“Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore believes global warming is ‘an inconvenient truth.’ Here are some economic truths that America’s liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support. Tax-rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal-tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006. These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal-budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years. Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased... Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush’s 2003 tax rate reductions.” —Pete du Pont
2007-11-05
04:16:47
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
Waas up Here's more
“Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution—middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer. Poverty in the United States, in an absolute sense, has virtually disappeared. Today, there’s nothing remotely resembling poverty of yesteryear. However, if poverty is defined in the relative sense, the lowest fifth of income-earners, ‘povert
2007-11-05
05:07:56 ·
update #1
It wouldn't matter...Libs wouldn't believe it anyways. They'd just say "Yeah, but the war was created for oil. And how 'bout those no bid contracts for Haliburton?" Bahahah...libs do make me laugh....I'm glad they're around for the comedy factor alone.
2007-11-05 04:20:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Interesting, but I wonder how much of that apparent tax revenue increase is due to inflation. The US dollar is trading even with the Canadian dollar.
Also, if the wealthiest Americans received a majority of the tax cuts and the percent of federal income taxes they paid have increased, then I conclude that the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Sounds like if this trend is left to continue, we could see a proletariat revolution, especially since we've lost a lot of our manufacturing jobs.
Finally, what kind of job growth are we seeing? I've seen reports that those jobs are mainly in the service industry. Will laid off auto workers be happy becoming coffee barristers? What happens if another World War breaks out, and we realize that we no longer have our industial capacity, one of the major factors for our success in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War?
Maybe the reason the media hasn't been touting the economy is because it's a red herring. I believe conservatives allow their greed to get the better of them and put more emphasis on the economy than it deserves.
2007-11-05 04:31:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really do not think it has anything to do with Liberals versus the Conservatives. Reporting on taxes is just not as glamorous and theatrical as the backdrop of a big white beautiful polar bear sitting on a block of ice with Gore narrating how global warming is affecting the North Pole. We, the people are to blame, because we will not sit through a stale speech about economics with numbers, percentages, decreases and increases, even if it is for our own good. If only Gore could make numbers dance, sing and tug at our hearts.
2007-11-05 04:40:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nettajay 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure I understand. Is this a question as to why Al Gore does not go on and on regarding tax cuts, or why the media is not reporting more on how, financially, the weathiest of Americans have been paying more of their taxes, that they simply ignored before, now that their taxes have been reduced?
2007-11-05 04:22:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
They are in it to make a profit, more people will read about Brittany Spears not wearing panties, thats what sells. It's called demand, when the American public starts demanding the truth, and refusing to buy into the sensationalistic journalism, they will report it.
2007-11-05 04:24:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by wendy a 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Maybe, the self destructing war we are in outweighs the economic boom the wealthy few are feeling.
Anyone can dress up a number to make it look good, just change the formula.
2007-11-05 04:27:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Waas up 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, since the MSM doesn't want to talk about anything good in this administration, you can figure out why it's all doom and gloom.
2007-11-05 04:30:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mark A 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yeah you don't hear it in the media because they peddle fear and those numbers actually make you feel like its going to be OK.
2007-11-05 04:23:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rational Humanist 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
They believe, we can't handle the truth.
2007-11-05 04:20:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by That one 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
you can't blame it all on GWB.(sarcasm)
2007-11-05 04:19:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by BRYAN H 5
·
1⤊
0⤋