Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Bizarro World: ‘Every Major Tax Cut In History Has Created More Revenue’
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Bizarro World: ‘Every Major Tax Cut In History Has Created More Revenue’
In the budget released today, the Obama administration announced that it would end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, as well as shut off loopholes that effectively eviscerate corporate tax revenues, all in an effort to fuel a robust domestic agenda and start lowering the deficit.
Predictably, the right wing is up in arms over the small tax increase for the richest businesses and families. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) complained to a friendly crowd at CNBC this morning that Obama’s tax increases would harm the economy, and insisted the best way to raise revenue is to cut taxes:
HUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we’ve done it in the past that has been so successful in the past and that is tax cuts…Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.
Watch it:
The notion that cutting taxes somehow — magically — increases government revenues is a myth that won’t die. “The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves…is contradicted by the historical record,” reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called a claim like Hutchison’s “highly misleading” and stated the obvious fact that “we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers.”
“[E]verything you’ve heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong,” economist Paul Krugman wrote, noting that government revenues climbed steadily through the Clinton administration, then plunged dramatically following the 2001 Bush tax cuts. And falling revenues during tax-cutting Republican administrations means growing debt:
Hutchison must be looking at a different “history” than everybody else.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I used to believe this. Targeted cuts, base on the given economic situation, espoused by many progressives here, makes more sense to me now.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pm“Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.”
__________________________________________________________
This is the kind of statement I see from many a troll on this site — posted with no evidence to back it up, and done with the idea that if it’s repeated enough, it will be true. Even though the point is easily disproven.
Hutchison is going to have to do better than to parrot debunked talking points.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pmKay, please keep talking. Right up until election time. Please keep telling the average struggling American who is trying to make ends meet that it is in their best interest for large corporations to get big tax cuts. Then when those same large companies decide to outsource their jobs to Uzbekistan for 60 cents an hour and give their CEO a 100 million dollar bonus, be sure to tell the average person that was best for them. Then blame the liberals and the Mexicans.
You know, maybe the republicans have a point. Maybe if they were in power they could fix the economy and implement all of these policies and …. wait.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThey were in power, and look what happened. Time for a change.
Why are Republicans so in to the ‘pay no attention to the man (the facts) behind the screen?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pmI wonder if this will work with my credit card companies? I hold cards from both Citi and BofA, and perhaps I should call them and let them know that I’m going to cut my payments so that they can increase their revenue.
It’s the same logic, isn’t it?
PEACE
February 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pmThe more these talking points circulate, the more damage they are doing as people realize it’s the Republican myth.
Kay bailey Hutchinson just shot herself in the foot in terms of any chances for a white house run as a woman I’d say.
But keep talking, Kay. The more these idiots lie to the people; the more people are changing their party affiliation.
Bring ‘em all on!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pmAnd we thought the GOP could’t get any lower than it was under Bush. Well, guess again – these fools are living in the 20th century and haven’t yet realized that they’ve been eclipsed.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmIt really is time to put the federally funded campaign thing in for all members of Congress. Term limits too. If we had to be afraid of a president with more than two terms the same holds for Congress.
And for those who scream against it, I live in the district of the sole exception to the idea. My Congressman has been in DC since 1969 and is one of the rational types. I would hate to lose Mr. Obey but since he isn’t the Speaker (and should be)…term limits.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmWhy isn’t she at CPAC.
What is it with the republican women? Such a bunch of nutjobs. Did anyone else see Malkin’s photo with a guy holding a Swastika sign?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmSure Kay. That’s why Clinton raised taxes in 1993, balanced the budget and shrank the national debt while Chimpy cut taxes, fudged the budget and doubled the national debt. Guess math has a liberal bias now.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmrimhotep,
I think the robber barons of the 19th c. is more appropriate.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:34 pmSenator: You hare looking at the graph upside down. Turn it around. You have repeated the lies of the raygun idiots too long. Get some reality.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:34 pmThe company I work for has continued to pull in great profits over the last four quarters. Much of our employee base is in India, and most of our larger contracts are with the US government. We have not been affected by the recession. And yet, even with higher profits, we are still in a hiring freeze with no bonuses, no raises, no promotions. Instead, the company is using this opportunity to expand foreign investments, and our CEO is the richest guy in California.
That is exactly what you see when you give large companies tax cuts. They don’t turn it into job creation or raises. The use the extra money to make a much larger profit for a very small number of people. It also helps to fund outsourcing ventures. But it does not create revenue.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pmPoor old Kay. Sticking to the same old talking points that got us into this mess. WTF?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pmThe right wingers wanted deregulation and tax breaks for rich folk, they got it. By their own measure the economy should be humming about now. It the depths of a disaster they brought into being their only reply is a same old tune.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pmThis statement, in its foolish dependence on dogma rather than evidence, reminds me of Michael Steele’s claim that “Never in the history of mankind has government created a job.”
Today’s Republicans are like this friend of mine who had a party on his boat at the dock. He was loading the stuff for the party — beer, food, ice, etc. — and he kept having to step over, and occasionally tripping, on the dock line. So he finally just untied it. Of course, the boat drifted away from the dock and out into open water, and the engine didn’t run, and most of the food was still on the dock, but at least he wasn’t still tripping over the dock line.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm(Hint to trolls: the “dock line” is a metaphor for “facts” Also the boat with a non-running engine is a metaphor for the Republican platform.)
It’s amazing how often repub talking points contradict fact. That doesn’t say much for the intelligence level of that registry, but they wouldn’t keep at it if rs wwere smart enough to know better.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pmFor the samll minded reighwingnuts: Taxes are revenue to the government. If you cut taxes, the government has less revenue. Now children can understand that. Your alternate reality is scary.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pmpaleolib Says:
####
Math, science, history, language arts – all of these things have had a liberal bias for quite some time ;)
February 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pmThis should be repeated, reposted and remembered.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pmCountless civilizations forgotten by time have been taxed into prosperity! Why change now?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pmIf conservatives want small government, then why would they want increased revenue?
You’d think they would want the government to have as little revenue as possible.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pmPelosi to Maddow: “science, science, science, science”
February 26th, 2009 at 4:44 pmVS
Bush: “catapult the propaganda”
Poor Kay. It’s hard out there for a pimp.
PEACE
February 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pmGet out the silver bullets.
HUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we’ve done it in the past that has been so successful in the past and that is tax cuts…Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.
The (aptly named) Laffer Curve refuses to die, no matter how many times it’s blown to bits.
Cheers,
February 26th, 2009 at 4:47 pmShe is SOOOO Stupid….even when she was treasurer of texas she had an assistant who did all the work…she can’t even run a calculator mush less understand how less does NOT equal more…
February 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pmthe fact most people miss;
taxes almist always serve a purpose that would cost FAR more then if that service is rendered privately.
in addition
the ONLY time you get a gain from lowering or removing taxes is if that purpose of that tax is not needed or obsolete
or
if you have an industry that cannot survive without the resto us paying that industry’s bills, for instance if we need the alternative fuel industry developed privately and it won’t without refunds directed at that research
February 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pmI don’t think she really believes that. She’s just already running for Governor of Texas. Down here, the wingnuts eat that stuff up.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pm“Also during the CNBC interview, Hutchison was asked if “it’s necessary to postpone our nations answers to health care because it costs too much.” She responded, “I certainly do.”
______
I simply want the health care plan that she has, that’s all.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pmI think down is blue and up is red?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pmWhy should the rich pay any taxes at all?
We don’t want to penalize the successful, so the downtrodden will continue to have something to strive for.
/snark
February 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pmNettles Says:
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were Republicans. Why are their terms indicated with a blue marker while Reagan and the Bushes are in red?
And here for all to see is evidence of the low information voters’ inability to see anything beyond party affiliation.
Thank you, Nettles. You can go back to your nap, now.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pmBased on the graph if Gore had been in office rather than Bush the National Debt as % of GDP would now be about 40% rather than 90% and we wouldn’t be in a depression.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAs a corallary, look at the stock market indicies for each of the presidents for the last 40 years. Just go to yahoo.com and click on finance, and you can choose either a given stock or given index.
I keep a graph of the stock market indexes of DJI, S+P500 and NASDAQ corrected for inflation (or more accurately CPI) for the last 40 years.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pmUmmm, Nettles, the red indicates INCREASING DEBT as a % of GDP. Can’t you effing read?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pmRUCerious, read, when there is a pretty picture?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pmNettles Says:
——————————————————————————–
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were Republicans. Why are their terms indicated with a blue marker while Reagan and the Bushes are in red?
Read graphs much?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pmIt’s been observed pretty often that Republicans are very much against good things (like health care) being accomplished by Democratic administrations. It makes people too damn happy, and then they vote for Democrats!
But I just don’t fathom why the Republicans cheered on Bush from one utter catastrophe to the next. Failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, a bungled “war on terror,” a totally uncalled-for and disastrous invasion of Iraq, failure to come to the rescue of New Orleans, doubling the national debt, recession, and finally a complete meltdown of the financial system followed by a poorly-managed bailout for Wall Street billionaires.
What’s the point of being in power if you’re just putting incompetence and malfeasance on display?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pmIs it a surprise that Republicans return to good ol’ fashioned blood-letting to treat a economy that is already ‘bleeding out’… they are awfully fond of leaches, after all…
February 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pmrmwarnick Says:
What’s the point of being in power if you’re just putting incompetence and malfeasance on display?
=============================================================
Rhetorical question, right?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pmThe “Wealthiest Americans”, who seem to be cherished by conservatives, I think must really be greedy bastards?! Holy Shit, is it really that kind of money that motivates them? How much is enough? And if it is the money, shit, we’re in trouble as a society. The void will be impossible to fill with money I’m afraid. I imagine a healthier society would be sufficient with enough money closer to the range of being able to feed and shelter both them and their neighbours.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pmHUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we’ve done it in the past that has been so successful in the past
What past is she talking about? What revenue did we get, in the last 8 years, by from lowering taxes on the wealthy?
and that is tax cuts…Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.
So Kay baby, where’s all that revenue the tax cuts for the rich have created?
What alternative universe does this woman live in? Does she really think that anyone is buying this line any longer?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm@rmwarnick
“What’s the point of being in power…”
_______
Power is itself the point for these people. Not to do anything constructive with it, to actually govern for the good of the public.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:14 pmI read a quote of Nancy Pelosi yesterday and I don’t have it but it was something to the effect that the GOP had rather give 5000 of the wealthiest $1.2 Trillion than to give it to millions of the middle class.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pmNettles Says:
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were Republicans. Why are their terms indicated with a blue marker while Reagan and the Bushes are in red?
You might try reading the paragraph before the graph. Then it will hopefully make sense to you. I’m not holding my breath, though.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pmNettles, that admission is a huge step to healing.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pmWhy is it that the conservatives that have lifetime premium health insurance, could give a rats azz if forty million Americans are uninsured.
forty
MILLION
Americans.
And America is the leader of the free world ?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pmKay has been drinking the same Kool-Ade as Bobby Jindal. And her comments about health care having to wait? Well, Kay, you are my Senator and since you feel health care can wait, lets cut your health insurance benefits and see how long you want to wait then?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pmWe pay higher taxes in Canada! Benifits….lets see;
Single payer health care
75% of education subsidized by government(us people)Canadians don’t like stupidity.
clean, safe , low crime streets.
safty net for unemployed
higher standard of life for EVERYONE!
Higher savings rate….yes….because if I don’t have to spend $12,000 per year for healh care (family of 4) I save a lot of money, take trips, live in a nicer neiborhood etc.
When are you going to stop being fooled by your POLITICIANS!!!!
February 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pmEmpirical analysis is not my strongpoint
A rare instance of truth, no matter how unintentional
but something seems disingenuous about this chart.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pmYes, nettles, we understand. It does not fit your preconceived notion of the effects of tax cuts on revenue.
Reality always seems to have a liberl slant. The repugs haven’t been able to figure that out…like they haven’t figured out the internet and Youtube.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pmShe may run for Governor of Bizarro State, Texas. It has the highest percentage of uninsureds and Kay Bailey says health care reform should be postponed.
The 10 year program is a down payment on health care coverage for more Americans. This is Chinese water torture.
Half of the savings will come from the health care industry. 80-90% of nonprofit community hospitals are financially stressed. Can they survive Obama’s ten year reimbursement cut? If not, for-profit hospitals can pick them up on the cheap.
KKR-HCA
The Carlyle Group-LifeCare Hospitals, MultiPlan
If Kay Bailey wins the Texas Governorship, she has to collect $35 million from Carlyle. Their affiliate, Vought Aircraft Industries, isn’t close to meeting their employment promises for DFW.
Corporafornication is alive and well.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pmFor sometime now, I’ve thought (and commented) that people like Hutchinson and many other Republicans and those on the right apparently live in an alternate universe. I was joking. But more and more, I wonder if it isn’t true somehow. There may be some deep metaphysical truth here regarding perception and reality that is being demonstrated right in front of our eyes.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pmGreed! That is what got us into this damn mess and what is going to keep us in a mess UNLESS something changes.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:17 pmI pulled this from Factcheck.org:
For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures.
So the Republicans are going to put up a battle royal for 2% of households? Sounds about right because I know they have never done a thing for me.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pmOf the many superstitious, completely unfounded myths that form the bases for all Republican ideology this one is at least among the three silliest. There has never, ever been a time in U.S. history that we “tax-cut” our way to prosperity or out of debt. Nevah, evah. You could spend a million years and show all the statistics and facts that demolish this belief but like any matter of pure faith, i.e., totally lacking in fact or rationality, Republicans will never stop believing in this idiotic notion.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pmTo NOLIESPLEASE
It infuriates me when Republicans lie about the horrors of national health care in England, France, Canada, wherever without the slightest shred of proof. They really have succeeded in making the American Sheeple fear “socialized medicine.” But, maybe, just maybe, even the Sheeple are starting to distrust the shepherds who look more and more like wolves everyday. It could actually happen. We might have universal single payer health care in this country before I die (and that’s an optimistic statement from a 61 y.o.)
February 26th, 2009 at 6:37 pmTaxes are the income of government and that income then pays for things we all need but can’t individually afford—schools, playgrounds, safe water and food, roads, health clinics, police etc.
If you cut taxes, then you cut the Government’s wages that should pay for these common essentials, then you cut the ability to pay for these common essentials from which everyone benefits.
That is the purpose of Government—to collect capital and redistribute it for the common good. Lower taxes means less common good.
The trick is to ensure that taxes are actually spent for the common good, to tax some things more than others, and to adjust taxes according circumstances.
Depending on what the government is tasked to provide a minimum tax is necessary. Depending on the return for such taxation a maximum tax must also be determined.
No taxes at all means no government at all.
100% taxes means slavery.
Taxes should be proportional to need.
A 10% tax cut on a million dollar a year wage gives that wage earner an extra $100,000.
A 10% tax cut on a $20,000 a year earner provides an extra $2000.
The rich person can buy another Porsche sports car or a yacht, or a painting.
The poorer person can pay a hospital bill, get the roof fixed or repair the crappy car they use to drive to work.
The poorer person will provide more work than the rich person because the money goes to necessities, not luxuries.
That’s my understanding
February 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pmSomebody pulled Kay’s face too tight — but it’s all good, her brain never worked anyway.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:50 pmThis woman has never had much to offer in the way of intellectual prowess. She’s typical re-Thug fair that blusters, bullies and shrieks their way to the top of the argument pile simply because they won’t argue anything on the merits and no one can shut them up.
She is one of the chronic deniers that are helpless without their old, FAILED and REJECTED ideas to prop them up.
The party that for years has suppressed education, access to education and critical thinking is now paying a price for their policies. The Re-Thuglic party has become the party of stupid people.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm*
Nettles: Then why is the line not red between Ford/Nixon and Carter? The debt spike is obvious there, but there’s no color to indicate it. That’s what threw me off.
Debt spike?
You can’t see that the graph shows the deficit trends over time? Specifically measured against Presidential terms?
Nixon paid down the national debt despite a fuel crisis and a war.
Under Ford it went up.
Under Carter it went down again because HE paid down the debt (including the still outstanding interest from the Vietnam War and the 2nd fuel crisis).
THE BLUE indicates a DOWNWARD TREND. THE RED indicates an UPWARD TREND. OVER THE TIME PERIODS FOR EACH ADMINISTRATION!!!
Man if you are unsure of what this graph represents and how to read it… well I just don’t know what to say.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:04 pmI got laid off and my revenue went to zero. Should it have increased since it was cut off?
February 26th, 2009 at 7:06 pmrep. hates facts @ 56…..
that’s an interesting analysis and I see the logic in it.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI think my comment %63 offers another aspect, different but given the empirical evidence of history, both perspectives are complementary and fit the data.
kasinca..
are you suggesting that you need an income in order to benefit from income tax cuts? Are you trying to confuse nettles and backup etc?
Aren’t they confused enough? :D
February 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm“Every major tax cut we’ve had in history has created more revenue.”
It’s interesting how propositions go from a hypothetical (Reagan) to a “principle” (Bush) to “historically proven” (R’s today). They’re just hoping that nobody looks at the data. As long as a given proposition has been pushed for long enough, that’s all the “historical proof” they need.
I understand the concept, but that only works if the economy is on an upswing already. If the economy’s going downhill, then tax cuts just cushion the damage a little; but they don’t actually get anything moving in the opposite direction. It also works only if the tax cuts are targeted to affect a broad base of potential spenders, rather than a few rich folks. More people with less money cycles cash at a greater total rate than less people with more money.
.
rmwarnick Says:
What’s the point of being in power if you’re just putting incompetence and malfeasance on display?
That phrase itself shows the difference in thinking. Democrats get power so that they can try to change the world. Republicans try to change the world so that they can get power.
Thus when Dems have power, they use it to try to make America and the world a better place. Republicans think this is unfair, because then people will vote for Dems more, because they assume that getting future votes is the only reason to do “altruism” at all.
.
jhnwlk Says:
It infuriates me when Republicans lie about the horrors of national health care in England, France, Canada, wherever without the slightest shred of proof.
Well, they claim that it would involve rationing care. I don’t know about you, but there are a lot of procedures that aren’t covered by most peoples’ insurance plans. Sometimes they approve a procedure and then change their minds and charge you back for it later. So I’d say it’s pretty “rationed” already. Then they claim that you wouldn’t have doctor choice. Can anybody say “in-network provider?” We don’t have doctor choice as it is. Then theyy claim that you would have to wait a long time to get seen. Go ahead and give your doctor a call and try to make an appointment, see how many weeks or months out they have an opening. Emergency? Go to the emergency room, see how long you’ll be waiting there. Wait times couldn’t get any worse than they are already.
There’s nothing that the Republicans try to scare us with about single-payer that aren’t already as bad as they could possibly be under the for-profit system we’ve already got.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pmRepubuscum lying and making up their own reality and not being called on it by the MSM???
Tell me it isn’t so…
FCUK THE REPUBLICANS
February 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pmTypical RepubliCon liar, she is truly a buffoon.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:22 pm@56 republicans hate…
You might have also mentioned that the US govt is asking UBS, a Swiss bank to provide the names of 52,000, yes, 52,000 people who hid their money, and did not pay taxes. Might they be among the <$250K people of America, or those above?
And thats just one Swiss bank. Others there, and in the carribean, Malayia, et al.
So much for trickle down economics.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:14 pmObviously Ms. Hutchinson is mistaken, too say the least but wouldn’t the appropriate graph be one that shows tax revenue? Why post a graph of the national debt as a pct of GDP?
That’s like talking about how many points a team scores when player X is in the game but showing a chart of the point differential between the two teams. The differential tells me nothing about the points scored by my team except its relation to the points given up by my team.
The debt can go up during times of rising revenue and down during times of falling revenue because its dependent on the relationship between revenues and expenditures not just the total level of revenue.
Total non sequitor.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm.
T.P. wrote:
Dear Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX),
Let me be clear in my understanding of your views…
… It’s an O.K. appropriation of tax payer money if it’s spent fighting a war started by the Bush Administration and Congress? This war, based on the pretext of the larger lie of wmd’s, mushroom clouds, suitcase nukes, yellow cake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes and viles of botulinus toxin(aka “Democracy Dust”); Which has killed 4251+ of Americans and somewhere between 100K-1Mil civilians, but it’s an inappropriate use of the tax payers money to help the tax payer have a better quality of life? Just what are your values, again? How do your view parse with that of your Savior’s?
XOXO
America
.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)…
… Priorities outta whack!
Well no duh, Kay! The money you could be spending on “HELPING” the People with is instead, being spent on “KILLING” people.
That’s all!
Yep! There’s a killing to be had at making war…
… NO?
.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pmOnce again the propensity of rewrite history, change reality, and outright lie Republican politicians have developed and perfected during the past eight years is at work. On the other hand, she might just be having a “Sarah Palin” moment.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:47 pmIf it were true that tax cuts always created revenue, don’t you think Democrats would be all for the tax cuts? More revenue! Woo hoo! That means spending programs, helping the poor, healing the sick and all of that other bleeding-heart stuff that liberals like so much. Why would we possibly be against it if it were really true?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pmI just love re-puke speak,they just keep on digging the deepest holes and when the next election comes they won`t be able to climb out and they wonder why.Kay just look at the boy emperors last round of tax cuts for the filthy rich and then look at job creation from these cuts and then look at poverty levels and health care cost and guess what, It f*&^ing doesn`t work ,you morons on the right are benign to the truth aren`t you?
February 27th, 2009 at 12:08 amSOL!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:18 amKay needs to stop homering for big business and take a look beyond the white picket fences of that dreamland that she calls a reality.
The Republicans do want to give us what we don’t want. They look at the November election results from a extreme dyslexic point of view.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:02 amWhat a ditz. I remember back in 2004 when she came on Jon Stewart’s show just after Bush’s re-election she was so pleased as punch when people with brains felt like they’d been punched in the stomach and were horrified at the long, dark, corrupt, miserable four years that there was no question was about to come.
She’s learned nothing since then.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:14 amKBh is no spouting myth. She is spouting religious dogma.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:57 am25 people to blame for the current financial crisis..
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html
February 28th, 2009 at 4:22 pmPeople, to understand what makes Kay Bailey tick, you have to understand that she is planning a run for the governorship of Texas when her senatorial term runs out. This kind of stupidity plays well to the reactionary wrong wing (RWW) here. If you want evidence, read the platform of the Texas Republican party. It is to the right even of the Birchers.
Having said that, I have to admit that this is the same type of tripe (”menudo” down here) that she has been peddling all her political life. it plays well to the famous base, but she may have miscalculated. Dallas is almost pure Democratic and Houston just missed during the last election. The Valley and Austin also went overwhelmingly for Pres Obama in the last election, so with major population centers veering off of the RWW talking points, while she should have no problems in the primaries against Gov. Goodhair, she may get a surprise in the actual election. At least the people she will have to deal with in the lege won’t be to her liking.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pmAli Frick, you just are not too smart. Don’t keep drinking the Kool Aid, go to the IRS web site and look up Total Revenue collected, after all they are the ones that collect it. Year 2000 $1,776,729,516 was collected from INCOME TAXES. In 2006 there was $2,051,078,590 collected in INCOME TAXES.
Why do all of you Libs ignore the real facts??
March 5th, 2009 at 12:05 amIs it too hard to find the web page?
Not to know this basic information is inexcusable.
And yes, Kay Bailey should know it and I am perfectly willing to agree that she is also retarded.
Let’s see: Every time tax rates were cut it resulted in more money in workers pockets, and also more revenue in the government coffers. TRUE!! It worked for Queen Elizabeth the 1st, and John Kennedy, and Reagan and also Bush Jr.
#78 ElBruce Says:
“If it were true that tax cuts always created revenue, don’t you think Democrats would be all for the tax cuts? More revenue! Woo hoo! That means spending programs, helping the poor, healing the sick and all of that other bleeding-heart stuff that liberals like so much. Why would we possibly be against it if it were really true?”
Reply: Because when workers are allowed to keep more of their own money, it puts government out of the loop and takes a bit of control of the economy out of their hands. That’s why Dems will never pass the Fair Tax. Being Progressives (meaning Socialist/Marxist/Communist) I can see why most people here hate the idea of government losing any control of their lives.
New York Times, July 13, 2005:
“Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”
The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am