House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-01-06 2:24 PM in reply to: #3282731 |
Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers Pector55 - 2011-01-06 2:17 PM ashort33 - 2011-01-06 3:12 PM I didn't see where anyone answered CBarnes' question. In my mind, the CBO is irrelevant - they make projections, but there are way too many variables to come close to the right answer - the biggest uncontrollable variable being actions of future congresses - at the end of the day they come no closer to being correct than those climate models. I think it is pretty simple - we know how much taxes we took in last year - don't spend more than that... That is exactly how simple the balanced budget amendment should be written. I might add that anyone voting to exceed it should be shot or hanged but I'm sure that might offend a few folks. You forgot the part about repealing the income tax amendment and setting a flat tax rate and exemption that can only be raised by a referendum. (either that or we move tax day from April 15 to November 1st ) |
|
2011-01-06 2:32 PM in reply to: #3282731 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers Pector55 - 2011-01-06 3:17 PM ashort33 - 2011-01-06 3:12 PM I didn't see where anyone answered CBarnes' question. In my mind, the CBO is irrelevant - they make projections, but there are way too many variables to come close to the right answer - the biggest uncontrollable variable being actions of future congresses - at the end of the day they come no closer to being correct than those climate models. I think it is pretty simple - we know how much taxes we took in last year - don't spend more than that... That is exactly how simple the balanced budget amendment should be written. I might add that anyone voting to exceed it should be shot or hanged but I'm sure that might offend a few folks. Yes! The prospect of violence against American citizens over voting has graced us with its presence in 2011! Actually not offended because the threat actually obscured your point very nicely, by focusing these fine folks on paying attention to violence and you, rather than the point. Outstanding. |
2011-01-06 5:52 PM in reply to: #3282769 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers rkreuser - 2011-01-06 2:32 PM Pector55 - 2011-01-06 3:17 PM ashort33 - 2011-01-06 3:12 PM I didn't see where anyone answered CBarnes' question. In my mind, the CBO is irrelevant - they make projections, but there are way too many variables to come close to the right answer - the biggest uncontrollable variable being actions of future congresses - at the end of the day they come no closer to being correct than those climate models. I think it is pretty simple - we know how much taxes we took in last year - don't spend more than that... That is exactly how simple the balanced budget amendment should be written. I might add that anyone voting to exceed it should be shot or hanged but I'm sure that might offend a few folks. Yes! The prospect of violence against American citizens over voting has graced us with its presence in 2011! Actually not offended because the threat actually obscured your point very nicely, by focusing these fine folks on paying attention to violence and you, rather than the point. Outstanding. So because he didn't put it in red, knowledgeable people cannot interpret it as wit (whether it is perceived as good or bad)? Come now, I'd hope we were all smarter than that. |
2011-01-06 9:38 PM in reply to: #3282084 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers The CBO is a big calculator Congress invents numbers to match the outcome they want and sends them to the CBO. The CBO then crunches the numbers IAW the instructions Congress gives them and then returns the mathematical output. So if you know the numbers that are given to the CBO are intentionally misleading why should you be bound by them? Now as far as paying for a tax cut please point out a period of time that the United States Government cut taxes and as a result suffered a decrease in tax revenue as a percent of GDP? I believe you will find that tax cuts result in growth in the economy this creates a broadening of the tax base and expansion of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. |
2011-01-07 1:20 PM in reply to: #3282403 |
Regular 247 Waterloo | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers uhcoog - 2011-01-06 12:18 PM You guys act as though there are 2 sides to this argument. both parties spend money like water, money we don't really have, they just spend it on different things. Depends on where your sensibilities are as to who you support. Both suck. BTW Ms. Pelosi, don't tell me your Congress has been a pay as you go one. One of fiscal responsibility. Any politician who tells me to my face they are fiscally responsible should get punched. Not srs, but srs. x2 doesn't really matter which of the establishment parties are in power, time for a true 3rd party (and can we please make it slightly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that would suit me just fine ) |
2011-01-07 1:39 PM in reply to: #3284987 |
Extreme Veteran 732 Omaha, USA | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers ersnyder3654 - 2011-01-07 1:20 PM Welcome to the Libertarian party, the third largest political party in America!We are glad to have you as a new member.uhcoog - 2011-01-06 12:18 PM You guys act as though there are 2 sides to this argument. both parties spend money like water, money we don't really have, they just spend it on different things. Depends on where your sensibilities are as to who you support. Both suck. BTW Ms. Pelosi, don't tell me your Congress has been a pay as you go one. One of fiscal responsibility. Any politician who tells me to my face they are fiscally responsible should get punched. Not srs, but srs. x2 doesn't really matter which of the establishment parties are in power, time for a true 3rd party (and can we please make it slightly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that would suit me just fine ) |
|
2011-01-07 1:57 PM in reply to: #3283606 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers CBarnes - 2011-01-06 10:38 PM Now as far as paying for a tax cut please point out a period of time that the United States Government cut taxes and as a result suffered a decrease in tax revenue as a percent of GDP? I believe you will find that tax cuts result in growth in the economy this creates a broadening of the tax base and expansion of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. I'm always a sucker for a data challenge and here is what I found. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) I don't really know what the data precisely means however, at first glance, it appears that the highest level of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP occurred just before before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Also of note, the website lists the data back to 1934 and the 2000 percentage was the 2nd highest percentage (1944 at 20.9%).
|
2011-01-12 11:19 AM in reply to: #3282250 |
Expert 834 Medina, MN | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers mr2tony - 2011-01-06 11:25 AM I'm going to make a bold prediction: The deficit will rise in the next 10 years. I know. Going out on a limb aren't I? While the national debt will likely rise over the next 10 years, we don't have 10 years to get our annual deficits in order - we'll be looking like Greece or Ireland or one of the next handful of European countries about to hit the wall with their creditors (Portugal, Spain, Italy?). |
2011-01-12 11:30 AM in reply to: #3285118 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers CubeFarmGopher - 2011-01-07 2:57 PM CBarnes - 2011-01-06 10:38 PM Now as far as paying for a tax cut please point out a period of time that the United States Government cut taxes and as a result suffered a decrease in tax revenue as a percent of GDP? I believe you will find that tax cuts result in growth in the economy this creates a broadening of the tax base and expansion of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. I'm always a sucker for a data challenge and here is what I found. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) I don't really know what the data precisely means however, at first glance, it appears that the highest level of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP occurred just before before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Also of note, the website lists the data back to 1934 and the 2000 percentage was the 2nd highest percentage (1944 at 20.9%). So you are saying you are surprised at the level of tax rexeipts just proir to the Tech bubble burst? Do not look at tax reciepts in a vaccume. |
2011-01-12 12:10 PM in reply to: #3294820 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers trinnas - 2011-01-12 12:30 PM CubeFarmGopher - 2011-01-07 2:57 PM CBarnes - 2011-01-06 10:38 PM Now as far as paying for a tax cut please point out a period of time that the United States Government cut taxes and as a result suffered a decrease in tax revenue as a percent of GDP? I believe you will find that tax cuts result in growth in the economy this creates a broadening of the tax base and expansion of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. I'm always a sucker for a data challenge and here is what I found. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) I don't really know what the data precisely means however, at first glance, it appears that the highest level of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP occurred just before before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Also of note, the website lists the data back to 1934 and the 2000 percentage was the 2nd highest percentage (1944 at 20.9%). So you are saying you are surprised at the level of tax rexeipts just proir to the Tech bubble burst? Do not look at tax reciepts in a vaccume. CB's statement implied that tax receipts have never decreased after a tax cut, as a percentage of GDP. I was simply supplying data that his statement is not fully accurate. As a percentage of GDP, tax receipts fell after tax cuts went into effect in 2003 and, just prior to the recession, only reached levels previously seen in 1996. Under CB's statement, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP should have been higher than before due to the broadening of the tax base as a direct result of the tax cuts implemented in 2003. |
2011-01-27 12:01 PM in reply to: #3282084 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers It's always interesting to see what the CBO has to say when they don't have to crunch the numbers they are given... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-increase-na... |
|
|