besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Let's see... Bush's tax cuts are the reason for the dandelions in my yard, the high cost of eggs and Chinese drywall syndrome.

Everybody knows this.. right?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You gotta love the whackaloon left.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bush's Medicare Plan D Gramps' Dope Plan is what has added to the debt.
Tax cuts never add to the debt. How does allowing $$ to stay in the economy add to debt?
Econ 101.

Wrong.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and pay 500 at the end of the month, you add zero to your debt.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and cut your monthly payment to 400, you add 100 dollars (plus interest) to your DEBT every month.

That is what cutting taxes does. Cutting taxes even without increasing spending adds to the debt. Cutting taxes while increasing spending, which every president/Congress in the last 30 years except Clinton has done, adds even more to the debt.

The only way you can cut taxes without adding the debt is to cut spending simultaneously, at an amount comparable to the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Econ 100

That is the Keynesian theory of economics which has found several times over to be faulty.
It is not government that grows the economy. That is a FACT.
The economy grows through productivity in the PRIVATE sector. Lowering taxes has been proved time and again to actually INCREASE revenues to the federal government.
The problme with you and the rest of the Left is you cannot stomach the idea of your sacred cow social safety nets being reduced in any way.
You people think government is the answer to all of your constant problems. In fact it is the Left that thinks in terms of problems rather than facing and overcoming challenges. You view life's responsibilities as a burden. You want someone else to take responsibility for your lives.
The Left does not view taxation as a means to fund government, but as a means to punish those whom you believe have too much.
The only part of your post that is correct is that government must cut spending. Your side refuses to allow that. The GOP wanted to cut 0.05% of the budget( $60 billion of over $3 trillion) and Sen Charles Schumer( Democrat NY) referred to the cust as "draconian"....What a bunch of bullshit. That comment tells me that the typical democrat want nothing to do with spending reductions of ANY kind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Tax revenues actually went up. That is pretty positive!

tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

Deficit spending itself boosts tax revenues because it pumps borrowed money into the economy. Your mathematical acrobatics aren't taking that into account.

WHAT?!!! That makes no sense and is patently false. Based on your logic, the current rate of deficit spending would mean our economy would be growing at the highest annual rate in the history of the nation. When it is your side that agrees and advertises that we are on the verge of a depression. Of course they do that only when it suits their political needs.
The fact of the matter is government removes wealth from the economy because government produces nothing.
You people bitch and moan about all the money the private sector is allegedly sitting on. It is the idea above that is the reason why investment borrowing and hiring are at current levels. It is because those with investment capital are preparing for massive tax increases.
No one with any business savvy is going to spend when the government is going to take it all away.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bush's Medicare Plan D Gramps' Dope Plan is what has added to the debt.
Tax cuts never add to the debt. How does allowing $$ to stay in the economy add to debt?
Econ 101.

Wrong.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and pay 500 at the end of the month, you add zero to your debt.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and cut your monthly payment to 400, you add 100 dollars (plus interest) to your DEBT every month.

That is what cutting taxes does. Cutting taxes even without increasing spending adds to the debt. Cutting taxes while increasing spending, which every president/Congress in the last 30 years except Clinton has done, adds even more to the debt.

The only way you can cut taxes without adding the debt is to cut spending simultaneously, at an amount comparable to the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Econ 100

No....YOU DON'T USE CREDIT.....You spend only what you have and if you don't have it you don't spend it. Sensible people refer to this as "fiscal responsibility.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPngqDZpVcw]YouTube - Cynthia McKinney Economic planks - Green Party Presidential candidate[/ame]

 

[thereisnospoon]

YouTube - Cynthia McKinney Economic planks - Green Party Presidential candidate

This woman is koo koo for cocoa puffs.
As an analyst of traits, tells and body language there are issues about Mc Kinney that jump off the page. She is searching for words. She does not make eye contact with the person who asked for her comments. This indicates unpreparedness. She looks down when she begins a sentence and uses "umm and "Ahh" which indicates she is making up her response as she goes along.

 

[P F Tinmore]

YouTube - Cynthia McKinney Economic planks - Green Party Presidential candidate

This woman is koo koo for cocoa puffs.
As an analyst of traits, tells and body language there are issues about Mc Kinney that jump off the page. She is searching for words. She does not make eye contact with the person who asked for her comments. This indicates unpreparedness. She looks down when she begins a sentence and uses "umm and "Ahh" which indicates she is making up her response as she goes along.

All that aside, what about the issues?

 

[jeffrockit]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Tax revenues actually went up. That is pretty positive!

tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

Some of that Heritage report has been challenged when all the hidden calculations are added to the baseline.

Critics Still Wrong on What

Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[23] (We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA.) Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.4 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — over $330 billion in 2019 alone.

War costs — Spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities cost $610 billion through fiscal 2008, according to CBO ($575 billion for the Department of Defense and $35 billion for international affairs), and another $160 billion in 2009. [24] We based estimates of costs in 2010 through 2019 on CBO’s projections, adjusted for a phase-down to 60,000 troops; those costs come to $1 trillion.[25] We add the associated debt-service costs, which came to $64 billion through 2008 and will total another $684 billion over the 2009-2019 period ($119 billion in 2019 alone).

And what about the billions it will cost the VA to care for returning troops from the two wars? Even that is and will be funded by borrowed money.

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2008/(BP) vets.pdf

Read my first response. The figures came from the CBO. When you don't like the facts, I guess resorting to discounting the source works?

 

[editec]

Bush's tax cuts for billionaires created bubbles (which are really nothing more than inflation in the investments prices) in investments that blew up in our faces.

All that extra money could not find productive investment opportunities. So the prices ran up for a while kicking off the bubbling effect and then the market woke up from its feeding frenzy and realized that the prices they paid for their invesments was too high because there wasn't enough business to return a decent profit on them

CRASH!

Yeah that's right, that's what I am saying... the most recent crash of the economy is because the SUPPLY SIDE was over funded while the DEMAND SIDE is broke.

 

[mudwhistle]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Spending caused the debt.

I have a solution, send whatever extra you have to the treasury.

If you're so worried about how much all that extra cash rolling around in people's wallets, all of that paper circulating in the economy instead of going to the government so they can use it to buy votes through handouts, PCs and internet service in public housing, cell phones for folks on Section 8, and bailouts of union pensions, then just send every extra dime you make to Uncle Sam.

Course you may need that extra money to buy gas and food cuz the price is climbing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bush's tax cuts for billionaires created bubbles (which are really nothing more than inflation in the investments prices) in investments that blew up in our faces.

All that extra money could not find productive investment opportunities. So the prices ran up for a while kicking off the bubbling effect and then the market woke up from its feeding frenzy and realized that the prices they paid for their invesments was too high because there wasn't enough business to return a decent profit on them

CRASH!

Yeah that's right, that's what I am saying... the most recent crash of the economy is because the SUPPLY SIDE was over funded while the DEMAND SIDE is broke.

Tax-cuts for billionaires? It's a good thing nobody dares to repeat that lie in my A.O. because the dishonest little twerp would get cold-cocked.

I guess the tax-cuts the rest of us got didn't happen. It took the cuts almost lapsing before everyone finally discovered that everyone got a cut, not just BILLIONAIRES.

The nice thing about the right is they truly believe in fairness, not screwing one class in favor of another. I know that's hard to believe. We don't believe in special groups and special categories of people. Banks favor the rich because their money makes them money, but we don't have a political party that feels that screwing somebody should be our platform.

45% of us pay nothing already. The upper 1% pays almost half of the taxes already, but that's not good enough for you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Bush's tax cuts for billionaires created bubbles (which are really nothing more than inflation in the investments prices) in investments that blew up in our faces.

All that extra money could not find productive investment opportunities. So the prices ran up for a while kicking off the bubbling effect and then the market woke up from its feeding frenzy and realized that the prices they paid for their invesments was too high because there wasn't enough business to return a decent profit on them

CRASH!

Yeah that's right, that's what I am saying... the most recent crash of the economy is because the SUPPLY SIDE was over funded while the DEMAND SIDE is broke.

My sentiments, exactly. Our economy is out of balance.

 

[expat_panama]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Tax revenues actually went up....

Some of that Heritage report has been challenged...

The GPO has the numbers for spending and revenue and the numbers for revenue increased after the tax cuts. Spending increased some but with a decreasing deficit, but began soaring with the Democrat congress.

Admin says after I got 15 posts I'll be able to give you the link. In the meantime anyone can verify this with google & gpo budget 2012

 

[Eric Cartman]

Tax revenues actually went up....

Some of that Heritage report has been challenged...

The GPO has the numbers for spending and revenue and the numbers for revenue increased after the tax cuts. Spending increased some but with a decreasing deficit, but began soaring with the Democrat congress.

Admin says after I got 15 posts I'll be able to give you the link. In the meantime anyone can verify this with google & gpo budget 2012

I would like to know what year that the taxes were cut, spending increased and deficit went down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of that Heritage report has been challenged...

The GPO has the numbers for spending and revenue and the numbers for revenue increased after the tax cuts. Spending increased some but with a decreasing deficit, but began soaring with the Democrat congress.

Admin says after I got 15 posts I'll be able to give you the link. In the meantime anyone can verify this with google & gpo budget 2012

I would like to know what year that the taxes were cut, spending increased and deficit went down.

Under GWB?
FY2004-2005
FY2005-2006
FY2006-2007
Revenue went up each of those years as well.

 

[expat_panama]

...I would like to know what year that the taxes were cut, spending increased and deficit went down.

Under GWB?
FY2004-2005
FY2005-2006
FY2006-2007
Revenue went up each of those years as well.

Here are the numbers from the GPO:

_____Total (in millions of dollars)
Year__Receipts__Outlays___Surplus or Deficit (&#8722
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585

(after Bush tax-cuts)

2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489


Revenue had been falling but after the tax-cuts it increased and the deficit shrank. I'll post a graph of it when I got 15 posts.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bullshit..The federal government ,especially liberal politicians do what thye must to keep their seats. Liberals know full well that if they continue to spend gobs of money on entitlements while finding ways to create more dependency(e.g. Obamacare) those benefitting will blindly vote for those who provide them. In other words, it's political.

And what exactly do you think the Republicans are doing by proposing a budget plan that would, if they had their way, wipe out the middle class? They're kow-towing to the noisy new guys who think creating a working (workable) budget is as easy as balancing their checkbooks, when anyone in their right mind knows it's hardly a valid analogy. Yeah, it's political all right. The Republicans want to starve the beast. The Democrats are willing to slice and dice in smaller portions so nobody has to starve.

Oh well, at least there is a line drawn in the sand from which to work, so only time will tell whether or not the Republicans (tea partiers) are willing to grow up and compromise like adults, or allow the country to default.

You side continues to call for tax increases while saying nothing about reducing deficits.
They use class envy to rope useful idiots into the "wealthy" argument.
The fact is the federal government could slap a 100% tax on all earners of $100,000 annually and up and still end up with nearly one trillion dollars in deficits.
The bottom line is your side cannot satisfy it's insatiable desire to maintain and increase spending. And THAT is the problem. Out of control spending for political purposes and the monetizing of the debt.
Get this....projected debt which includes the deficit and interest service on the debt is greater than the entire net worth of the United States...DO you not see anything wrong with this? Can you not see that government must bear the responsibility of it's own actions, i.e. skyrocketing debt and deficit brought on by irresponsible spending?
Or are your sacred cow social safety nets and other pork spending so important that you'd rather see a great nation brought to it's knees?
Higher taxes do nothing but take money away from the private sector and stifle economic growth. Higher taxes do not reduce debt and deficit. Higher taxes are simply a political tool used by the Left to insure themselves votes from those who benefit from the largesse of the producers.

I think rants like this are so intriguing, because I too was using phrases like "bringing this country to its knees with increased deficits" and have it fall on deaf ears from the Bushites who could barely spell deficit, let alone give a shit at the time. I ranted about the billions in earmarks, that Citizens Against Government Waste published every year in its "Pork Book," none of which was EVER vetoed by President Bush. Earmarks have not only been severely reduced, but now must be made public as to what it is and who put a sticky on the bill for the additional pet project funding.

But the rant that irritates me the most is "Higher taxes do nothing but take money away from the private sector and stifle economic growth." Oh really? Then why did business after business close up shop when the banks failed? Didn't they have enough capital to stay afloat since they had the benefit of windfall tax cuts to put into savings for rainy days? No, they did not. They still relied on CREDIT, which suddenly went kaput because the big investment houses also had not leveraged their capital.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why should a 28 year old struggling to make ends meet have to pay the medical bills of wealthy seniors?
25% of Medicare recipients have income over $80,000 a year.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for free lunches at schools for kids that have cell phones and big screen TVs?

Spending is the problem.

Where is your source that 25% of recipients have income of over $80K? There is a means test for incomes over that amount, and reducing it is under consideration. But as of 2008, the last year figures were available, over half of Medicare recipients were earning less than $20,000 per year. And why should a 28-year old pay into payroll taxes to support Medicare? Because you too will get old one day. Surprise surprise. Unless your children are willing to pay all your health bills when you're too old and sick to pay them yourself, then you'll just be a ward of the state anyway and someone has to pay for that too.

As for your last comment, it's the usual goofy comment from someone who actually believes that all low-income people enjoy all the luxuries of high earners. Newsflash, child: It isn't true.

Medicare was never intended to be a 100% coverage program. It is a supplement. Yet, you people completely ignore the fact that Obamacare CUTS funding of medicare by over 50%. The remainder is OUR bill. Yeah, where do you think that is going to come from?
Medicare should be scrapped. Each individual should be permitted to buy their health insurance privately across state lines according to ability to pay.
The automatic payroll deduction punishes those who may never require the service during their lifetime. What really is galling is the fact that those receiving State and municipal government pensions are eligible for medicare AND social security. SS should be means tested as well. In other words if a person has say a $60,000 per year pension and medical benefit package they should not be able to use medicare or receive Social Security

The general Medicare program WILL NOT BE CUT BY 50%. Stop fucking lying, although I know you are only parroting Washington Republicans who continue that bold-faced lie.

The Medicare ADVANTAGE program will be cut by the $500 BILLION the government SUBSIDIZES private insurers for THAT supplemental coverage.

What I find ironic about Paul Ryan's new Medicare plan is that it calls for a pool of insurance companies to bid on voucher coverage (i.e., insurance exchanges). Er, sounds familiar, doesn't it? I thought cons hated that idea, which is ironically the crux of Obamacare.

Ryan's solution for block grants for Medicaid is good, though. Several states, my own included, already asked for waivers from the traditional payments and make our own priority decisions based on x-dollars in annual block grants.

 

[MaggieMae]

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

Now I know you're just an ignorant person, whereas before I only suspected as much.

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

And when has the government ever shaken you down and taken cash at gunpoint, genius?

Bush 43 was a big spending populist..During his administrations the largest deficit was 400 billion dollars..
Obama has spent more than all other presidential administrations combined.
The current budget deficit is $1.6 trillion....Nuff said.
When politicians refuse to take the proper course and reduce spending and therefore DEMAND more from the producers, that is in effect a shakedown. Government takes our money under threat of civil and criminal sanctions. THAT is a shakedown.
Ya know what? IF government were truly accountable to the people, spent our tax dollars wisely, completed all projects on time and all departments stayed within budget, few would object paying taxes.
As it is, government is horridly wasteful. Programs which have been funded by the hundreds of billions of dollars are simply a waste of money. OUR money.
Government increases or creates new taxes and still it's never enough. Every dollar these people get they spend $1.50...
Why is it you liberals oppose responsible government spending?

I'm not against cutting spending at all. But I don't agree with cutting spending for education nor health care, in any form and for any age whatsoever. I'm also willing to pay more in taxes if necessary.