10 myths about the "Bush" tax cuts

[jreeves]

unbelievable.......

It Reminds Me Of When Ahmadenijad Said There Were No Homosexuals In Iran.

 

[Chris]

View attachment 5729

Yes, the poor are doing great these days!

What with the high price of food and gasoline, and the rising unemployment rate.

 

[jreeves]

Yes, the poor are doing great these days!

What with the high price of food and gasoline, and the rising unemployment rate.

They are paying less in taxes than they were before the Bush tax cuts. So they would have it much worse if not for the tax cuts.

 

[Paulie]

They are paying less in taxes than they were before the Bush tax cuts. So they would have it much worse if not for the tax cuts.

Maybe, maybe not. While I agree with taxes being cut, the spending was increased, creating huge deficits. The increased trade and budget deficits have gone a long way towards devaluing the dollar to where it is today, which has increased prices on so many things that the middle class needs. So while they may have a little more money in their pockets, that money is buying a lot less today.

Far too many of these kinds of discussions leave inflation and purchasing power out. It's not JUST about having more dollars. It's about how powerful those dollars actually ARE, as well.

 

[editec]

They are paying less in taxes than they were before the Bush tax cuts. So they would have it much worse if not for the tax cuts.

the poor didn't pay FICA taxes, sport.

The lower middle classes didn't end up paying FICA taxes, either.

Bushes tax cuts didn't help them a wit unless, as many of you claim, they served to keep the economy from getting even worse than it is now.

Frankly, I'm dubious of that claim, but if it is true, then that's the only help the poor got from Bush's tax cuts.

 

[Paulie]

the poor didn't pay FICA taxes, sport.

The lower middle classes didn't end up paying FICA taxes, either.

Bushes tax cuts didn't help them a wit unless, as many of you claim, they served to keep the economy from getting even worse than it is now.

Frankly, I'm dubious of that claim, but if it is true, then that's the only help the poor got from Bush's tax cuts.

The poor don't keep the economy running, so they are always going to get screwed. And they're the FIRST to get screwed when the dollar loses value, because they rely on every single dollar they have to survive.

Taxes shouldn't have been cut in a time of war, especially TWO wars. But then again, one of those wars never should have even happened, so the end result is that if anything should have been cut, it was spending. THEN you can cut taxes.

It kills me to wonder how much more prosperous we'd be right now, had spending been cut along with taxes.

 

[sealybobo]

 

[bornright]

They are paying less in taxes than they were before the Bush tax cuts. So they would have it much worse if not for the tax cuts.

The poor did not pay taxes before the Bush tax cuts and they do not pay taxes after the tax cuts. The "Fair Tax Plan" would allow all of us to pay taxes on what we purchase. Families could starve themselves into financial security by controlling wasteful spending. Under the "Fair tax plan" food is not taxed.

 

[TopGunna]

The poor don't keep the economy running, so they are always going to get screwed. And they're the FIRST to get screwed when the dollar loses value, because they rely on every single dollar they have to survive.

Taxes shouldn't have been cut in a time of war, especially TWO wars. But then again, one of those wars never should have even happened, so the end result is that if anything should have been cut, it was spending. THEN you can cut taxes.

It kills me to wonder how much more prosperous we'd be right now, had spending been cut along with taxes.

As usual I agree with your take, Pauls. I don't know if it's feasible to cut spending from its present level, but we'd sure do ourselves well to slow (or freeze) its growth rate.

Also, when grouping people by income quintiles, it's important to remember that actual people are constantly moving up through these groupings from year-to-year. Those classifications are not static. The lower 20%, or "poorest" quintile is often comprised of immigrants (legal or illegal) or entry-level workers. Five years from now, that quintile is likely to be populated by an entirely new group of earners; today's "poor" will likely move to higher quintiles as they acquire marketable skills, just as some folks at the higher end of the income spectrum will retire and remove themselves from the sample.

Just something to consider when you look at data presented in that manner.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember the US economy and really most of today's global economy is driven not just my consumer spending but by DISCRETIONARY consumer spending. Spending on the FRIVOLOUS, not necessities. Low and even most middle income people generally have NO discretionary income. A big chunk of the boom in middle income discretionary spending came about from the never ending stream of 2nd mortages as middle income people borrowed up to 125% of their home value to buy "stuff" like boats, computers, a Lexus, Plasma TV etc....

Well all that is now over, so who today has the discretionary income to help spend us out of the recession? Why would anyone with a brain want to choke that income off by taxing it more? It is the ONLY place the money to move this economy back to an acceptable level we have.

Obama said something very smart the other day. I only "heard this", but think it is brilliant! And funny that the liberal media isn't bragging about obama's great ideas. Instead they keep saying he has no substance. Now why would a liberal media do that to a liberal candidate? I'll tell you why. The media isn't liberal.

Anyways, as President, Obama is going to release the strategic petroleum reserve to the American people. He will sell it to us cheap, but he won't say how cheap. He'll announce that a week later. This single act will lower gas prices $1 a gallon MINIMUM. Some economists say it may even cut gas prices in half. Oil speculators will be forced to compete with whatever Obama sells the gas for, or they will not sell shit to anyone for 60 days, or however long the reserves hold up. So to compete with our oil reserves, the oil companies will be forced to speculate LOWER PRICES!!!

Obama is brilliant!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

Obama said something very smart the other day. I only "heard this", but think it is brilliant! And funny that the liberal media isn't bragging about obama's great ideas. Instead they keep saying he has no substance. Now why would a liberal media do that to a liberal candidate? I'll tell you why. The media isn't liberal.

You are clearly not watching the same media I do. You must be watching FOX and thinking they are part of the "Liberal Media"


The foolishness of Liberals on this board, when it comes to the media, never ceases to astound me.

 

[TopGunna]

Obama said something very smart the other day. I only "heard this", but think it is brilliant! And funny that the liberal media isn't bragging about obama's great ideas. Instead they keep saying he has no substance. Now why would a liberal media do that to a liberal candidate? I'll tell you why. The media isn't liberal.

Anyways, as President, Obama is going to release the strategic petroleum reserve to the American people. He will sell it to us cheap, but he won't say how cheap. He'll announce that a week later. This single act will lower gas prices $1 a gallon MINIMUM. Some economists say it may even cut gas prices in half. Oil speculators will be forced to compete with whatever Obama sells the gas for, or they will not sell shit to anyone for 60 days, or however long the reserves hold up. So to compete with our oil reserves, the oil companies will be forced to speculate LOWER PRICES!!!

Obama is brilliant!!!

Sealy, I'm not so sure this is true.

The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve represents a small fraction of the global market in any given week. I'm a bit doubtful that U.S. price strategy could have such a widespread effect (while holding such a small fraction of the global market share).

And even then, in your own admission, the effects of any such policy are short-term; 60 days according to you. I would suspect that may be why you don't see the national media covering this proposal.

 

[jreeves]

You have heard of the National Debt?

Evidently you have no understanding of the Laffer curve. If you did you wouldn't have mentioned the national debt....
Because with the so called "Bush tax cuts" tax revenues increased by targeted tax cuts.

 

[jreeves]

Maybe, maybe not. While I agree with taxes being cut, the spending was increased, creating huge deficits. The increased trade and budget deficits have gone a long way towards devaluing the dollar to where it is today, which has increased prices on so many things that the middle class needs. So while they may have a little more money in their pockets, that money is buying a lot less today.

Far too many of these kinds of discussions leave inflation and purchasing power out. It's not JUST about having more dollars. It's about how powerful those dollars actually ARE, as well.

Tax revenues increased, they did not decrease. Spending was the major problem, not the tax cuts.

 

[jreeves]

the poor didn't pay FICA taxes, sport.

The lower middle classes didn't end up paying FICA taxes, either.

Bushes tax cuts didn't help them a wit unless, as many of you claim, they served to keep the economy from getting even worse than it is now.

Frankly, I'm dubious of that claim, but if it is true, then that's the only help the poor got from Bush's tax cuts.

You have heard of the federal earned income tax credit correct?
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.To qualify, taxpayers must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a tax return.The EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits. In most cases, EITC payments will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, low-income housing or most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments.

This tax credit along with child tax credits were expanded which greatly benefits the poor.

 

[jreeves]

Sealy, I'm not so sure this is true.

The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve represents a small fraction of the global market in any given week. I'm a bit doubtful that U.S. price strategy could have such a widespread effect (while holding such a small fraction of the global market share).

And even then, in your own admission, the effects of any such policy are short-term; 60 days according to you. I would suspect that may be why you don't see the national media covering this proposal.

I wonder what happened to oil prices, the last time oil was sold from the reserve?
Does anyone think we should be selling oil from the reserve when Iran is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz? While Russia is attacking Georgia, where a major oil pipeline is located?

 

[Chris]

Evidently you have no understanding of the Laffer curve. If you did you wouldn't have mentioned the national debt....
Because with the so called "Bush tax cuts" tax revenues increased by targeted tax cuts.

I know all about the "Laffer curve." It's a curve ball that Reagan threw the country in order to lower taxes for the rich. A discredited economic theory and the reason for our 9 trillion dollar national debt. It worked out well for the Chinese, however. They now own us.

 

[jreeves]

I know all about the "Laffer curve." It's a curve ball that Reagan threw the country in order to lower taxes for the rich. A discredited economic theory and the reason for our 9 trillion dollar national debt. It worked out well for the Chinese, however. They now own us.

Sure...do you have any numbers showing that income tax revenues decreased? Or are you all about perpatrating lies about the so called "Bush tax cuts".

 

[Chris]

Sure...do you have any numbers showing that income tax revenues decreased? Or are you all about perpatrating lies about the so called "Bush tax cuts".

Bush is the one who lied. He borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to fund the Iraq war. Someone has to pay that bill? Guess who that someone will be? All he did was pass the tax bill on to the next generation. And God help the next president.

 

[jreeves]

Bush is the one who lied. He borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to fund the Iraq war. Someone has to pay that bill? Guess who that someone will be? All he did was pass the tax bill on to the next generation. And God help the next president.

Not going to show proof I see where tax revenues decreased....Only try and deflect...Tax cuts increased revenues...I have shown that.

Congress increased spending faster than the larger revenues could cover, hence we have a huge deficit. I am sure that Obama's over $1 trillion in new governmental spending would help the situation.