How Bush's giveaway to the rich hurt America

[Chris]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."



As Clock Ticks, Lawmakers Revisit Bush Tax Cuts : NPR

 

[elvis]

a more appropriate thread would be "How the birth Chris hurt America".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."

I'm still waiting for the part where Bush gave something to the rich.

 

[Chris]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."

I'm still waiting for the part where Bush gave something to the rich.

"Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country"

 

[hortysir]

I'm still waiting for the part where Bush gave something to the rich.

Troll threads aren't meant to correlate with the title

 

[Chris]

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

Bush did the same thing, and doubled the National Debt, just like Reagan did.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."

I'm still waiting for the part where Bush gave something to the rich.

"Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country"

The wealthiest one percent pay 37% of Federal Income tax, so of course they are going to receive a larger benefit from scaling back tax rates than other people, but you still haven't showed me where Bush gave them anything.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

Bush did the same thing, and doubled the National Debt, just like Reagan did.

Bush and Reagan doubled the national debt because they spent too much money and used war to justify it both times.

 

[Chris]

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Charles_Main]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."

I'm still waiting for the part where Bush gave something to the rich.

"Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country"

50% of all Federal Income taxes are paid by the TOP 2% of wage earners.

your point?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.

Federal revenue was higher in 2004 than it was in 2002 and 2003 and shot up significantly higher in 2005.

Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States 2010 - Charts Tables

As for the alleged surpluses, there never was a surplus. It was projected based on ceteris paribus, which never came to play. We were already in a recession at the end of 2000 and maybe you're too young to remember, but we kind of got attacked the following year which put us in a deeper recession.

The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources

Yeah and? So? That means we can just take their money because you think they have too much. Can we take your money? I'm pretty sure to a homeless guy you're pretty fucking wealthy. Maybe you have too much.

— at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.

Yep, and they earned it. What the fuck business is that of yours? If you want more money go get an education and contribute something useful to society. Be creative and invent something that will change people's lives. Be a leader and work your way up to the top of a company. That you don't have the motivation to do more with your life is nobody's fault but your own. Try acting a man for once instead of a sniveling whining little puss.

And you still haven't showed us where Bush gave anything to anyone.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."



As Clock Ticks, Lawmakers Revisit Bush Tax Cuts : NPR

Someone breaks into your house and takes what you have to give to someone else is stealing.

The government taxes you to take your money to give to someone else is stealing.

The only difference between the two is the government legally can steal.

 

[jeffrockit]

When George W. Bush was sworn into office as president in January 2001, he inherited a record budget surplus. Five weeks later, he addressed a joint session of Congress, urging lawmakers to act swiftly on his signature campaign promise: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people," the president said. "See, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

Republicans cheered. But Democrats were deeply skeptical of a tax cut based on projections of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years that, in fact, never came about. At the time, North Dakota's Kent Conrad was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

The tax cut is simply too big," he said. "No. 2, it is unfair. It goes primarily to the wealthiest among us. Forty percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country."



As Clock Ticks, Lawmakers Revisit Bush Tax Cuts : NPR

Now for the truth from the non partisan congressional budget office:
Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006 (their highest level since 1978).
The revenues rose for 2003 to 2007 with the Bush tax cuts enacted.
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)