I ever told ewe that before Peanut?

What I find revolting:

• Anacondas
• Bell bottom trousers
• Cerebellum
• Dip shits
• Elephants - especially elephants with runny noses!!
• Feet
• Gorilla poop
• Hippopotamus larva
• Ineptitude
• Jackasses
• Klingons on the starboard bow
• Lima beans
• Mange ridden dogs
• Neverending talks on sepsis of the lower ilea
• Orangutan spit
• Perpetual motion
• Quantum science
• Relish
• Sour sweets *gag*
• Terrapins
• Underwater civilisations
• Velociraptors
• Whelks
• Xeransis
• Yeggs
• Zampone

:laughing:

 

Yes, Hottie. I believe you have mentioned this before. I try to list whenever I can; just for you. :excited:

When I first read that list, I thought you said you hate zamboni's! No one hates zamboni's!!! :lol:

 

*laughing* Once proven wrong, you alter your tactics.

Look, the whole analysis is fraught with peril. The numbers were were looking at only showed changes to the top tax rate, and ignored changes in the rest of the tax structure. The revenue numbers didn't account for inflation. The annual data ignores fluctuations that occurred within a given year. And on and on.

Nevertheless, you made a statement (that revenue had never fallen) that wasn't true. Then you made another one (that the revenue drop wasn't associated with a tax cut) that wasn't true either. And when you got called on it, you reversed your field and started talking about something else, but your arguments continue to be specious.

Read my lips: revenue fell in 2009 under this president BECAUSE HE INHERITED AN ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE!!

 

First of all I never said that revenues never have fallen after a tax rate cut, what I said was that they had almost never fallen. According to the chart that DL just posted on the other thread *not_secure_link*www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
my contention is true.

Now you were saying?

 

Kimiko told me about that website. For that I am very grateful. I have been looking for that information for quite a few years. Thank you, Kimiko.

During the campaign of 1980 Ronald Reagan and his voodoo economists encouraged the American people to believe that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases. In my comment #132 in this thread I proved that this is not true. Unfortunately, that illusion enabled Ronald Reagan and George the Lesser to cut taxes while increasing military spending, and in George's case, subject Iraq to an unprovoked invasion.

By contrast, when the United States entered World War II, taxes were raised. By the end of the war the top tax rate was 94%.

The increase in the national debt that happened because of the economic policies of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II make it much more difficult for President Obama to deal with our present difficulties.

It infuriates me that Republicans can cause problems, blame them on Democrats, and benefit politically. Nevertheless, that is what is happening.

 

Hmmmmm, I wonder what the Republicans think.

 

Republicans rarely think. They emote.