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

[Soggy in NOLA]

Actually, most of us Bush supporters bashed Bush and the Neocons for their reckless spending. Where have you been?

 

[Claudette]

I couldn't believe the amount of money those tax cuts generated. Holy cow.

Then those fucking Clowns spent and spent and spent. Both parties.

Someone remind me why we keep electing these idiots??

 

[Too Tall]

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.

This comes under the heading figures don't lie but liars can figure. We have a progressive tax code. Those with an agenda know that and use dollar figures to make their ridiculous point.

If I make $500,000 a year and get a 3% tax cut I get an extra $15,000. If I make $50,000 a year and get the same 3% tax cut I get $1500. It doesn't seem fair to those with an agenda.

 

[Skynet]

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.

they are the Bush / GOP cuts. Obama has to concede and accept to temporarily extend those tax rates in order to get unemployment benefits extended. thats called compromise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

they are the Bush / GOP cuts. Obama has to concede and accept to temporarily extend those tax rates in order to get unemployment benefits extended. thats called compromise.

Oh good grief.. whatever.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

I often wondered why Bush didn't get an $800 billion stimulus package to fix the dotcom bubble that Clinton created.

 

[RDD_1210]

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."

Incorrect.

I'd ask for proof of these "hundreds of tax increases" but we both know you won't produce anything supporting this.

 

[Skynet]

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.

they are the Bush / GOP cuts. Obama has to concede and accept to temporarily extend those tax rates in order to get unemployment benefits extended. thats called compromise.

Oh good grief.. whatever.

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

I often wondered why Bush didn't get an $800 billion stimulus package to fix the dotcom bubble that Clinton created.

Really. Think of it, he could have saved 8,000,000,000,000,000 jobs all the while generating 20% unemployment, inflation, $5 gasoline, $14,000,000,000,000 in debt! Oh, wait....

Never mind.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

they are the Bush / GOP cuts. Obama has to concede and accept to temporarily extend those tax rates in order to get unemployment benefits extended. thats called compromise.

Oh good grief.. whatever.

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

 

[Truthmatters]

They just like to blame everything they did on Obama

 

[Skynet]

Oh good grief.. whatever.

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

you place blame only on Obama, while giving none of it to the Senate nor the House. you also will only blame the Dems for many problems the GOP has created. Seeing as how from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled all of government which led to the recession. BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME, i can say it slower if you would like.

 

[RDD_1210]

Oh good grief.. whatever.

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

It really doesn't take much to embarrass Soggy in an argument. He basically just gave up here.....whatever.

 

[RDD_1210]

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

you place blame only on Obama, while giving none of it to the Senate nor the House. you also will only blame the Dems for many problems the GOP has created. Seeing as how from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled all of government which led to the recession. BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME, i can say it slower if you would like.

I do hate that Obama didn't stick to his guns on the tax cuts. I understand why he caved but I wish he had more balls about it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

explain how that is not reality? did Obama want the extension of the rates? no, did he push for them? No, did he trade those rates for an extension of unemployment benefits? yes..

by your logic because the GOP controls the House, they can now take credit for the extension of unemployment benefits even though they didnt want them, doesnt that hurt their standing with conservatives? geez yours dumb

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

you place blame only on Obama, while giving none of it to the Senate nor the House. you also will only blame the Dems for many problems the GOP has created. Seeing as how from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled all of government which led to the recession. BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME, i can say it slower if you would like.

You can say it as slowly as you like Sparky, you're still wrong on most all of your points.

 

[Skynet]

The point is... HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Unless of course your only point is to beat us to death with your lame brain notion that no matter what, it isn't Obama's fault?

Again... whatever.

you place blame only on Obama, while giving none of it to the Senate nor the House. you also will only blame the Dems for many problems the GOP has created. Seeing as how from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled all of government which led to the recession. BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME, i can say it slower if you would like.

I do hate that Obama didn't stick to his guns on the tax cuts. I understand why he caved but I wish he had more balls about it.

thats why its called compromise, he got something he really wanted, but had to concede a position. i dont like it either, but i understand his stance.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I see RDD_1210 is in the room... let the race hustling begin. Thank God I have that race pimp on ignore.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems need to run on a 90% tax on all income in excess of $50,000 and an undistributed profits tax.

 

[RDD_1210]

I see RDD_1210 is in the room... let the race hustling begin. Thank God I have that race pimp on ignore.

Looks like someone is still mad because everytime I call him out for his ridiculous claims he ignores me and now he officially has me on ignore. Perfect!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And, if both parties are to blame, as you say, then why the constant calls that it is the GOP that caused the mess? Fence sit much?

And please tell us your views on Frank and Dodd's role in all of this... as well as CRA, red-lining, etc.