Happy 10th Birthday.....Bush Tax Cuts

[rightwinger]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

 

[Claudette]

Well hell.

Lets raise taxes in this economy and see what happens.

I'm game.

Are you??

 

[rightwinger]

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

 

[blastoff]

Those would now be the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ok lets do it.

It worked in the past and tax cuts have never worked as claimed by the right.


The republicans wont let it happen because they think Obama would get the credit for the good results.

They think its far more important to help the republican party than the country.

 

[WillowTree]

Well hell.

Lets raise taxes in this economy and see what happens.

I'm game.

Are you??

They are raising taxes. there are hundreds of tax increases in the "health care law."

 

[FuelRod]

Just what Americans need - less money in their pockets!

Go left, Go left, Go left.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Everybody knows that if we raise the tax rates on 1% of the population everything will get better. Ask any liberal/progressive.

 

[Trajan]

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

read the second paragraph twice- spending , he spent, he spent, then, they spent.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Perhaps, instead of spending all day on USMB, you fuckers should go do something productive and then, maybe you wouldn't have to whine about new and inventive ways to get your hands on somebody else's money.

Just a thought.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

read the second paragraph twice- spending , he spent, he spent, then, they spent.

Of course it is, but spending is the mantra of the progressives and the liberals. When the economy grows at 3% - 4%, and spending increases 10%.. you've got a problem. But they don't want to hear that... it's just spend spend spend and tax tax tax.

 

[Truthmatters]

cutting taxs has not produced what you claimed it would why should we try it again?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Blastoff beat me to it, these are now the Bush/Obama cuts.

Whether you agree with them or not, Bush and Obama are in agreement with the cuts.

Another issue you partisans should be holding hands about, rather than pretending to be different.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

cutting taxs has not produced what you claimed it would why should we try it again?

Spending increases have far outpaced growth. It really is that simple... even a dunce like you should be able to get your head around it.

But no, let's raise taxes on 1% of the population and increase spending by another 10%.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would the corps hire when they can make money off of tax cuts?

 

[B. Kidd]

Those would now be the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

Yep. Obie signed on.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why would the corps hire when they can make money off of tax cuts?

Uhm, like I don't even know what this means.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Bush supporters should be praising Obama, Bush haters should be attacking Obama.


Why is the opposite happening?

 

[bripat9643]

The economy was already slowing before Clinton left office, nitwit. That was the first lie in your little propaganda turd. The rest of it is just as credible, so there's no need for further comment.

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

 

[B. Kidd]

Bush supporters should be praising Obama, Bush haters should be attacking Obama.


Why is the opposite happening?

Plutocrats like it that way.