[USAMMAFAN]

Originally Posted by KingSnake

At what?

Raising tax revenue now?

Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.


Even the CBO and the joint committee on taxation do not make claims that the tax cuts will pay for themselves.

1980s

Average Economic Growth 2.0%Average Revenue Growth 1.7%

1990s

Average Economic Growth 2.0%Average Revenue Growth 3.5%

2000-2011,

Average Economic Growth 2.1%Average Revenue Growth 0.8%

So how did the tax cuts work wonderfully again?

Conservatives take note and have a good hard look at reality staring you in the face.

[Gregster]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

OK, I have a problem with all of these "conservative thinkers" that are now saying "Bush is not a 'true conservative'". 3-4 years ago, these same people were proclaiming the savior of conservatism, and that he is a 'true conservative' and a 'compassionate conservative', and a true "heir to the Reagan legacy."

Because 3-4 years ago, Bush barely stated enough policy objectives, or signed off on enough legislation, to warrant a lot of criticism. As time has gone on, Bush has been getting broadsided by plenty of conservative writers, analysts, and think-tanks.

Now that he has failed miserably, and by proxy, so has conservative ideology, we now see these same 'conservative thinkers' like Buckley distancing themselves from the Bush admin, and they are now proclaiming things like "Bush never was a real conservative".

The reason for these proclamations not being the failure of Bush and by extension conservative ideology but the failure of Bush to actually abide by conservative ideology.

[ChiefStrategist]

Originally Posted by USAMMAFAN

Conservatives take note and have a good hard look at reality staring you in the face.

Since when is increasing government revenue a good thing? More Government Revenue = Less revenues for me. Explain why this is great fucking idea.

You are going on the premise that Government is a big business (which you hate), yet you are demanding that this big business increase revenues off of "the sweat from the workers backs". Could you be a bigger hypocrite?

Since when is taking from the poor and giving it to the rich (Federal Government) a good idea?

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by InternetHero

Buckley is definately being a flippy flopper. (And there are others like Sapphire.)

But I think in general a lot of conservative thinkers were pretty stable about their opinions.

So, they are solid in their own beliefs, but flip-flopping on support for Bush. I see.

Hell, I know i would flip-flop if I first supported Bush, and then saw the incompetence.

[InternetHero]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

So solid in own beliefs, but flip-flopping on support for Bush. I see.

It's the political thing to do.

Like liberals with LBJ.

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by Gregster

Because 3-4 years ago, Bush barely stated enough policy objectives, or signed off on enough legislation, to warrant a lot of criticism. As time has gone on, Bush has been getting broadsided by plenty of conservative writers, analysts, and think-tanks.

He certainly has. So which is it? Assuming that he has not followed through on promises, was it because he is incompetent, or because he was a fraud when he pledged these things?

Originally Posted by Gregster

The reason for these proclamations not being the failure of Bush and by extension conservative ideology but the failure of Bush to actually abide by conservative ideology.

I think it is certainly a failure of neo-con policies, and neo-con policy is simply the 2006 version of most Goldwater and Reaganite conservative polcies. This monstrosity, this Bush Republican Party is just a later version of the Reagan Republican party (which is later version of the Nixon/Ford Republican party.

In the Bush Republican Party structure, it is mostly the same people, and the same ideas Kristol, Horowitz, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld.... they're all of the same Bush Republican clique today.

I love how you guys get philosophical with your support of the republican party, and call yourselves "true conservatives" now, and how Bush isn't "a real conservative"... As if you were all philosophical with your support of Bush during the early years....

[James Bomb]

Bush is the most conservative president in modern history. You can't just put him on waivers because he fucked things up, and because he has a shitty approval rating.

If some Marxist came in here and posted that "true socialism" hasn't been tried yet, some of the people in this thread would be snickering within the first page - yet you guys can say the same thing about "true conservatism" and not expect everybody's bullshit detector to go off. Yeah right.

[KingSnake]

Originally Posted by TaebownzBJJ

You didn't hear the news recently? Everyone, including all the liberal papers, are shocked, SHOCKED that revenue is up, despite the tax cuts. Shocking, I say, shocking.

BTW, revenue wasn't so hot in the first term for a number of reasons, none of which had anything to do with the tax cut, other than, perhaps, making it more necessary. A slight recession which started under Clinton/Gore and 9/11 were big contributing factors.

No one is shocked who knows anything about tax policy. The models created when the tax cuts were put in effect predicted that the major problems of the develop on the back end.

Bush has used a variety of accounting gimicks to inflate revenues. Look at his gimmick of converting IRA's into Roth's it raises money in the short term, but:

One of the largest is the provision allowing taxpayers to convert IRA balances
into so-called Roth IRAs. The Joint Committee on Taxation reckons that this provision
would raise $6.4 billion in revenues over the 10-year budget window. In fact, it would
reduce federal revenues over the long term by much, much more than it raises in the short run. The Tax Policy Center estimates that on balance the provision would reduce net
long-term federal revenues by $16 billion in present value terms (that is, after accounting
for the time value of money).

The job creations act of 2004 has similar problems. Look at the one time break in tax on repatriated capital which dropped rates from 35% to 5.25%. That one time break created a huge pay day in 2005, but it will cost the gov't billions during the out years since money that would have been coming in @ 35% is now back in the states.

This blogger does a fair analysis of that break, you can argue his numbers but he is spot on.

One of the Big Four accounting firms is telling its clients:

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA) is providing $137 billion in tax cuts over 10 years and comprises three major elements: tax relief for U.S.-based manufacturing activities, reforms in the taxation of multinational businesses and four dozen targeted items of business income tax relief. The act also contains targeted individual tax cuts and excise tax reforms.

Part of this $137 billion comes from changes in section 965 addressing how repatriated profits will be taxed. U.S. multinational corporations have a one-time opportunity to repatriate low-taxed foreign earnings at an incremental U.S. tax cost as low as 5.25%.

Michelle Leder provided this estimate of the significance of this provision:

IBM, for example, is banking a $2.8 billion refund = well, better to call it a "tax savings" - because instead of paying the normal corporate tax rate of 35 percent on $9.5 billion in profits it earned overseas, the company paid only 5.25 percent … Analysts anticipate that American companies will have repatriated around $350 billion in 2005 as a result of the law. While it's hard to make a straight calculation because of the vagaries of the tax code, that works out to a savings of roughly $104 billion on corporate America's tax bill. At Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant that announced the single largest repatriation - $37 billion - the one-time windfall works out to approximately $11 billion.

5.25% times $350 billion would translate into almost $18.4 billion in one-time tax revenues but at what cost? Ms. Leder’s $104 billion is assuming that the U.S. Treasury would have received in the same year 35% times $350 billion or $122.5 billion.

Well maybe we should admit a coupe of qualifying factors. One comes from the foreign tax credit where the Treasury collects the difference between 35% and the tax rate charged abroad. Since we are talking about deferral strategies which are typically used by putting these profits into low-tax jurisdictions, let’s assume a 10% foreign tax rate so the differential is only 25%. In other words, the calculation should be 25% times $350 billion or $87.5 billion. Secondly, deferral implies time value of money. Let’s assume the profits would not have been repatriated for another 5 years and let’s use a 5% discount rate, which means we gave up $68.5 billion in present value terms to get $18.4 billion now.

So as the Bush Administration crows about the “surge” in taxes, let’s just remember that this is yet another example of Enron accounting where in reality the government gave away $50 billion on net.

Bush is running the treasury like good old kenny boy lay.

BTW: there weren't recessions in the early 80's and 90's as well? How did both Reagan and Clinton manage to still keep revenues up?

[USAMMAFAN]

Originally Posted by ChiefStrategist

Since when is increasing government revenue a good thing? More Government Revenue = Less revenues for me. Explain why this is great fucking idea.

I dont know I went to public schools from kindergarten to graduating college, without government spending, that would not have been possible.

The fact that you possibly didnt take advantage of this is not my problem.

While I was in college I had affordable health insurance, also provide by the government. My family was very poor for awhile and I also got reduced rate lunches while I was in school for brief time period.

I personally think everyone should have the same opportunites I had despite their families background to attend college and better themselves.

Originally Posted by ChiefStrategist

You are going on the premise that Government is a big business (which you hate), yet you are demanding that this big business increase revenues off of "the sweat from the workers backs". Could you be a bigger hypocrite?

Holy shit make more sweeping generalizations much? I dont have the premise that big gov = big business. I dont necissarily hate big business, as it has given us many things, I hate its undue influence on the political system to societies overall detriment, wanna donate to my campaign?

Show me where I called for "sweat from the workers backs" wtf are you talking about?

I am for nothing more then a balanced budget, if the populace wants medicare, social security, and public education, then tax revenues must match expenditures or a defeceit will result, anything less is non-sensical and bogus. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Originally Posted by ChiefStrategist

Since when is taking from the poor and giving it to the rich (Federal Government) a good idea?

Lmao you rhetoric is so retarded, the scary part is that you actually beleive it, the poor pay very little in taxes, something I am sure you have mentioned before.

How is increasing corporate income taxes, the inheritance tax, and taxes on the very highest income brackets, "taking from the poor and giving to the rich".

Lmao, capitalism is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, if anything ever was such.

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by InternetHero

Buckley is definately being a flippy flopper. (And there are others like Sapphire.)

But I think in general a lot of conservative thinkers were pretty stable about their opinions.

Conservatives like Buckley aren't flip-flopping. You have to understand that when Bush ran for Presidency, his platform was almost completely the opposite of what it is now. He ran on the platform of reforming government waste, slashing spending, and staying out of foreign affairs (he bashed Clinton for his involvement in other countries and his attempt at "nation building.") He essentially ran as a traditional isolationist conservative.

Then, he completely changed while in office. Buckley and others aren't the flip-floppers; Bush is the flip-flopper.

(BTW -- WTF is wrong with "flip-flopping?" What's the big deal? Sometimes the facts change and you need to change your approach. That's just good leadership, not flip-flopping.)