The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

[California Girl]

YO expat-panama

--that according to Abraham Lincoln most quotes on the internet are made up.

Are you suggesting that I have been inaccurate in my memory?

How much of your rep are you willing to risk?

Do you want to admit you know nothing of such an important testimony?

As far as your chart goes, what mystery is there in cutting cap gains and watching the pigs feed?

Do you come here to mislead often?

How much of his rep?

You must be a sock.

And I think I know whose sock you are.

Idiot.

 

[California Girl]

...The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the first 10 years was about 3 trillion...

For starters, the Bush tax cuts went into affect in '03. Nine years ago. We don't have results for next year yet.

Next, the White House says the '03 rate cut--

was followed increased revenue. Now, I don't believe everything that comes out of the WhiteHouse either, but this is a point that the Exectutive Branch has been consistant with since '03.

Finally, a tax-cut does not have a 'cost'. Taxes are a cost. A tax-cut is a cost reduction.

For starters you are wrong, so everything else based on your start must be wrong. '03 was the SECOND Bush tax cut, the first was '01.

Which would be relevant... if the OP was right with his hysterical rant about the Bush tax cuts getting us into this mess.... but since he's talking out of his ass... so are you.

 

[PredFan]

In 2001 in support of the Bush tax cut Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the greatest economic threat he saw was that the nation would pay it’s debt off entirely within 10 years and congress would not adjust taxes quickly enough resulting in an accumulation of capital in Washington which would then be inefficiently applied.

As examples of problems developing he pointed to reduced bond auctions which caused a shortage of marketable securities for certain hedge investments.

At the time the total debt was a bit over 5 trillion, now we are over 15 trillion, why did Greenspan get it so wrong?

It's amazing to me that you could be so stupid and yet still be able to work a computer?

Weird.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

go get the testimony

Here is the driver of the short bus poster clan.

She might be the "driver" (the only normal person on the short bus) but you are the passenger on the short bus.

Gee, thanks, Corky.

You are aware that people on the short bus do not realize they are on the short bus or that there is a short bus....oh, no you don't. That might your problem.

 

[California Girl]

In 2001 in support of the Bush tax cut Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the greatest economic threat he saw was that the nation would pay it’s debt off entirely within 10 years and congress would not adjust taxes quickly enough resulting in an accumulation of capital in Washington which would then be inefficiently applied.

As examples of problems developing he pointed to reduced bond auctions which caused a shortage of marketable securities for certain hedge investments.

At the time the total debt was a bit over 5 trillion, now we are over 15 trillion, why did Greenspan get it so wrong?

It's amazing to me that you could be so stupid and yet still be able to work a computer?

Weird.

True. It is weird.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is the driver of the short bus poster clan.

She might be the "driver" (the only normal person on the short bus) but you are the passenger on the short bus.

Gee, thanks, Corky.

You are aware that people on the short bus do not realize they are on the short bus or that there is a short bus....oh, no you don't. That might your problem.

The driver knows the size of the bus, but passengers like you, obviously speaking from your own experience, don't.

 

[Staidhup]

Dam recessions suck, so do wars and uncontrolled government spending and frivolous crony bail outs, but the question remains, what did Obama and his majority in the Senate and two year majority in the house accomplish over the past four years? ZIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP! If one was to prescribe to an ever growing public sector at the expense of those that work is acceptable in lessoning the over all effect of a recession are simply nuts!

 

[GreatDay]

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

 

[GreatDay]

And sitting at the child’s table today we have:

expat_panama, uscitizen, CrusaderFrank, TakeAStepBack, California Girl

I was wondering when do the adults log on?

 

[expat_panama]

...The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the first 10 years was about 3 trillion...

...'03 was the SECOND Bush tax cut, the first was '01.

--and the '03 cut was the big one (from here):

The 2003 tax cut legislation, titled the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains and accelerated some provisions passed in earlier tax cuts.

Tax rates on realized capital gains received by individual shareholders were reduced from 10 percent (for taxpayers in tax brackets where the ordinary income tax rate was 15 percent or below) and 20 percent (for all other brackets) to 5 percent and 15 percent, respectively, through 2007 and to 0 and 15 percent in 2008. Tax rates on dividends received by individual shareholders were reduced from the rates that apply to ordinary income to the new capital gains rates.
The 2001 tax cut had raised the alternative minimum tax exemption to $49,000 for couples and $35,700 for singles through 2004. The 2003 tax cut raised the exemption further, to $58,000 for couples and $40,250 for singles, but still only through 2004.
The 2003 tax cut also accelerated and expanded many of the provisions of the 2001 tax act, including the expansion of the child tax credit, the reduction in taxes on married couples, and the lower rates and adjusted brackets on individual income. It also expanded the bonus depreciation provision passed in 2002.​

He said 10 years since the "cuts". Plural not singular. Like Obama saying "you didn't build that" (singular) is supposed to mean "roads and bridges" (plural) and not "business" (singular). Whether y'all know economics is one thing, your track record on talking English has much to be desired.

 

[Billo_Really]

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

You can't eliminate the debt until you get people back to work. The economy runs on consumer spending. So the most important thing right now, is getting people jobs. The private sector is sitting on over $6 trillion in profits and not re-investing that money into the economy. The obvious reason is the lack of demand. So if the private sector won't jump start the economy, the public sector has to. Once people have jobs and are getting paychecks, they start spending those paychecks and that has a domino effect on the economy. Once the demand picks up, the private sector will start investing again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We should have bernanke print up 15 trillion and Obama can pass it out to people so they can do some consumer spending to "jump start" the economy.

Let's call them, Obama Bucks!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, wait, shit. We already have done this. Give it another whirl maybe?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

She might be the "driver" (the only normal person on the short bus) but you are the passenger on the short bus.

Gee, thanks, Corky.

You are aware that people on the short bus do not realize they are on the short bus or that there is a short bus....oh, no you don't. That might your problem.

The driver knows the size of the bus, but passengers like you, obviously speaking from your own experience, don't.

Nice work, Corky.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion.

Unfortunately, current policies included an internet bubble that had already popped and an economy that was already shrinking by 1.3% in Q1 of 2001.

 

[uscitizen]

One would think with all that increased tax revenue rolling in that Bush would not have had to overspend by around 5 trillion.

 

[Mr Natural]

One would think with all that increased tax revenue rolling in that Bush would not have had to overspend by around 5 trillion.

One would think.

 

[Avorysuds]

We just did not cut taxes on the upper class enough.

I agree, it needs to be 0% like it is for that half the population known as the super human job creators! You know, poor people.

 

[freedombecki]

In 2001 in support of the Bush tax cut Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the greatest economic threat he saw was that the nation would pay it’s debt off entirely within 10 years and congress would not adjust taxes quickly enough resulting in an accumulation of capital in Washington which would then be inefficiently applied.

As examples of problems developing he pointed to reduced bond auctions which caused a shortage of marketable securities for certain hedge investments.

At the time the total debt was a bit over 5 trillion, now we are over 15 trillion, why did Greenspan get it so wrong?

The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

How much revenue did those tax cuts keep out of the hands of government?
Be as specific as you can.

"We're sorry. Your call did not go through. Please check the number and dial again."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We just did not cut taxes on the upper class enough.

Yeah that's what it was...