In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2331
Online now 1505 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I am sure that is the case in several instances that we don't hear about.
I don't understand the libs class warfare argument. A CEO of a public owned company is getting paid what the market dictates. He is not working for.the government, so how is this anyone's business but the company that paid him?
If you work for a company that paid a CEO big money and you don't agree with iyltd , QUIT . That's the beauty of America, no on is forcing you to work there. The Government has.no.business dictating who makes what in the private sector. If.they wanted to dictate the CEO salaries of the companies that were bailed out, they should have made that a prerequesite to getting the money
Steve Spurrier is a God, and Mark Richt worships him
If CEOs pay gets cut dramatically it will lower my incentive to move up the corporate ladder (and everyone elses even if subconciously) and therefore the collective quality of what we do will decrease significantly.
These CEOs worked there @$$e$ off to get where they are... A lof ot these companies have 20k employees, and they are the ONE who made it to the top. Kudos to them, and congrats on all that mula.
@NomadHokie on Twitter
I never said anyone ITT said it, however Obama and the rest of the libs have talked about capping CEO pay.
If you are a stock trader and disagree with CEO compensation , dump the stock. I can't stand the lib view this subject and.how the government should be involved.in it.
Do you think they are doing some kind of underhanded shady deal by paying the CEO so much?
Im referring to the libs continued class warfare attacks.
Do they want to close every tax break for companies so they can all go over seas ? I don't understand the liberal agenda. Why don't they ever investigate and.criticize the waste their beloved government generates on a daily basis. Cutting spending is never in their vocabulary, its all about tax tax tax
I wish I was in their shoes. I would tell y'all to pias off and steal everyone's wife
Sorry if im coming off as attacking you lol. I am on my phone and.can't.provide links, the capping CEO pay was the hot button topic during the.bail outs. I know some were referring to specifically the.companies that were bailed out, but several were suggesting it wasnt fair for CEO to make that.
the most tax revenue ever collected was a result of the bush tax cuts. it's been proven time and time again.....reduced taxes actually increases tax revenue to the IRS. the problem is SPENDING and spending alone. cut everything we can and cut it now. complaining about tax rates of the rich does NOTHING. If you were to tax the top 5% wage earners 100% of their income, you wouldn't even balance the yearly deficit
10 Major Poll National Titles (CFB record)
35 Bowl Wins (CFB record)
72 Wins over last 6 years (CFB record)
No one wants to mention that gigantic pink elephant in the room. They all think taxing the rich more = no more recession and economic problems solved.
the left relies on dumb voters
Eventually we are going to have to make some major.cuts.to spending that will.be widely unpopular. Defense budget shouldn't be off limits IMO. Ditto with social security and Medicare. Throw.in benefits for federal workers as well.
The problem is getting everyone on board with it. No one wants to take the lead on cutting entitlements and pubs won't budge on defense budget.
It is.going to take.someone with guts and no worries.about winning reelection IMO.
This post was edited by rms02d 20 months ago
Holy shit. This is so stupid I could roundhouse kick you in the head.
Please provide a link.
and Make sure you know the difference between real and nominal dollar values and inflation adjusted numbers.
Its perfectly fine to have a political viewpoint. But its dangerous to confidently state something so wrong and ignorant.
Your comment is the antithetical viewpoint of mainstream economics. But I bet you think you are smarter than all those book readers.
This type of confident ignorance is what is undermining our democracy and society.
Nobody is denying that Obama is spending too much, and no one that is smart thinks we can fix the deficit by taxing the top 1% at 100%, but you can't just make up comments about tax revenues magically increasing when 99.9% of economists estimate a $1 to $3 trillion loss in revenues since the cuts were enacted.
Stupid isn't your friend.
Keep in mind the cuts were supposed to boost GDP, but they didn't do that either. The cuts were simply a "redistribution of wealth"
Yes and the right is the party of intelligent discussion.
Non-partisan research and policy institute working on federal and state fiscal policies and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income Americans
According to the Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006, pp. 25-26, Table 1.3, January 16, 2007), with final 2006 revenue figures added in, there was an inflation-adjusted, 20% tax revenue increase between 2004 and ’06 and this represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-67.
Lol you read your stats provided by the editor of "Human Events:Powerful Conservative Voices"
And I will choose to live in reality.
The dates cited as "the period of revenue increase" correlates with the Federal Reserves decision to slash the federal funds rate.
Again 99.9% of economic authors say your wrong, but you go ahead and believe the Heritage foundation and the editor of the renowed "Humna Events:Powerful Conservative Voices"
I can't cure stupid.
The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”
Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say.
Perspectives from expert contributors.
This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.
The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.
In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.
The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.
The second major contributor to budget surpluses that emerged in 1998 was tough budget controls that were part of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals. The main one was a requirement that spending could not be increased or taxes cut unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This was known as Paygo, for pay as you go.
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.
This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.
The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.
According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.
However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.
In late 2010, Mr. Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for another two years. In 2011, this reduced revenues by $105 billion.
On the spending side, legislated increases during the Bush administration added $2.4 trillion to deficits and the debt through 2008. This includes $121 billion for Medicare Part D, a new entitlement program enacted by Republicans in 2003.
Economic factors added almost nothing to increased spending – just $27 billion in total. This is mainly because interest rates were much lower than C.B.O. had anticipated, leading to lower spending for interest on the debt.
After 2008, it becomes harder to separate spending that was initiated under Mr. Bush from that under Mr. Obama. We do know that spending for Part D has risen rapidly – Republicans phased in the program to disguise its budgetary cost – adding $150 billion to the debt during 2009-11.
According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the debt by $795 billion through the end of fiscal 2008. The continuation of these wars by Mr. Obama added another $488 billion through the end of 2011.
Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.
Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.
Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.
Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.
Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.
Here is a chart of annual revenues.
Take a good look at the numbers in the first column.
This is revenue paid to the goverment based on 2012 dollar values.
Notice from 1940 - 2000 revenues in 2012 dollars continue to increase more and more each year (except 1946-47)and then magically start decreasing from after 2000.
This revenue data cannot be distorted by mistakes made by the CBO as your "source" suggests.
Again don't be stupid.
federal receipts outlays surplus deficit annual historical
do you care to dispute that from 2004-2006 the IRS experienced the largest tax revenue increase (adjusted for inflation) since 1965? afterall, this is what you initially were arguing never happened and i was an idiot for saying it did.
Bush's problem wasn't raising tax revenue....it was spending it. I'm in no way saying Bush was great, but he DID raise tax revenue like never before.
"magically start decreasing from after 2000"
seriously? do you not know what happened in 2000? and what happened in 2001?
And thanks for the link, it does show that tax revenues did go up huge amounts from 2004-2006 (right after bush tax cuts were enacted).
2003 tax cut enacted
2004 tax revenue = $1.880 trillion
2006 tax revenue = $2.406 trillion
looky there, that's a pretty big % increase
yep, and the tax revenue based off of individual income went up huge amounts as well
2004 = $808.9 billion
2006 = $1.091 trillion
this % increase is actually larger than the total tax revenue % increase. Thanks for pointing that out
federal receipt composition amount historical 1934 2017 type tax individual corporate social security insurance
or it could be that in 2010 obama signed to keep the tax rates the same for the next 24 months
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports