Why aren't the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

[NYcarbineer]

A. There were no tax cuts, instead they decided not to raise taxes. Which as you no doubt know, was what would have happened if they had not extended the BTCs. It done by Pres Obama and the dems before the GOP took control of the House, if you don't like it, blame the Dems. But even Obama himself said that to raise taxes in this environment would have been a bad idea.

B. Nobody promised more jobs when the BTCs were extended, it was done to preclude further loss of jobs and head off another recession. That 700-800 billion that the BTCs cost for the top income earners is spread over 10 years, seems like you're trying to imply the entire cost should have an immediate effect.

The CBO estimated the cost at over 800 billion, owing to lost revenue.

The question is, if job creation wasn't the rationale for that hit to deficit/debt, what WAS the rationale?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya know NYCarbo -- EXTENDING a tax cut does not neccesarily have a cheery effect to get things moving. At least not the same as a vote that would have SOME economic stimulus to it.. It simply WASN't a tax cut by definition..

Secondly -- THE UNCERTAINTY of whether those cuts were gonna be extended contributes to all the malaise due to indecision of the Dem Congress (pre - nov 2010). Did they HAVE to wait to LAST MINUTE?

There's 2 possible explanations. But you're right --- I'm not a right-winger -- so maybe I don't count..

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

 

[L.K.Eder]

In 2007, when Nancy and Harry took power, 150.6 Americans had jobs.

After 4 years of Democrat Economic wizardry, 139.2 Americans have jobs.

Your party is doing great!

damn, that's really sad.

only 150.6 americans had a job?

.....Especially for that .6 dude!!!!!

​

well, at least he was almost one in a 300 millions, with a job.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If they aren't working why did Barry extend them?

Now that's a good question. Obama wanted to extend the cuts for the middle class only and was counting on consumer spending. Trouble is, the middle class didn't spend and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. Much of the middle class was/is living check-to-check thanks to almost four decades of flat wages, to extend the tax cut to them didn't give them more money to spend, it just kept them at the status quo. And the upper income tier with their extension also held the line for investing in creating jobs in America. But that same group invested in companies that were and are doing quite well by directing their growth overseas and creating jobs overseas.
So Obama went 0 for 2.

....Not to MENTION....

.....that was the ONLY way Republicans would agree to extending Unemployment checks.....only if Obama extended the Bush Tax-Cuts.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will I my bet that no one on the Right will have an intelligent answer??

Try providing an intelligent premise.... you know, one other than Bbbuuuuussssshhhhhhhhhh... you might be surprised at what you get.

They weren't the Bush tax cuts that were extended in 2010? I can't refer to Bush when referring to the Bush tax cuts?

Can I call them the Arbusto tax cuts?

And what is the false premise? That the Bush tax cuts aren't working? If that's false, tell us how it's false.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

Do you guys have any idea how many jobs were "saved" by the Bush tax cuts....
That's my answer.

If we have to give thanks daily to President Obama for the Stimulus and have to hear about all the jobs that were saved because of it reverse logic hold forth that the Bush tax cuts saved as many jobs....

Did you miss the news today? Did you miss all the Republican/conservative/USMB wingnut commentary on the news today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A. There were no tax cuts, instead they decided not to raise taxes. Which as you no doubt know, was what would have happened if they had not extended the BTCs. It done by Pres Obama and the dems before the GOP took control of the House, if you don't like it, blame the Dems. But even Obama himself said that to raise taxes in this environment would have been a bad idea.

B. Nobody promised more jobs when the BTCs were extended, it was done to preclude further loss of jobs and head off another recession. That 700-800 billion that the BTCs cost for the top income earners is spread over 10 years, seems like you're trying to imply the entire cost should have an immediate effect.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create jobs. They were passed in what, 2001-3? How long does it take?

You should check the BLS employment numbers from 2003 - 2008. Up until the shit hit the fan, those tax cuts worked pretty well.

Oh, so the tax cuts worked except when they didn't? That's hee-larious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

What ever Economic Growth and News Jobs realized by the lower tax rates happened long ago.

So you believe every time the economy sinks, we have to cut taxes FURTHER? You realize you eventually end up at ZERO with that formula, right?

 

[Wiseacre]

A. There were no tax cuts, instead they decided not to raise taxes. Which as you no doubt know, was what would have happened if they had not extended the BTCs. It done by Pres Obama and the dems before the GOP took control of the House, if you don't like it, blame the Dems. But even Obama himself said that to raise taxes in this environment would have been a bad idea.

B. Nobody promised more jobs when the BTCs were extended, it was done to preclude further loss of jobs and head off another recession. That 700-800 billion that the BTCs cost for the top income earners is spread over 10 years, seems like you're trying to imply the entire cost should have an immediate effect.

The CBO estimated the cost at over 800 billion, owing to lost revenue.

The question is, if job creation wasn't the rationale for that hit to deficit/debt, what WAS the rationale?

It was 800 billion over the next 10 years man, you want 800 billion dollars worth of value right now? And dude, the rtionale wasn't to create more jobs, it was to prevent more jobs from being lost. The thought was that if the tax cuts on the rich is allowed to expire that the economy would take a hit. So whatever we got now woulda been worse than it already is.

Now if you don't agree with that, fine. The dem controlled Congress extended the tax cuts before the GOP took control of the House and Obama signed it, so isn't your argument more with them than the repubs?

 

[Trajan]

Ya know NYCarbo -- EXTENDING a tax cut does not neccesarily have a cheery effect to get things moving. At least not the same as a vote that would have SOME economic stimulus to it.. It simply WASN't a tax cut by definition..

Secondly -- THE UNCERTAINTY of whether those cuts were gonna be extended contributes to all the malaise due to indecision of the Dem Congress (pre - nov 2010). Did they HAVE to wait to LAST MINUTE?

There's 2 possible explanations. But you're right --- I'm not a right-winger -- so maybe I don't count..

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

and the correlation please?

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

grow federal revenue and create jobs.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If they aren't working why did Barry extend them?

For the umpteenth time, Obama extended them because Republicans forced him to.

Republicans held unemployment for millions of Americans hostage just before Christmas. Obama just couldn't stand to see millions of Americans suffer.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

It wasn't that long ago. Look it up on the Internet.

Be patient with the 'Baggers.

Ya' gotta remember.....they were primarily soap-opera & NASCAR fans.....until a Black-dude was elected President....and, the Teabaggers (all-of-a-sudden) discovered politics.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create jobs. They were passed in what, 2001-3? How long does it take?

In 2007, when Nancy and Harry took power, 150.6 Americans had jobs.

After 4 years of Democrat Economic wizardry, 139.2 Americans have jobs.

Your party is doing great!

How much did Nancy and Harry raise taxes?

Most have forgotten that there was a 2008 stimulus package under Bush that also had tax cuts in it.

 

[Trajan]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

What ever Economic Growth and News Jobs realized by the lower tax rates happened long ago.

So you believe every time the economy sinks, we have to cut taxes FURTHER? You realize you eventually end up at ZERO with that formula, right?

and the inverse is true, its called the laffer curve....walked right into that one sonny...

 

[AmericanFirst]

A. There were no tax cuts, instead they decided not to raise taxes. Which as you no doubt know, was what would have happened if they had not extended the BTCs. It done by Pres Obama and the dems before the GOP took control of the House, if you don't like it, blame the Dems. But even Obama himself said that to raise taxes in this environment would have been a bad idea.

B. Nobody promised more jobs when the BTCs were extended, it was done to preclude further loss of jobs and head off another recession. That 700-800 billion that the BTCs cost for the top income earners is spread over 10 years, seems like you're trying to imply the entire cost should have an immediate effect.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create jobs. They were passed in what, 2001-3? How long does it take?

You should check the BLS employment numbers from 2003 - 2008. Up until the shit hit the fan, those tax cuts worked pretty well.

Yep, and the shit hit the fan after the dimwits took control of the house and senate, lets not forget that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya know NYCarbo -- EXTENDING a tax cut does not neccesarily have a cheery effect to get things moving. At least not the same as a vote that would have SOME economic stimulus to it.. It simply WASN't a tax cut by definition..

Secondly -- THE UNCERTAINTY of whether those cuts were gonna be extended contributes to all the malaise due to indecision of the Dem Congress (pre - nov 2010). Did they HAVE to wait to LAST MINUTE?

There's 2 possible explanations. But you're right --- I'm not a right-winger -- so maybe I don't count..

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

and the correlation please?

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

grow federal revenue and create jobs.

I don't have to show correlation. I'm using the 'Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues' wingnut logic,

unless of course you'd like to establish once and for all that that logic is horseshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What ever Economic Growth and News Jobs realized by the lower tax rates happened long ago.

So you believe every time the economy sinks, we have to cut taxes FURTHER? You realize you eventually end up at ZERO with that formula, right?

and the inverse is true, its called the laffer curve....walked right into that one sonny...

I didn't propose repeatedly raising taxes until they reach 100%. Don't change the subject.

The other poster's implied reasoning was that every time the economy slows down you have to cut taxes lower from where they were,

with no intermittent increases. Therefore over the course of many business cycles, eventually taxes would reach zero.

 

[AmericanFirst]

A. There were no tax cuts, instead they decided not to raise taxes. Which as you no doubt know, was what would have happened if they had not extended the BTCs. It done by Pres Obama and the dems before the GOP took control of the House, if you don't like it, blame the Dems. But even Obama himself said that to raise taxes in this environment would have been a bad idea.

B. Nobody promised more jobs when the BTCs were extended, it was done to preclude further loss of jobs and head off another recession. That 700-800 billion that the BTCs cost for the top income earners is spread over 10 years, seems like you're trying to imply the entire cost should have an immediate effect.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create jobs. They were passed in what, 2001-3? How long does it take?

In 2007, when Nancy and Harry took power, 150.6 Americans had jobs.

After 4 years of Democrat Economic wizardry, 139.2 Americans have jobs.

Your party is doing great!

Yet they lie all the time saying their party are the bright ones. Idiots.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If they aren't working why did Barry extend them?

For the umpteenth time, Obama extended them because Republicans forced him to.

Republicans held unemployment for millions of Americans hostage just before Christmas. Obama just couldn't stand to see millions of Americans suffer.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

It wasn't that long ago. Look it up on the Internet.

Republicans don't give a shit about the American middle class. We see it in all their policies. From tax cuts for the wealthy, to cutting Medicare to the apology to BP and wanting the middle class to pay for the clean up. THEY DO NOTHING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS! NOTHING! Obama's payroll tax cut was aimed right at helping the middle class. The Bush tax cuts had just enough to keep the Republican middle class from protesting. But it was really a tax cut for the wealthy. And most of it went to the wealthy no matter what those lemmings on this board say.

Republicans didn't force him Obama to do anything. Obama wanted to shower his voters with more handouts after they already had 99 weeks of them. These people have been on vacation for 2 years. Enough is enough.

Please.

NO one was extended beyond their 99 Weeks.

That's just another bullshit/Limbaugh LIE!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Republicans didn't force him Obama to do anything. Obama wanted to shower his voters with more handouts after they already had 99 weeks of them. These people have been on vacation for 2 years. Enough is enough.

What fucking handouts are you talking about? Unemployment benefits? What? The wealth of the nation has been moved to the top 5% and you are talking about "handouts"? What handouts? Subsidies for oil companies and tax breaks for corporations and billionaires are "Handouts". Can't you see that?

Getting paid NOT to work is a handout. It is simple as that.

Example:

Congressional-Republicans....during Obama's first-eighteen-months, in-office.

Shouting "NO!!" doesn't qualify as work.​

 

[AmericanFirst]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

Obamacare.

Most of that health care hasn't even taken effect. No, the economy you see now comes from millions of jobs being moved to China from 2001 to 2008, and the Republican redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 5%. If no one has any money to buy anything, there is no demand, then no supply, and finally, no jobs. That's how the economy works.

Moving the wealth to the top in the hopes they "make jobs", is foolish. I know it's the only economic policy the Republicans have, which is why it's called "trickle down", but this time, the problem is so big because Republicans were in power a long time so the effects of theirs disaster tend to "pile up".

I'm not sure the " blame game" will work for them this time. Their hatred of the black guy in the White House has left their bankrupted policies exposed.

I see you are still a racist idiot, idiot.