Allow Bush Tax-Cuts, For EVERYONE....

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

By whose numbers?

Ross Perot pointed out numerous times --using CBO numbers-- back in 1992 that, presuming a mere 3% growth rate and no changes to federal tax structures, the budget would balance all by itself and briefly go into "surplus", only to have the deficits return around 2002......

....After WHICH, St. Bill came-along and SHOWED Ross "Grenade With A Bad-Haircut" Perot how it's DONE!!!!!

​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Cut taxes because you have a deficit that is supposed to be your main concern.

This is the fantasy world the right lives in perpetually.


This is why every time they have full control we have an economic disaster

Hey... I don't know if you got the memo, but Dems have full-control and we are in a disaster.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes....as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

It's TIME to RE-live THE GOOD OL' DAYS!!!!!!​

When you have to cite a 1993 law that isn't relevant anymore, when attacking a 2003 law.....

DUH!!!!!!

It'd be the '93 tax-rates, to which we'd RETURN!!!!!​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Inherent in Shema's arguments is the notion that it isn't your money. Sheman is probably one of the forty-percenters living off the sixty-precenters all the while complaing the sixty-precenters don't give enough.

I dub thee Shemooch.

 

[Oddball]

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

By whose numbers?

Ross Perot pointed out numerous times --using CBO numbers-- back in 1992 that, presuming a mere 3% growth rate and no changes to federal tax structures, the budget would balance all by itself and briefly go into "surplus", only to have the deficits return around 2002......

....After WHICH, St. Bill came-along and SHOWED Ross "Grenade With A Bad-Haircut" Perot how it's DONE!!!!!

​

Is English a second language for you?

The budget balanced ALL BY ITSELF...The >3% growth rate accounted for the projected balance of the budget and mythical surplus, much more so than any of the tinkering at the margins by Bubba and congress.

 

[uscitizen]

Inherent in Shema's arguments is the notion that it isn't your money. Sheman is probably one of the forty-percenters living off the sixty-precenters all the while complaing the sixty-precenters don't give enough.

I dub thee Shemooch.

Is it your money?
Are ther laws against defacing and such money that is "yours"?
Damn! this is as bad as that tag on your mattress.

 

[edthecynic]

By whose numbers?

Ross Perot pointed out numerous times --using CBO numbers-- back in 1992 that, presuming a mere 3% growth rate and no changes to federal tax structures, the budget would balance all by itself and briefly go into "surplus", only to have the deficits return around 2002......

....After WHICH, St. Bill came-along and SHOWED Ross "Grenade With A Bad-Haircut" Perot how it's DONE!!!!!

​

Is English a second language for you?

The budget balanced ALL BY ITSELF...The >3% growth rate accounted for the projected balance of the budget and mythical surplus, much more so than any of the tinkering at the margins by Bubba and congress.

So you admit that the economy grew at a >3% rate at the 1993 tax rates, but you don't want to return to those pro growth pre-Bush tax rates.
Why do you hate this great country?

 

[DiamondDave]

....After WHICH, St. Bill came-along and SHOWED Ross "Grenade With A Bad-Haircut" Perot how it's DONE!!!!!

​

Is English a second language for you?

The budget balanced ALL BY ITSELF...The >3% growth rate accounted for the projected balance of the budget and mythical surplus, much more so than any of the tinkering at the margins by Bubba and congress.

So you admit that the economy grew at a >3% rate at the 1993 tax rates, but you don't want to return to those pro growth pre-Bush tax rates.
Why do you hate this great country?

Idiot... the economy did not grow because of the higher tax rates

 

[Oddball]

....After WHICH, St. Bill came-along and SHOWED Ross "Grenade With A Bad-Haircut" Perot how it's DONE!!!!!

​

Is English a second language for you?

The budget balanced ALL BY ITSELF...The >3% growth rate accounted for the projected balance of the budget and mythical surplus, much more so than any of the tinkering at the margins by Bubba and congress.

So you admit that the economy grew at a >3% rate at the 1993 tax rates, but you don't want to return to those pro growth pre-Bush tax rates.
Why do you hate this great country?

Non sequitur.

Why do you hate logic?

 

[edthecynic]

Is English a second language for you?

The budget balanced ALL BY ITSELF...The >3% growth rate accounted for the projected balance of the budget and mythical surplus, much more so than any of the tinkering at the margins by Bubba and congress.

So you admit that the economy grew at a >3% rate at the 1993 tax rates, but you don't want to return to those pro growth pre-Bush tax rates.
Why do you hate this great country?

Idiot... the economy did not grow because of the higher tax rates

Well, it certainly was not hindered by the pro growth Clinton tax rates. CON$ are claiming the pro growth Clinton tax rates will hurt growth, in spite of the history to the contrary.


If the Dems were smart, and they usually aren't, they should let the Bush tax increases take effect to prove that the Bush tax cuts have been hurting the economy. If the Dems extend the Bush tax failure and the economy continues to recover as it has been thanks to the stimulus, the GOP will try to steal credit for the recovery they have fought so hard against.

 

[LiberalNut]

This (cutting taxes on the rich using SS surpluses as justification) in essense was TAKING from the working class's taxes and giving them to the wealthiest :arenthetical added:

Alas, someone fucking gets it! Yes, the Bushies were redistributionists. They redistributed from the middle and the bottom to the top! Reverse Robinhood!

Look around. Look at the results.

 

[BlindBoo]

The cons can't pay for extending the Bush tax cuts can they?

Critics Still Wrong on What?s Driving Deficits in Coming Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.

 

[Rinata]

President Obama is not going to be bullied into extending the Bush tax cuts. Thank God!!!

Obama told "60 Minutes" that he is ready to work with Republicans on the hotly debated issue, but he stopped short of saying he is ready to compromise with the GOP. I hope he tells them to get bent. Bone Head and Turtle Face are meeting with the prez at the WH soon. They have been so obnoxious in letting it be known that they will not compromise.

I really think the GOP cares more about their party than they do this country. I have never before heard the kinds of obstructionist remarks that I have been hearing from the GOP leaders lately. They are truly not looking out for this country.

 

[DiamondDave]

So you admit that the economy grew at a >3% rate at the 1993 tax rates, but you don't want to return to those pro growth pre-Bush tax rates.
Why do you hate this great country?

Idiot... the economy did not grow because of the higher tax rates

Well, it certainly was not hindered by the pro growth Clinton tax rates. CON$ are claiming the pro growth Clinton tax rates will hurt growth, in spite of the history to the contrary.


If the Dems were smart, and they usually aren't, they should let the Bush tax increases take effect to prove that the Bush tax cuts have been hurting the economy. If the Dems extend the Bush tax failure and the economy continues to recover as it has been thanks to the stimulus, the GOP will try to steal credit for the recovery they have fought so hard against.

Illogical conclusion.. as you are asserting causation from the tax hikes... hell, not even contending that they could have grown more without the tax hikes...

You want simple relation causation to masquerade your blind partisan agenda