How George W. Bush's Two Tax Cuts, 2001 and 2003 Screwed The Pooch

[Dad2three]

And this....its fun blowing up left wing propaganda...

“The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office. Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent. Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running.
Letter: National debt is out of control

The problem being that Bush Jr. didn't put the cost of the wars, he started, into the budget. Obama did.

And he didn't fund Medicare Part D....

Not even that, the GOP rammed it through in the middle of the night down our throats, AND FORBID THE GOV'T TO NEGOTIATE WITH PHARMA!!

 

[Dad2three]

They take THE EXCEPTION and make it sound like it happens for EVERYONE!!!

Kinda like the welfare queen myth?

OH I agree 100% with that! Conservatives especially regarding Welfare queens do that.

The problem though is the MSM is prone to exaggerate those stories to do just what you are doing... making it a party issue.


Unlike most liberal/FFOs I support my comments with the FACTS and links to the facts.

A new poll from Harvard University’s Institute of Politics has some alarming findings about the trustworthiness of the American media. Among adults aged 18-29, the poll found that just 12 percent believe the media "do the right thing."
An even more startling 88 percent said they “sometimes” or “never” trust the media and just 2 percent of 18-29 year olds said they trust the media to do the right thing “all of the time." 39 percent said the media “never” do the right thing. -
Poll: Just 2% of Young Americans Trust Media to ‘Do the Right Thing’

So with the MSM also having donated to the Democrats 85% more then to the GOP, really who would you trust to present
a "journalistic professional" story?
85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

So please you be intellectually honest and recognize FACTS over ideology OK?
FACT..... GWB had 5 cataclysmic events occur that have NEVER happened at the same time in one presidency.
That is a FACT..
1) Recession... 2) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market losses..3) 9/11 $1 trillion jobs lost, lives lost.. 4) Anthrax attacks..
5) Worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes but more years with devastating hurricanes occurred during GWB terms.
All those events COST a lot of money and lives!
YET no one seems to remember them!

Weird your link DOESN'T link how they figured out Dem versus GOP giving right Bubs?


"Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008"


YOU MEAN EDUCATED PEOPLE GIVE TO THE DEMS? lol


Yep, most of those "events", I agree, Dubya wasn't prepared for, and it hurt US GREATLY!

 

[tyroneweaver]

Dems are just as much to blame for the housing crash as the gop,
and if it was so important, why didn't barack obama even vote on it.
Bret Bair is one the most respected journalist there is

 

[Dad2three]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began



Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth

Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

AGAIN

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible?




Ronnie GUTTED tax revenues from Carter's 19.7% of GDP to 17% of GDP EVEN THOUGH THE TOP RATE WAS 50% THE FIRST 6 YEARS AND RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE WORKING MAN 11 TIMES!

I get it Bubs, CONservatives are NEVER responsible for THEIR failed policies
'

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NEWTER HUH? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Dems are just as much to blame for the housing crash as the gop,
and if it was so important, why didn't barack obama even vote on it.
Bret Bair is one the most respected journalist there is

Sure Bubba, SURE



Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Dems are just as much to blame for the housing crash as the gop,
and if it was so important, why didn't barack obama even vote on it.
Bret Bair is one the most respected journalist there is

VOTE ON WHAT EXACTLY BUBBA?

 

[Dad2three]

Dems are just as much to blame for the housing crash as the gop,
and if it was so important, why didn't barack obama even vote on it.
Bret Bair is one the most respected journalist there is

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance



And yet, critics demanding GSE reform ignore the topic altogether. Search through any book or article promoting the thesis that the GSEs helped cause the mortgage crisis for a passage comparing GSE loan performance with the rest of the market. Almost certainly, you will come up empty-handed.

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.


The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

 

[Manonthestreet]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

yes record revenue....and today you are taking in substantially more and still running huge deficits...ooooops

 

[Dad2three]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

yes record revenue....and today you are taking in substantially more and still running huge deficits...ooooops

Only a tool, fool or liar thinks you measure Gov't revenues through dollars Bubba, ECONOMISTS MEASURE IT VIA GDP DUMMY

Bruce Bartlett (REAGAN ADVISER): Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006."

The Economist: "No Serious Economist Believes Mr Bush's Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves."

A surprising rise in tax revenue last year has pushed this chutzpah even further. Mr Bush last week implied that the supply-side fantasy might hold after all: tax cuts do pay for themselves. "There's a mindset in Washington that says, you cut the taxes, we're going to have less money to spend," he noted contemptuously, before claiming that recent experience suggested otherwise.

Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%.

http://www.economist.com/node/5389645


FACT: Economists Agree That Tax Cuts Don't Increase Revenue


Even Conservative Economists Agree That Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves. As Time explains: "If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues


2003 Economic Report Of The President: Lost Tax Revenue Won't Be Completely Recovered. The 2003 Economic Report of the President written by the Council of Economic Advisors points out: "Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/2003_erp.pdf



Wall Street Journal: Bush Tax Cuts Return 10 Times Less Than They Generate In Added Tax Revenue From Economic Growth.

Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves?

 

[Dad2three]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

yes record revenue....and today you are taking in substantially more and still running huge deficits...ooooops

FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated:

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

 

[Dad2three]

And as another recent CBPP analysis revealed, over the next 10 years, the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together.



The Bush tax cuts didn't come anywhere close to paying for themselves. And making them permanent is the very worst thing the so-called deficit hawks could do to reduce the U.S. debt.

By now, you get the picture. But as the "10 Republican Lies about the Bush Tax Cuts" reveals, the GOP's strategy requires that you don't. As Paul Krugman summarized the latest Republican pitch for the rich:

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few -- the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year -- would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.


The Bush Tax Cuts in Pictures

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It is much easier to stand on a high moral ground with your argument if your Demi lord thing known as Obama didn't borrow trillions of dollars in a wasted effort to stimulate the economy. I want more tax cuts! I don't care if the givernment can't afford it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

yes record revenue....and today you are taking in substantially more and still running huge deficits...ooooops

FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated:

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

Ifs and buts.....smoke and mirrors.........perhaps tax cuts fired the economy...........thus the extra revenue...

 

[Manonthestreet]

And as another recent CBPP analysis revealed, over the next 10 years, the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together.



The Bush tax cuts didn't come anywhere close to paying for themselves. And making them permanent is the very worst thing the so-called deficit hawks could do to reduce the U.S. debt.

By now, you get the picture. But as the "10 Republican Lies about the Bush Tax Cuts" reveals, the GOP's strategy requires that you don't. As Paul Krugman summarized the latest Republican pitch for the rich:

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few -- the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year -- would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.


The Bush Tax Cuts in Pictures

right now Obama is running even higher record revenue and still massive deficits.........

 

[SwimExpert]

If only we had a bigger government and higher taxes.......

Clearly Obama wants that. That's why he continued with Bush's tax cuts. Oh wait....that was different. When a black guy does it, it's okay. It has to be okay. Otherwise, you're a racist.

Uh....no.....it is consistent with Keynesian theory......given the abysmal state of aggregate demand in the wake of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, providing consumers the means to spend is entirely rational...

Cutting taxes to eliminate a surplus, and then putting a 7% annual growth rate of spending on the national credit card is....well...the essence of Supply Side Idiocy...

Glad that we agree Obama is an idiot.

 

[Campbell]

Actually, you just said it was spending.

Bullshit!

*Ahem*

spent borrowed money like there was no tomorrow and doubled the debt again.

You said it, yourself. Don't blame me because you're too stupid to understand your own words.

Doubled the debt again.....after cutting taxes for the rich not once but twice. Sorriest excuse for a president this nation has ever seen...and a draft dodger too.

 

[Zander]

The binary thinking on display by some people in this thread is shocking.

Newsflash for partisan hacks- BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

 

[Muhammed]

Which line is reality and witch one is your fantasy?

 

[Programmer]

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

Success is not a problem, buddy. It's just not going to be given to you at some job if you're not absolutely exceptional... Or your daddy wasn't absolutely exceptional.

These charts certainly have to do with how money is being made, rather than the minor amount of tax burden clinton put on his 1% friends.

Who cares about income share! Look who really takes the burn when the economy gets hit. Who the hell do these people think they are?

I suggest you do a little checking. Reagan slashed tax rates for his buds to 50 year lows, Clinton raised taxes then after the budget was balanced with surpluses projected for the foreseeable future slow talkin' George Came along and cut tax rates twice, spent borrowed money like there was no tomorrow and doubled the debt again. It's the goddam tax cuts and nothing else.

Tax cuts and raises don't improve before tax household income in any significant way for anyone, anywhere, ever. Tax rates are not responsible for bosses significantly improving their advantage over menial laborers. The tax burden over the same time does not comprise anything near the difference. Instead, companies have made their money differently than 50 yrs ago and the entire economy has experienced changes in character that you see in those charts.