America’s wealthiest families smash income ceiling, middle-class left far behind

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Despite, or because of, the fallout from the 2007 Great Recession, annual earnings between the richest Americans and everybody else have exploded to record levels. Meanwhile middle- and lower-class wealth growth remains stagnant.
The median wealth for high-income families hit $639,400 last year, a whopping 7 percent jump from three years earlier and seven times greater than middle-class incomes, which stood at $96,500 according to Pew Research Center, citing data from the Federal Reserve.
Middle-class median wealth, which Pew defines as the difference between the value of a household’s total assets and debts, has not advanced since 2010.
The financial chasm now separating the rich and everybody else is the widest since the Fed began tracking earnings 30 years ago, which became even more pronounced following the 2008 global financial crisis.
America 8217 s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record Pew Research Center

Wealth Gap between America s Rich and Middle-Class Families Widest on Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

IMO The American Dream was always a myth, but now it has turned into a nightmare for 47% of Americans. This robbing of the poor half of the population has been quite deliberate, by allowing unchecked immigration to obtain cheap labor and by off shoring of jobs to India and China. The Federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since Obama took office, while the cost of living has increased substantially. There is no justification for this, since corporate profits have never been higher.

Zzz. Oh good. More mindless and basically dishonest class warfare divide and conquer rhetoric from the left.

Shout out a healthy "1%!"

Tell us something about "workers of the World, UNITE!"

Then consume an enormous mug of stfu already. Your stale shit is stale. And shit.

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 9 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

Perhaps because you are a low info troll? Just saying

Despite, or because of, the fallout from the 2007 Great Recession, annual earnings between the richest Americans and everybody else have exploded to record levels. Meanwhile middle- and lower-class wealth growth remains stagnant.
The median wealth for high-income families hit $639,400 last year, a whopping 7 percent jump from three years earlier and seven times greater than middle-class incomes, which stood at $96,500 according to Pew Research Center, citing data from the Federal Reserve.
Middle-class median wealth, which Pew defines as the difference between the value of a household’s total assets and debts, has not advanced since 2010.
The financial chasm now separating the rich and everybody else is the widest since the Fed began tracking earnings 30 years ago, which became even more pronounced following the 2008 global financial crisis.
America 8217 s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record Pew Research Center

Wealth Gap between America s Rich and Middle-Class Families Widest on Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

IMO The American Dream was always a myth, but now it has turned into a nightmare for 47% of Americans. This robbing of the poor half of the population has been quite deliberate, by allowing unchecked immigration to obtain cheap labor and by off shoring of jobs to India and China. The Federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since Obama took office, while the cost of living has increased substantially. There is no justification for this, since corporate profits have never been higher.

Zzz. Oh good. More mindless and basically dishonest class warfare divide and conquer rhetoric from the left.

Shout out a healthy "1%!"

Tell us something about "workers of the World, UNITE!"

Then consume an enormous mug of stfu already. Your stale shit is stale. And shit.

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 9 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

Perhaps because you are a low info troll? Just saying

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 10 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

 

[Dad2three]

Despite, or because of, the fallout from the 2007 Great Recession, annual earnings between the richest Americans and everybody else have exploded to record levels. Meanwhile middle- and lower-class wealth growth remains stagnant.
The median wealth for high-income families hit $639,400 last year, a whopping 7 percent jump from three years earlier and seven times greater than middle-class incomes, which stood at $96,500 according to Pew Research Center, citing data from the Federal Reserve.
Middle-class median wealth, which Pew defines as the difference between the value of a household’s total assets and debts, has not advanced since 2010.
The financial chasm now separating the rich and everybody else is the widest since the Fed began tracking earnings 30 years ago, which became even more pronounced following the 2008 global financial crisis.
America 8217 s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record Pew Research Center

Wealth Gap between America s Rich and Middle-Class Families Widest on Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

IMO The American Dream was always a myth, but now it has turned into a nightmare for 47% of Americans. This robbing of the poor half of the population has been quite deliberate, by allowing unchecked immigration to obtain cheap labor and by off shoring of jobs to India and China. The Federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since Obama took office, while the cost of living has increased substantially. There is no justification for this, since corporate profits have never been higher.

Zzz. Oh good. More mindless and basically dishonest class warfare divide and conquer rhetoric from the left.

Shout out a healthy "1%!"

Tell us something about "workers of the World, UNITE!"

Then consume an enormous mug of stfu already. Your stale shit is stale. And shit.

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 9 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

Perhaps because you are a low info troll? Just saying

Despite, or because of, the fallout from the 2007 Great Recession, annual earnings between the richest Americans and everybody else have exploded to record levels. Meanwhile middle- and lower-class wealth growth remains stagnant.
The median wealth for high-income families hit $639,400 last year, a whopping 7 percent jump from three years earlier and seven times greater than middle-class incomes, which stood at $96,500 according to Pew Research Center, citing data from the Federal Reserve.
Middle-class median wealth, which Pew defines as the difference between the value of a household’s total assets and debts, has not advanced since 2010.
The financial chasm now separating the rich and everybody else is the widest since the Fed began tracking earnings 30 years ago, which became even more pronounced following the 2008 global financial crisis.
America 8217 s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record Pew Research Center

Wealth Gap between America s Rich and Middle-Class Families Widest on Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

IMO The American Dream was always a myth, but now it has turned into a nightmare for 47% of Americans. This robbing of the poor half of the population has been quite deliberate, by allowing unchecked immigration to obtain cheap labor and by off shoring of jobs to India and China. The Federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since Obama took office, while the cost of living has increased substantially. There is no justification for this, since corporate profits have never been higher.

Zzz. Oh good. More mindless and basically dishonest class warfare divide and conquer rhetoric from the left.

Shout out a healthy "1%!"

Tell us something about "workers of the World, UNITE!"

Then consume an enormous mug of stfu already. Your stale shit is stale. And shit.

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 9 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

Perhaps because you are a low info troll? Just saying

I have asked dumbto3 if he is a communist 10 times but he won't answer. I wonder why??

To the low info right like you, Reagan would be a commie today. That's why!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A bunch of persuasive gullible middle class idiots that only pay half attention and voted for an absolute moron and a racist American freedom hater now have less money than they did under the Bush administration. I think they were warned. Live with it morons...hahahahahahahahahahaha I'm soooooo ******* glad I'm set for life and I don't have to worry about financial matters. I feel sorry for younger middle class folks today. You are screwed and will not live as well as your middle class parents have. Please America! No more idiot community organizers....okay?

September 27, 2010

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.

Tax Analysts -- So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy


The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.


The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn t Fix Economy - Business Insider


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn't Worked


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn t Worked Byron Williams

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, things would have been better if the tech bubble had gone on and on and on.

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

 

[Dad2three]

A bunch of persuasive gullible middle class idiots that only pay half attention and voted for an absolute moron and a racist American freedom hater now have less money than they did under the Bush administration. I think they were warned. Live with it morons...hahahahahahahahahahaha I'm soooooo ******* glad I'm set for life and I don't have to worry about financial matters. I feel sorry for younger middle class folks today. You are screwed and will not live as well as your middle class parents have. Please America! No more idiot community organizers....okay?

September 27, 2010

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.

Tax Analysts -- So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy


The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.


The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn t Fix Economy - Business Insider


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn't Worked


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn t Worked Byron Williams

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, things would have been better if the tech bubble had gone on and on and on.

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The law, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and offices and move those jobs overseas to take a tax deduction for the costs associated with moving the jobs to China or India or wherever."

If a company moves equipment and incurs an expense, it can write off that business expense.
There is no expense to "ship a job", so no write off.

It would be fun to cut our corporate tax rate to a sane level, so foreign countries would "ship jobs" here. I guess Dems aren't interested in that.

Right Gov't couldn't get rid of that expense write off right? Can you guess who has fought Obama's proposals since 2010 to lower Corp taxes from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes to use for infrastructure?



Yeah, jobs aren't being created in the US because the tax rates *shaking head*

HINT RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR EXPENSE EVER RECORDED AND A 11% AVG CORP RATE!

Right Gov't couldn't get rid of that expense write off right?

You don't want a corporation to write off the expense of shipping equipment?

Can you guess who has fought Obama's proposals since 2010 to lower Corp taxes from 35% to 28%

The people who understand his proposal would end up increasing taxes?

Yeah, jobs aren't being created in the US because the tax rates *shaking head*

Jobs are lost to lower rate areas so they won't come back, or be lost more slowly, if our rates are lowered? Is that your claim? LOL!

"You don't want a corporation to write off the expense of shipping equipment?"

NOT offshore!


"The people who understand his proposal would end up increasing taxes?"


Nonsense, it gets rid of loopholes that allow US Corp EFFECTIVE tax rates to be lower only in Mexico and Chile in the developed world!



"Jobs are lost to lower rate areas so they won't come back, or be lost more slowly, if our rates are lowered? Is that your claim? LOL"



Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba. My posit is they offshore jobs thanks to lower wages, nothing to do with the 3rd lowest effective rate in the developed world in the US

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012

Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”

Other Findings:

• One hundred and eleven of the 288 companies (39 percent of them) paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2012.

The tax breaks claimed by these companies are highly concentrated in the hands of a few very large corporations. Just 25 companies claimed $174 billion in tax breaks over the five years between 2008 and 2012. That’s almost half the $364 billion in tax subsidies claimed by all of the 288 companies in our sample.

• Five companies — Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, and Verizon — enjoyed over $77 billion in tax breaks during this five-year period.


Recommendations for Reform:

• Congress should repeal the rule allowing American multinational corporations to indefinitely “defer” their U.S. taxes on their offshore profits. This reform would effectively remove the tax incentive to shift profits and jobs overseas.

• Limit the ability of tech and other companies to use executive stock options to reduce their taxes by generating phantom “costs” these companies never actually incur.

• Reinstate a strong corporate Alternative Minimum Tax that really does the job it was originally designed to do.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba. My posit is they offshore jobs thanks to lower wages, nothing to do with the 3rd lowest effective rate in the developed world in the US

With such low rates, I'm shocked Obama was whining about inversions.

Limit the ability of tech and other companies to use executive stock options to reduce their taxes by generating phantom “costs” these companies never actually incur.

Stock options? You mean the thing they used after Clinton stuck it to them by making executive salary non-deductible over $1 million?
How'd that work out? LOL!

AGAIN:

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba.

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba.

I agree, Bubba Clinton can't ever be honest.
And would never admit his role in stock options expansion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A bunch of persuasive gullible middle class idiots that only pay half attention and voted for an absolute moron and a racist American freedom hater now have less money than they did under the Bush administration. I think they were warned. Live with it morons...hahahahahahahahahahaha I'm soooooo ******* glad I'm set for life and I don't have to worry about financial matters. I feel sorry for younger middle class folks today. You are screwed and will not live as well as your middle class parents have. Please America! No more idiot community organizers....okay?

September 27, 2010

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.

Tax Analysts -- So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy


The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.


The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn t Fix Economy - Business Insider


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn't Worked


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn t Worked Byron Williams

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, things would have been better if the tech bubble had gone on and on and on.

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Right Gov't couldn't get rid of that expense write off right? Can you guess who has fought Obama's proposals since 2010 to lower Corp taxes from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes to use for infrastructure?



Yeah, jobs aren't being created in the US because the tax rates *shaking head*

HINT RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR EXPENSE EVER RECORDED AND A 11% AVG CORP RATE!

Right Gov't couldn't get rid of that expense write off right?

You don't want a corporation to write off the expense of shipping equipment?

Can you guess who has fought Obama's proposals since 2010 to lower Corp taxes from 35% to 28%

The people who understand his proposal would end up increasing taxes?

Yeah, jobs aren't being created in the US because the tax rates *shaking head*

Jobs are lost to lower rate areas so they won't come back, or be lost more slowly, if our rates are lowered? Is that your claim? LOL!

"You don't want a corporation to write off the expense of shipping equipment?"

NOT offshore!


"The people who understand his proposal would end up increasing taxes?"


Nonsense, it gets rid of loopholes that allow US Corp EFFECTIVE tax rates to be lower only in Mexico and Chile in the developed world!



"Jobs are lost to lower rate areas so they won't come back, or be lost more slowly, if our rates are lowered? Is that your claim? LOL"



Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba. My posit is they offshore jobs thanks to lower wages, nothing to do with the 3rd lowest effective rate in the developed world in the US

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012

Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”

Other Findings:

• One hundred and eleven of the 288 companies (39 percent of them) paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2012.

The tax breaks claimed by these companies are highly concentrated in the hands of a few very large corporations. Just 25 companies claimed $174 billion in tax breaks over the five years between 2008 and 2012. That’s almost half the $364 billion in tax subsidies claimed by all of the 288 companies in our sample.

• Five companies — Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, and Verizon — enjoyed over $77 billion in tax breaks during this five-year period.


Recommendations for Reform:

• Congress should repeal the rule allowing American multinational corporations to indefinitely “defer” their U.S. taxes on their offshore profits. This reform would effectively remove the tax incentive to shift profits and jobs overseas.

• Limit the ability of tech and other companies to use executive stock options to reduce their taxes by generating phantom “costs” these companies never actually incur.

• Reinstate a strong corporate Alternative Minimum Tax that really does the job it was originally designed to do.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba. My posit is they offshore jobs thanks to lower wages, nothing to do with the 3rd lowest effective rate in the developed world in the US

With such low rates, I'm shocked Obama was whining about inversions.

Limit the ability of tech and other companies to use executive stock options to reduce their taxes by generating phantom “costs” these companies never actually incur.

Stock options? You mean the thing they used after Clinton stuck it to them by making executive salary non-deductible over $1 million?
How'd that work out? LOL!

AGAIN:

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba.

Can't EVER be honest I see Bubba.

I agree, Bubba Clinton can't ever be honest.
And would never admit his role in stock options expansion.

Oh right you wanted to dodge to another thing.

 

[Dad2three]

September 27, 2010

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.

Tax Analysts -- So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy


The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.


The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn t Fix Economy - Business Insider


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn't Worked


Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn t Worked Byron Williams

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, things would have been better if the tech bubble had gone on and on and on.

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

Oh you want to use static dollars. Of course Bubba

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

2003 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.7%

2004 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.6%

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, Bubba Clinton can't ever be honest.

And would never admit his role in stock options expansion.

Oh right you wanted to dodge to another thing.

Pointing out what Clinton did and the response by corporations didn't dodge a thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, things would have been better if the tech bubble had gone on and on and on.

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

Oh you want to use static dollars. Of course Bubba

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

2003 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.7%

2004 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.6%

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

In 2001, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.
In 2002, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.

Was that enough to cut tax receipts by 3% of GDP? Prove it.
Show all your work.

 

[Dad2three]

I agree, Bubba Clinton can't ever be honest.

And would never admit his role in stock options expansion.

Oh right you wanted to dodge to another thing.

Pointing out what Clinton did and the response by corporations didn't dodge a thing.

Go back to the original posit, stop trying to argue something else Bubba

HINT RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR EXPENSE EVER RECORDED AND A 11% AVG CORP RATE!

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012
The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice

 

[Dad2three]

Bubble popped in early 2000. Weird, Dubya had ZERO growth in 8 years right? lol

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

Oh you want to use static dollars. Of course Bubba

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

2003 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.7%

2004 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.6%

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

In 2001, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.
In 2002, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.

Was that enough to cut tax receipts by 3% of GDP? Prove it.
Show all your work.

Better ask CBO Bubba

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

10 years ago tomorrow, the first of the Bush tax cuts was enacted. That 2001 tax cut was followed up by a second tax cut in 2003, passed after Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” The tax cuts were sold as necessary economic stimulus that would boost job creation and a moribund economy. “Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities,” Bush said on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first tax cut. Two years later he said, “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.” Bush called the 2001 tax cut, “a victory for fairness and a vote for economic growth.” Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said that the cuts were necessary to “spur the economy on.” And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.

DIDN’T CREATE JOBS: The lofty rhetoric used by conservatives to sell the Bush tax cuts didn’t match reality.

During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.” Following the Bush tax cuts, “Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967.”

Ten Years Of The Bush Tax Cuts ThinkProgress

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it's weird that the NASDAQ bubble popped and that tax revenues fell.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

Oh you want to use static dollars. Of course Bubba

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

2003 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.7%

2004 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.6%

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

In 2001, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.
In 2002, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.

Was that enough to cut tax receipts by 3% of GDP? Prove it.
Show all your work.

Better ask CBO Bubba

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

10 years ago tomorrow, the first of the Bush tax cuts was enacted. That 2001 tax cut was followed up by a second tax cut in 2003, passed after Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” The tax cuts were sold as necessary economic stimulus that would boost job creation and a moribund economy. “Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities,” Bush said on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first tax cut. Two years later he said, “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.” Bush called the 2001 tax cut, “a victory for fairness and a vote for economic growth.” Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said that the cuts were necessary to “spur the economy on.” And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.

DIDN’T CREATE JOBS: The lofty rhetoric used by conservatives to sell the Bush tax cuts didn’t match reality.

During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.” Following the Bush tax cuts, “Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967.”

Ten Years Of The Bush Tax Cuts ThinkProgress

As soon as you explain the revenue drop after the first cuts, 0.5% for 2001 and 0.5% for 2002, we can talk about the 2003 cuts.

During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.”

Until Obama.

 

[Dad2three]

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

BUT it was this:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Tax revenues? lol, Oh right when Dubya gutted revenues?

Right. Income tax receipts dropped from $1.004 trillion in 2000
to $994 billion in 2001 and $858 billion in 2002, because Bush cut each bracket by 0.5% each year.
Corporate tax receipts dropped from $207 billion in 2000 to $151 billion in 2001, $148 billion in 2002, $132 billion in 2003, because he cut the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 35%.
Idiot.

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

Yes, if only the bubble had continued for 8 more years. LOL!

Oh you want to use static dollars. Of course Bubba

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

2003 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.7%

2004 THEY PUSHED IT TO 15.6%

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

2000 THERE WAS 20.0% OF GDP

2001 IT WENT DOWN TO 18.8%

2002 DUBYA.GOP PUSHED IT DOWN TO 17.0

In 2001, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.
In 2002, he cut each tax bracket by 0.5%.

Was that enough to cut tax receipts by 3% of GDP? Prove it.
Show all your work.

Better ask CBO Bubba

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

10 years ago tomorrow, the first of the Bush tax cuts was enacted. That 2001 tax cut was followed up by a second tax cut in 2003, passed after Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” The tax cuts were sold as necessary economic stimulus that would boost job creation and a moribund economy. “Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities,” Bush said on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first tax cut. Two years later he said, “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.” Bush called the 2001 tax cut, “a victory for fairness and a vote for economic growth.” Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said that the cuts were necessary to “spur the economy on.” And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.

DIDN’T CREATE JOBS: The lofty rhetoric used by conservatives to sell the Bush tax cuts didn’t match reality.

During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.” Following the Bush tax cuts, “Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967.”

Ten Years Of The Bush Tax Cuts ThinkProgress

As soon as you explain the revenue drop after the first cuts, 0.5% for 2001 and 0.5% for 2002, we can talk about the 2003 cuts.

During the decade after the Bush tax cuts were passed, “growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.”

Until Obama.

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

But yes, Dubya sure hosed Obama, but NOPE he still has better GDP, economic growth AND jobs than Dubya

James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death - Thoughts From The Frontline - Investment Strategies Analysis Intelligence for Seasoned Investors.

BUSH'S BANKSTER PONZI SCHEME WAS ALL HE HAD BUBBA


Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


DUBYA LOST 1+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS, EVEN STOPPING 2007, HE ONLY HAD 4 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS, LOL

Obama has a NET of over 8 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 6 years

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

 

[Dad2three]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

 

[Dad2three]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

AGAIN THOUGH, IT WAS FROM THE 20% OF GDP CARTER/CLINTON HAD US AT TO 15% DUBYA TOOK US TOO!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

 

[Dad2three]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol