The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

[Politico]

Looks like everyone hates when those nagging facts get in the way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aCldcgP76c]alan greenspan on george w. bush, taxcuts, and cheney - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

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 the $400,000 upgrades on the Humvees would have been sufficient to stop the IEDs terrorists were leaving on the road for our troops. Unfortunately, Iran saw the problem and increased the firepower for the terrorists, free gratis with all that oil money they have. We had to double up again on steel plating for humvees to keep our troops as safe as we could. We had no way of knowing that would come about. We put troops at the top of the budgetary lists as the situations demanded.

What's done is done. We love our troops, and we will provide care for them through when the last man is back. I pray every day for them, citizen. Please put them on your good thoughts list, won't you?

 

[GreatDay]

"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.[/QUOTE]"

If economist can't make predictions what good are they? certainly it doesn't keep them from saying tax cuts create jobs, but when things like what Greenspan said are pointed out they say predicting is tough, maybe Greenspan just wasn't a good economist.

 

[GreatDay]

Looks like everyone hates when those nagging facts get in the way.

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!


I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 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

democrat entitlements got us into this mess.

 

[editec]

The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

More partisan crap, only this time its leftist partisan crap.

Claiming that the BUSH CUTS were the SOLE reason for the economy is obviously untrue.

Obvious to anyone who looks at the reality of the what ails this economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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.

"

If economist can't make predictions what good are they? certainly it doesn't keep them from saying tax cuts create jobs, but when things like what Greenspan said are pointed out they say predicting is tough, maybe Greenspan just wasn't a good economist.[/QUOTE]

If economist can't make predictions what good are they?

Obama's economists predicted unemployment would remain below 8% if the stimulus was passed. I guess we should get rid of the politicians who hired Greenspan and Obama's economists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing

Great idea! If you want to kill family owned small business and family farms.

It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

Or we could reform our unaffordable middle class entitlements.

 

[hjmick]

Kewl. Another Bush hating/blaming troll...

We just don't have enough of those...

 

[GreatDay]

The current total national debt is nearly 16 trillion dollars, or will be in the next few weeks. The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the first 10 years was about 3 trillion, which leaves some 13 trillion that is due to over reasons. And one could argue that those tax cuts did spur a nice economic spurt from 2003-2008, when the recession hit. So, the 3 trillion dollar cost was probably offset somewhat by the improvement in economic growth and employment that resulted.

I do not deny that those tax cuts did increase the debt, but to say that it's the only reason is wrong. It was more likely the increase in spending during both administrations that is more responsible.

I think you underestimate how much the economy would have benefitted from the 3 trillion dollars of job creating stimulus that would have occurred if the federal government had not been providing a safe place to put the money by issuing bonds. When people are forced to take risks they create jobs, today no one has to risk any money they can buy a bond instead, since there are so many available.

 

[GreatDay]

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing

Great idea! If you want to kill family owned small business and family farms.

It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

Or we could reform our unaffordable middle class entitlements.

Hate to be the first to tell you but there are no family farms left, sure a few tax write offs and property tax schemes, but actual family farms are a thing of the past and if the biz is worth more thab 5 million it ain't small no more.

The thing is we are always either cutting taxes or not raising them "for the economy" and all that money has got stuck at the top the only way to pay the bill is to take it at their death. Of course the guys who made all the money from all that borrowing would rather some body else pay the debt, maybe from their retirement account, nothing new about that fat cats have been stealing the pension money for decades.

 

[GreatDay]

"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.

"

If economist can't make predictions what good are they? certainly it doesn't keep them from saying tax cuts create jobs, but when things like what Greenspan said are pointed out they say predicting is tough, maybe Greenspan just wasn't a good economist.

If economist can't make predictions what good are they?

Obama's economists predicted unemployment would remain below 8% if the stimulus was passed. I guess we should get rid of the politicians who hired Greenspan and Obama's economists.[/QUOTE]

Obama's boys may not be perfect, 8.5 is not less than 8 or whatever, but how can you compare that to the guys that said the Iraq War would cost less than a billion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing

Great idea! If you want to kill family owned small business and family farms.

It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

Or we could reform our unaffordable middle class entitlements.

Hate to be the first to tell you but there are no family farms left, sure a few tax write offs and property tax schemes, but actual family farms are a thing of the past and if the biz is worth more thab 5 million it ain't small no more.

The thing is we are always either cutting taxes or not raising them "for the economy" and all that money has got stuck at the top the only way to pay the bill is to take it at their death. Of course the guys who made all the money from all that borrowing would rather some body else pay the debt, maybe from their retirement account, nothing new about that fat cats have been stealing the pension money for decades.

Stuck at the top? That's awful!
People keeping the money they make. We need to give it to government so they can make good investments with it. We need more Solyndras, for the children!

I know what you mean about fatcats, politicians here in Illinois have been looting the public pension funds forever.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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 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

tax cuts increased revenue

fucking morons, you'd think we would forget that?

 

[Rshermr]

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing

Great idea! If you want to kill family owned small business and family farms.

It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

Or we could reform our unaffordable middle class entitlements.

Really, Todster. "Killing all those Small Businesses and Family Farms."???
Truth is, and I would be shocked if you did not know this, is that the current deduction is $5.12M. So, once you arrive at the TAXABLE estate value, you can reduce the taxable income by $5.12M. That is a full deduction of all taxable income in 2012. Then, if congress does nothing, the deduction drops to $1M. And, both dem and repubs want to increase that deduction.
Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, would you call and estate of over $5M a SMALL business or farm. How about over $2.5M?
And, of course, the rates thereafter are progressive. So, I guess I just do not see these companies or farms small. And, even if they do go over the deduction, after all other deductions have been taken, then the marginal rate is not that high. And, of course, the owner should be planning for the eventuality, and in fact they usually do.

So, now I have to feel bad about someone who receives an inheritance of over $2.5M (or whatever it ends up being) because they may have to sell part of it, or even all of it, for that matter. But not for others who did not inherit even $1K? So, you are for someone who did nothing except being born to the correct family being wealthy? How un-republican can you get? Oh, that is right, repubs do not believe in give-aways to anyone, unless the recipients of the give-aways are wealthy.
So, give the wealthy their inheritance, do not tax it. But reduce entitlements to the working middle class. Gee, wonder where you get YOUR ideas????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If economist can't make predictions what good are they?

Obama's economists predicted unemployment would remain below 8% if the stimulus was passed. I guess we should get rid of the politicians who hired Greenspan and Obama's economists.

Obama's boys may not be perfect, 8.5 is not less than 8 or whatever, but how can you compare that to the guys that said the Iraq War would cost less than a billion?

Not perfect? Is that the defense for $800 billion in wasted stimulus?
Less than a billion? You're lying.

Don't screw up the quote function.

 

[Toro]

We aren't in this mess because of the Bush tax cuts but the deficit would be lower if they had been allowed to expire. Growth probably would have been lower too.

 

[Toro]

tax cuts increased revenue

fucking morons, you'd think we would forget that?

Income taxes do not increase revenues unless they are cut from an extremely high level.

 

[Toro]

The current total national debt is nearly 16 trillion dollars, or will be in the next few weeks. The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the first 10 years was about 3 trillion, which leaves some 13 trillion that is due to over reasons. And one could argue that those tax cuts did spur a nice economic spurt from 2003-2008, when the recession hit. So, the 3 trillion dollar cost was probably offset somewhat by the improvement in economic growth and employment that resulted.

I do not deny that those tax cuts did increase the debt, but to say that it's the only reason is wrong. It was more likely the increase in spending during both administrations that is more responsible.

I think you underestimate how much the economy would have benefitted from the 3 trillion dollars of job creating stimulus that would have occurred if the federal government had not been providing a safe place to put the money by issuing bonds. When people are forced to take risks they create jobs, today no one has to risk any money they can buy a bond instead, since there are so many available.

This doesn't make much sense. There wouldn't have been another $3 trillion stimulus. Money isn't "put in a safe place by issuing bonds." The bonds are issued and the cash is spent by the government. And nobody would have been forced to take risk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing but it is what in the end will happen the only thing we don’t know is how long we wait and how long the tax will have run and how close to the projected 99% will it have to be. It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop

I think a 99% death tax after say 5 mill so those that reap what the government sowed can pay the debt we ran up in the name of the economy it’s not only the right and fair thing

Great idea! If you want to kill family owned small business and family farms.

It is where the money is, the trust funds of the great families

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

we either take the money from there and pay the bill or we close shop, I don’t think we will close shop.

Or we could reform our unaffordable middle class entitlements.

Really, Todster. "Killing all those Small Businesses and Family Farms."???
Truth is, and I would be shocked if you did not know this, is that the current deduction is $5.12M. So, once you arrive at the TAXABLE estate value, you can reduce the taxable income by $5.12M. That is a full deduction of all taxable income in 2012. Then, if congress does nothing, the deduction drops to $1M. And, both dem and repubs want to increase that deduction.
Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, would you call and estate of over $5M a SMALL business or farm. How about over $2.5M?
And, of course, the rates thereafter are progressive. So, I guess I just do not see these companies or farms small. And, even if they do go over the deduction, after all other deductions have been taken, then the marginal rate is not that high. And, of course, the owner should be planning for the eventuality, and in fact they usually do.

So, now I have to feel bad about someone who receives an inheritance of over $2.5M (or whatever it ends up being) because they may have to sell part of it, or even all of it, for that matter. But not for others who did not inherit even $1K? So, you are for someone who did nothing except being born to the correct family being wealthy? How un-republican can you get? Oh, that is right, repubs do not believe in give-aways to anyone, unless the recipients of the give-aways are wealthy.
So, give the wealthy their inheritance, do not tax it. But reduce entitlements to the working middle class. Gee, wonder where you get YOUR ideas????

Really, Todster. "Killing all those Small Businesses and Family Farms."???

Yes.

Truth is, and I would be shocked if you did not know this, is that the current deduction is $5.12M. So, once you arrive at the TAXABLE estate value, you can reduce the taxable income by $5.12M.

Idiot newbie wants to tax at 99% over $5 million. So if it's worth $6 million, you owe $990,000. I wonder if someone like Warren Buffett benefits from tax induced sales?

And, of course, the owner should be planning for the eventuality, and in fact they usually do.

Yes, wasting resources to pay estate taxes instead of using your money to expand the business. Great idea!

So, now I have to feel bad about someone who receives an inheritance of over $2.5M (or whatever it ends up being) because they may have to sell part of it, or even all of it, for that matter.

Don't feel bad for them, tax the shit out of them.

So, you are for someone who did nothing except being born to the correct family being wealthy?

Obviously the government deserves the money more than the family.

But reduce entitlements to the working middle class.

The death tax raises a few billion each year and causes huge economic distortions.
Middle class entitlements have a long term shortfall somewhere north of $60 trillion.
I look for savings where the real money is. Sorry if the math is too complicated for you.