besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?

[GunZawga]

Where the money was spent is inconsequential. NYC said the tax cuts reduced the amount of revenue. He's wrong and that's what I showed him.

Tax revenue fell in 2001, 2002, 2008, and 2009.

Correct, revenue was already falling in 2001 and then 9-11 hit. Tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. You'll see that revenue jumped sharply thereafter. Regarding 2008 and 2009, you already know why that happened so I'm not sure why you are even bringing those years up.

It seems they are the end result of a failed policy of tax cuts. They work in the short term, I, unfortunately, live in the long term.

 

[thereisnospoon]

SERIOUSLY. WTF is wrong with the thinking of these liberals?

I can object to the confiscatory policies of the U.S Government in the collection to taxes without staking out the position that all taxation is immoral.

I derive benefits from living here in this Republic. I therefore grasp and appreciate the claim that I have an obligation to help support that same Republic. We do it via the income tax. I can object to the MANNER in which taxation is done, but again, as I said in a prior post, I realize it is likely here to stay. To that extent, I would encourage our representatives to get about the business of changing the way the income tax is calculated and collected. It is WAY past time to abandon the Tax Code in favor of something coherent. FLAT Tax or FAIR tax. But let's get it done.

But I don't object to the concept of taxation. I DO object to the claim of our government and some of our alleged "leaders" that we need to spend on much of the stuff we do spend on. And THAT is a much overdue and badly needed debate we all need to have.

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive. They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

Genius...it is not the actual act of taxation with which we disagree. It is the method by which we are taxed and of course the ways government comes up with to spend our money. Most of that spending is unwise and wasteful.
I for one would not say a word if government would operate like any other business. That is operate within a budget and on time. Government should be required by law to limit labor costs to no more than 30% of the total budget of any department. In real business that is the target. 30% limit on labor cost.
It is not the job or anyone else's purview to "level a playing field" . The reason for taxation is fund government so that it may provide lawful essential services. Nothing more nothing less. Any one who told you the government exists to take from one to give to another so that the receiver feels as though they being treated fairly is a lunatic for that is not even in the same universe as essential government function.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's say you make $50K a year and spend $60K a year. Sure cutting back on spending reduces your debt-no question.

But explain to me how making $55K a year, while still spending $60K doesn't.

Raising revenue also reduces debt (unless spending is also increased of course).

No. It. Does. Not.

Let me see if you can follow some simple math. You have been spending $60,000 dollars for ten years, and were only making $50,000 that entire time. Your debt is now $100,000 plus interest.

You get a raise, and are now making $55,000 a year. You still spend $60,000 dollars a year because your idiot brother in law told you that increasing revenue reduces debt. At the end of 10 years you owe an additional $50,000, the original $100,000, and compounded interest in the total. You raise did not decrease your debt in the slightest. The only way to decrease your debt is actually cut your spending to a level where you can put money toward paying it down.

By the way, if we want to actually make this about the government, they make $50,000 a year, spend $60,000 the first year, and increase spending every year by $5000 a year to get out of debt. At the end of 10 years they are $385,000 in debt, and are spending $60,000. They then try to hit you up for a raise to $55,000 a year, and promise you that they will spend even more money by increasing their spending at a rate of $10,000 a year because they get an additional $5,000.

How long will it take them to reduce the debt like that?

To the section I bolded: while this is true-it's not the ONLY way. Raising income will also off-set the deficit you face.

You clearly agreed that getting a pay increase of $5K would reduce the balance at the end of the year (provided you don't spend more). So what if instead of a $5K raise-it was a $15K raise. By this logic you'd match the $10K you overspend, AND reduce your deficit by $5K a year.

Where is the flaw in this logic? Making more than you take in is the only way to reduce the deficit-true. But there are two ways to accomplish this:

1. Cut your spending/spend within your limits

2. Increase your income, so you are now spending within your limits

Both of these conditions are of course provided you don't increase your spending.

edit: and this isn't directed at the person I quoted, but to others in this thread. Don't talk about how we need to follow the constitution, and ***** and moan about it-if you don't even know what's in it. Regardless of how it was originally drafted, ALL amendments are in effect (unless a later one makes an earlier one null and void). They are a part of the constitution. Period. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. It's not an opinion-it's a fact. Now if you don't agree with that portion of the constitution-that's a different story. If I thought that not having to house soldiers was stupid (for the record I obviously don't-just picking a very non-controversial amendment), that's fine-but it doesn't mean it's not in the constitution, and it doesn't mean it's not a part of the supreme law of the land.

You clearly have a problem with basic math and English. You debt increased at the end of the year, it did not decrease. What did go down was the rate of increase in your debt, which has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's say you make $50K a year and spend $60K a year. Sure cutting back on spending reduces your debt-no question.

But explain to me how making $55K a year, while still spending $60K doesn't.

Raising revenue also reduces debt (unless spending is also increased of course).

No. It. Does. Not.

Let me see if you can follow some simple math. You have been spending $60,000 dollars for ten years, and were only making $50,000 that entire time. Your debt is now $100,000 plus interest.

You get a raise, and are now making $55,000 a year. You still spend $60,000 dollars a year because your idiot brother in law told you that increasing revenue reduces debt. At the end of 10 years you owe an additional $50,000, the original $100,000, and compounded interest in the total. You raise did not decrease your debt in the slightest. The only way to decrease your debt is actually cut your spending to a level where you can put money toward paying it down.

By the way, if we want to actually make this about the government, they make $50,000 a year, spend $60,000 the first year, and increase spending every year by $5000 a year to get out of debt. At the end of 10 years they are $385,000 in debt, and are spending $60,000. They then try to hit you up for a raise to $55,000 a year, and promise you that they will spend even more money by increasing their spending at a rate of $10,000 a year because they get an additional $5,000.

How long will it take them to reduce the debt like that?

To the section I bolded: while this is true-it's not the ONLY way. Raising income will also off-set the deficit you face.

You clearly agreed that getting a pay increase of $5K would reduce the balance at the end of the year (provided you don't spend more). So what if instead of a $5K raise-it was a $15K raise. By this logic you'd match the $10K you overspend, AND reduce your deficit by $5K a year.

Where is the flaw in this logic? Making more than you take in is the only way to reduce the deficit-true. But there are two ways to accomplish this:

1. Cut your spending/spend within your limits

2. Increase your income, so you are now spending within your limits

Both of these conditions are of course provided you don't increase your spending.

edit: and this isn't directed at the person I quoted, but to others in this thread. Don't talk about how we need to follow the constitution, and ***** and moan about it-if you don't even know what's in it. Regardless of how it was originally drafted, ALL amendments are in effect (unless a later one makes an earlier one null and void). They are a part of the constitution. Period. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. It's not an opinion-it's a fact. Now if you don't agree with that portion of the constitution-that's a different story. If I thought that not having to house soldiers was stupid (for the record I obviously don't-just picking a very non-controversial amendment), that's fine-but it doesn't mean it's not in the constitution, and it doesn't mean it's not a part of the supreme law of the land.

In government spending always involves borrowing because government operates based on projected revenues. Actually government does not actually have that money to spend. Borrowing comes with interest.
The one thing that has never been tried but has been suggested is fiscal discipline. Each time this is brought up, politics gets in the way. Many factors. If budgets were to be slashed across the board many thousands of government workers would lose their jobs. I say, so what. Government work is not an entitlement and there was never an intent to grow government to the extent that it was done solely for the purpose of hiring more employees. However, that is what has happened time after time.
Your suggestion that government simply increase taxes to meet the levels of spending has never worked. That kind of operating policy has always resulted in larger deficits and more pork spending.
The best policy is to slash non-essential spending. That can be achieved by reducing labor costs. And before anyone goes off on the "what are these people supposed to do if they lose their government job" rant....well if these people are so highly skilled, they would have no problem slugging it out in the private sector just like the rest of us.
Government should cut spending and work within budget.

 

[JimH52]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

To think. The same people who thought that extending the cuts for everyone are the same ones that think the deficit is meaningless.

 

[The T]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

To think. The same people who thought that extending the cuts for everyone are the same ones that think the deficit is meaningless.

*whoops*

 

[The T]

Tax revenue fell in 2001, 2002, 2008, and 2009.

Correct, revenue was already falling in 2001 and then 9-11 hit. Tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. You'll see that revenue jumped sharply thereafter. Regarding 2008 and 2009, you already know why that happened so I'm not sure why you are even bringing those years up.

It seems they are the end result of a failed policy of tax cuts. They work in the short term, I, unfortunately, live in the long term.

And YOU live for Generational THEFT...Raising spending that the working among us can't keep up with because the Takers outweigh the producers.

YOU are a big Gubmint type creep that professes to understand the Constitution. *IF* you understood the Constitution? YOU wouldn't POST as YOU DO.

*YOU* are a poseur. FRAUD in other words.

 

[Liability]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

 

[Imma B Me]

SERIOUSLY. WTF is wrong with the thinking of these liberals?

I can object to the confiscatory policies of the U.S Government in the collection to taxes without staking out the position that all taxation is immoral.

I derive benefits from living here in this Republic. I therefore grasp and appreciate the claim that I have an obligation to help support that same Republic. We do it via the income tax. I can object to the MANNER in which taxation is done, but again, as I said in a prior post, I realize it is likely here to stay. To that extent, I would encourage our representatives to get about the business of changing the way the income tax is calculated and collected. It is WAY past time to abandon the Tax Code in favor of something coherent. FLAT Tax or FAIR tax. But let's get it done.

But I don't object to the concept of taxation. I DO object to the claim of our government and some of our alleged "leaders" that we need to spend on much of the stuff we do spend on. And THAT is a much overdue and badly needed debate we all need to have.

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive. They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

Genius...it is not the actual act of taxation with which we disagree. It is the method by which we are taxed and of course the ways government comes up with to spend our money. Most of that spending is unwise and wasteful.
I for one would not say a word if government would operate like any other business. That is operate within a budget and on time. Government should be required by law to limit labor costs to no more than 30% of the total budget of any department. In real business that is the target. 30% limit on labor cost.
It is not the job or anyone else's purview to "level a playing field" . The reason for taxation is fund government so that it may provide lawful essential services. Nothing more nothing less. Any one who told you the government exists to take from one to give to another so that the receiver feels as though they being treated fairly is a lunatic for that is not even in the same universe as essential government function.

This is what I keep talking about right here and I don't understand why the tax discussion is not conducted along this lines. Why some people treat the words "tax" and "government" as some kind of concepts that were never meant to have anything to do with America, I will never understand. However, some of those same people embrace the words "republican", "democrat", "liberal" and "conservative", as character identity labels.

US policy, aka US politics, is meant to UNITE Americans, not divide us. Our freedom in this nation to make individual life decisions directly for ourselves and come together to make collective decisions for us ALL as a nation through "government", is what's so great about the USA.

 

[JimH52]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

 

[The T]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

IF they are WEALTHY? HOW do they add to the Deficit?

Care to address this?

 

[JimH52]

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

IF they are WEALTHY? HOW do they add to the Deficit?

Care to address this?

The Tax cut added to the deficit. Or do you think that it didn't? At least I saw several of the Tea Partier say they voted No on the tax cuts, They were sticking to their principles. The GOP owed the wealthy another round of breaks. Everyone know's that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Correct, revenue was already falling in 2001 and then 9-11 hit. Tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. You'll see that revenue jumped sharply thereafter. Regarding 2008 and 2009, you already know why that happened so I'm not sure why you are even bringing those years up.

It seems they are the end result of a failed policy of tax cuts. They work in the short term, I, unfortunately, live in the long term.

The economy is not constant. It is far more complex than the level of taxation. You don't have never ending growth or endless recession. There a multitude of factors worldwide that determine what happens with the American economy and they are always changing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich.

Ah yes, the ole Republicans are the party of the rich and Democrats are the party of the working man line. I love that. It still amazes me how many people fall for that crap.

Here's a clue, you rube, both parties kiss the ass of the rich.

 

[The T]

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

IF they are WEALTHY? HOW do they add to the Deficit?

Care to address this?

The Tax cut added to the deficit. Or do you think that it didn't? At least I saw several of the Tea Partier say they voted No on the tax cuts, They were sticking to their principles. The GOP owed the wealthy another round of breaks. Everyone know's that.

Tax Cut to whom? First ONE would have to understand that Wealth does NOT belong to Gubmint in the first place...

*YOUR MOVE*

 

[Liability]

To think. The people who voted for Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are the same ones whining about deficit reduction.

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

No no, Jimbo. I was right. You DON'T get it. Your language gives that fact away.

Your contention: 'The WEALTHY will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit.'

(A) You are engaging in the old divide and conquer class warfare rhetoric of your ilk. Unpersuasive, to say the least.
(B) You are factually stupid. Tax cuts don't add to deficits. Period.
(C) Spending, and spending alone is capable of adding to deficits.
(D) Perhaps most importantly, you START with an old, ridiculous and much refuted premise. You begin what would-be your "analysis" by presupposing that what "those" rich guys earn is somehow justifiably taken by you and the liberal governmental policies you endorse. In that premise you are flatly wrong.

The government was NEVER granted the Constitutional AUTHORITY to take from "the rich" in order "to give to the poor." You confuse the Robin Hood mythology with proper governance and political theory. Probably not entirely your fault. You are a lib, after all.

 

[JimH52]

Well, let's give the low income a tax break. No, how about the low income pay no taxes? Yeah, that sounds like a winner.

The Fact:

The GOP forces another round of tax breaks to the wealthy that will evenually cost 800 Billion. The added dollars to the deficit were not mentioned. Then a few weeks later that are determined to cut benefits from the low and middle class the same amount. They need to figure out how to keep voters from figuring out what they are doing. Sooner or later it is going to hurt.

 

[The T]

Well, let's give the low income a tax break. No, how about the low income pay no taxes? Yeah, that sounds like a winner.

The Fact:

The GOP forces another round of tax breaks to the wealthy that will evenually cost 800 Billion. The added dollars to the deficit were not mentioned. Then a few weeks later that are determined to cut benefits from the low and middle class the same amount. They need to figure out how to keep voters from figuring out what they are doing. Sooner or later it is going to hurt.

LOW INCOME don't pay taxes NOW unless they engage in commerce...

 

[Liability]

Well, let's give the low income a tax break. No, how about the low income pay no taxes? Yeah, that sounds like a winner.

The Fact:

The GOP forces another round of tax breaks to the wealthy that will evenually cost 800 Billion. The added dollars to the deficit were not mentioned. Then a few weeks later that are determined to cut benefits from the low and middle class the same amount. They need to figure out how to keep voters from figuring out what they are doing. Sooner or later it is going to hurt.

The next tax cut -- like all other tax cuts -- will add exactly and precisely NOTHING to the deficit.

Your dishonesty is flagged.

Tax cuts only (potentially, but not universally) limit the so-called "revenues" the government takes in.

If you want to cut the deficit, you have to SPEND less on these silly "programs." You have to pay DOWN at least SOME of the EXISTING debt. The trouble with NOT engaging in a tax cut is that the revenue the government THEN takes in -- this idiotic and irresponsible government SPENDS. SPENDING however is the root of the problem.

Spending is the problem. Wanna cut the deficit? Good. STOP SPENDING so ******* much.

But tax cuts are incapable of adding to a deficit. You refuse to face that fact, which makes any discussion on the topic with you useless.