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

[thereisnospoon]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

How does more government spending change that behavior?

Just wait ..
The response will be some diatribe meant to deflect the discussion away from that issue. Or the OP will insult you.
This should be amusing.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

How does more government spending change that behavior?

That was my response to the second part of his post. I did mess up the quotes so I may have caused the confusion.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.


Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes.
And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

See: crushing federal regulations, overbearing and impossibly expensive environmental rules, 35% corporate tax rate which is the highest in the industrialized world and of course these free trade agreements.
You'll never be able to prove businesses are "sitting on" two trillion or any other amount of money. So stop parroting lib talking points.
The fact is any one with investment capital or venture capital is certainly going to take a long hard look at the Obama administrations constant threat of increasing taxes. Higher taxes which will do NOTHING to eliminate or even reduce federal deficits are the enemy of economic growth.
Read carefully. No nation in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
The democrats are in a dire panic because they know the largest portion of the federal budget is made up of social sacred cow entitlements. Those entitlements and transfer payments are virtual guaranteed democrat votes. This is why congressional democrats are fighting ANY budget cuts that involved social spending.

1 Crushing regulations: Yet not enough to keep the banks from almost crashing the world economy.

2 expensive environmental rules: yet not enough to keep oil from polluting the gulf.

3 35% corporate tax rate which is the highest in the industrialized world: Not true... especially if you figure the average rate paid after deductions.

4 I like how you try to deny they are sitting on 2 trillion and then you go on to explain why they are doing it.

5 No nation in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.: That is a meaningless statement.

6 Sacred cow entitlements: I hear a lot of talk from both sides on what to do about these but very little action by whatever party is in control. I do believe they are very popular with the people but conservatives seem to hate them.

 

[jeffrockit]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Tax revenues actually went up. That is pretty positive!

tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Political Junky]

The Heritage Foundation doesn't fill me with trust.

 

[jeffrockit]

The Heritage Foundation doesn't fill me with trust.

How about the CBO as that is where the facts came from?

 

[editec]

Ok... please provide something other than an opinion piece that explains how reducing government spending slows the economy.


Before you respond, remember the fact that government produces nothing. It only consumes.
And if you are going to state anything to the effect that when government exapnds and increases it's own numberso f employees, you can forget it.
BTW, would it surprise you to know that including all local, county, state and federal workers there are TWICE the number of government employees as those employed in US manufacturing?....Do you not see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

I see you decided to edit my posts and attach my username to statements I did not make.

IF that is true?

That poster ought to be banned.

Discussing these issues is hard enough without having to deal with that level of dishonesty.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

How does more government spending change that behavior?

Maybe the government wouldn't need to spend so much if the private sector actually stepped up and did their part, for Americans. While small businesses were going belly up all over the country at the height of the financial meltdown, the biggies continued to rake in profits. Where was the Chamber of Commerce? Does it ever support small businesses or does its interest lie only in the big guys with the most cash to pay for CoC lobbying? The SBA, on the other hand, increased its lending to the highest level in history out of sheer necessity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

See: crushing federal regulations, overbearing and impossibly expensive environmental rules, 35% corporate tax rate which is the highest in the industrialized world and of course these free trade agreements.
You'll never be able to prove businesses are "sitting on" two trillion or any other amount of money. So stop parroting lib talking points.
The fact is any one with investment capital or venture capital is certainly going to take a long hard look at the Obama administrations constant threat of increasing taxes. Higher taxes which will do NOTHING to eliminate or even reduce federal deficits are the enemy of economic growth.
Read carefully. No nation in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
The democrats are in a dire panic because they know the largest portion of the federal budget is made up of social sacred cow entitlements. Those entitlements and transfer payments are virtual guaranteed democrat votes. This is why congressional democrats are fighting ANY budget cuts that involved social spending.

1 Crushing regulations: Yet not enough to keep the banks from almost crashing the world economy.

2 expensive environmental rules: yet not enough to keep oil from polluting the gulf.

3 35% corporate tax rate which is the highest in the industrialized world: Not true... especially if you figure the average rate paid after deductions.

4 I like how you try to deny they are sitting on 2 trillion and then you go on to explain why they are doing it.

5 No nation in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.: That is a meaningless statement.

6 Sacred cow entitlements: I hear a lot of talk from both sides on what to do about these but very little action by whatever party is in control. I do believe they are very popular with the people but conservatives seem to hate them.

Banks? NIce try. We're dicussing manufacturing. BTW, the banking industry and that swear word you lefties use "wall street" are partially to blame. However, without the SEC and other federal rules that made these investment vehicles possible ,combine with that the total failure of the COngress to rein in Fannie/Fredie when they knew damned well it was failing, created the housing bubble. The federal government told the banks they had to lend to unqualified borrowers potherwise face the rath of the government.

The Gulf oil spill was an ACCIDENT..Get it?
The regulations to which I refer are those that create so much expense it makes it impossible for those companies to compete in the marketplace. Regulations are good as long as they represent the interests of both business and public.
BTW, if airliners crash, why is there not a ban on air travel.
35% IS true. Forget it. What's your plan, chase more businesses out by INCREASING taxes?
No....you made the two trillion dollar claim..You prove it..Find some links and report back here.
For a moment, let's say that figure is accurate. What would you as a business owner do knowing full well the federal government is about to drastically increase taxes and create more regualtions? People will not invest or spend if the government keeps taking more from them.
Taxation/ prosperity goes directly to the issue stated above. It is as meaningful as sunrise. The fact that you have no rebuttal for that fact cause you to dismiss it. Too bad. It's the truth.
Entitlements are popular with the people who benefit while others pay for them. Most of these things should no longer exist. If you like them so much, write a check.
Feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
You libs refuse to acknowledge that government must adjust to the reality that it MUST spend less.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes I do. Corporations that were able to succeed do to the great opportunities that our country provides then 'rewards' us by sending those jobs (along with our technology) overseas, just to make a higher profit margin.

I for sure see something wrong with that picture.

How does more government spending change that behavior?

Maybe the government wouldn't need to spend so much if the private sector actually stepped up and did their part, for Americans. While small businesses were going belly up all over the country at the height of the financial meltdown, the biggies continued to rake in profits. Where was the Chamber of Commerce? Does it ever support small businesses or does its interest lie only in the big guys with the most cash to pay for CoC lobbying? The SBA, on the other hand, increased its lending to the highest level in history out of sheer necessity.

Bullshit..The federal government ,especially liberal politicians do what thye must to keep their seats. Liberals know full well that if they continue to spend gobs of money on entitlements while finding ways to create more dependency(e.g. Obamacare) those benefitting will blindly vote for those who provide them. In other words, it's political.

 

[JimH52]

So, as Obama eluded. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit. Cuts in Medicare, affecting those who can least help themselves, coupled with an increase in taxes for those making $250,000 a year is fair.

Of course, Republicans would be happy to stop Medicare completely and erect a Turnstile for the Super Rich to get thier bills passed in Congress.

 

[MaggieMae]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Tax revenues actually went up. That is pretty positive!

tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

Some of that Heritage report has been challenged when all the hidden calculations are added to the baseline.

Critics Still Wrong on What

Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[23] (We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA.) Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.4 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — over $330 billion in 2019 alone.

War costs — Spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities cost $610 billion through fiscal 2008, according to CBO ($575 billion for the Department of Defense and $35 billion for international affairs), and another $160 billion in 2009. [24] We based estimates of costs in 2010 through 2019 on CBO’s projections, adjusted for a phase-down to 60,000 troops; those costs come to $1 trillion.[25] We add the associated debt-service costs, which came to $64 billion through 2008 and will total another $684 billion over the 2009-2019 period ($119 billion in 2019 alone).

And what about the billions it will cost the VA to care for returning troops from the two wars? Even that is and will be funded by borrowed money.

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2008/(BP) vets.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

The Heritage Foundation doesn't fill me with trust.

How about the CBO as that is where the facts came from?

The CBO forecasts out years as well as current estimates. Heritage leaves that part out.

 

[MaggieMae]

How does more government spending change that behavior?

Maybe the government wouldn't need to spend so much if the private sector actually stepped up and did their part, for Americans. While small businesses were going belly up all over the country at the height of the financial meltdown, the biggies continued to rake in profits. Where was the Chamber of Commerce? Does it ever support small businesses or does its interest lie only in the big guys with the most cash to pay for CoC lobbying? The SBA, on the other hand, increased its lending to the highest level in history out of sheer necessity.

Bullshit..The federal government ,especially liberal politicians do what thye must to keep their seats. Liberals know full well that if they continue to spend gobs of money on entitlements while finding ways to create more dependency(e.g. Obamacare) those benefitting will blindly vote for those who provide them. In other words, it's political.

And what exactly do you think the Republicans are doing by proposing a budget plan that would, if they had their way, wipe out the middle class? They're kow-towing to the noisy new guys who think creating a working (workable) budget is as easy as balancing their checkbooks, when anyone in their right mind knows it's hardly a valid analogy. Yeah, it's political all right. The Republicans want to starve the beast. The Democrats are willing to slice and dice in smaller portions so nobody has to starve.

Oh well, at least there is a line drawn in the sand from which to work, so only time will tell whether or not the Republicans (tea partiers) are willing to grow up and compromise like adults, or allow the country to default.

 

[Gadawg73]

So, as Obama eluded. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit. Cuts in Medicare, affecting those who can least help themselves, coupled with an increase in taxes for those making $250,000 a year is fair.

Of course, Republicans would be happy to stop Medicare completely and erect a Turnstile for the Super Rich to get thier bills passed in Congress.

Why should a 28 year old struggling to make ends meet have to pay the medical bills of wealthy seniors?
25% of Medicare recipients have income over $80,000 a year.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for free lunches at schools for kids that have cell phones and big screen TVs?

Spending is the problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

So, as Obama eluded. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit. Cuts in Medicare, affecting those who can least help themselves, coupled with an increase in taxes for those making $250,000 a year is fair.

Of course, Republicans would be happy to stop Medicare completely and erect a Turnstile for the Super Rich to get thier bills passed in Congress.

Why should a 28 year old struggling to make ends meet have to pay the medical bills of wealthy seniors?
25% of Medicare recipients have income over $80,000 a year.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for free lunches at schools for kids that have cell phones and big screen TVs?

Spending is the problem.

Where is your source that 25% of recipients have income of over $80K? There is a means test for incomes over that amount, and reducing it is under consideration. But as of 2008, the last year figures were available, over half of Medicare recipients were earning less than $20,000 per year. And why should a 28-year old pay into payroll taxes to support Medicare? Because you too will get old one day. Surprise surprise. Unless your children are willing to pay all your health bills when you're too old and sick to pay them yourself, then you'll just be a ward of the state anyway and someone has to pay for that too.

As for your last comment, it's the usual goofy comment from someone who actually believes that all low-income people enjoy all the luxuries of high earners. Newsflash, child: It isn't true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Maybe the government wouldn't need to spend so much if the private sector actually stepped up and did their part, for Americans. While small businesses were going belly up all over the country at the height of the financial meltdown, the biggies continued to rake in profits. Where was the Chamber of Commerce? Does it ever support small businesses or does its interest lie only in the big guys with the most cash to pay for CoC lobbying? The SBA, on the other hand, increased its lending to the highest level in history out of sheer necessity.

Bullshit..The federal government ,especially liberal politicians do what thye must to keep their seats. Liberals know full well that if they continue to spend gobs of money on entitlements while finding ways to create more dependency(e.g. Obamacare) those benefitting will blindly vote for those who provide them. In other words, it's political.

And what exactly do you think the Republicans are doing by proposing a budget plan that would, if they had their way, wipe out the middle class? They're kow-towing to the noisy new guys who think creating a working (workable) budget is as easy as balancing their checkbooks, when anyone in their right mind knows it's hardly a valid analogy. Yeah, it's political all right. The Republicans want to starve the beast. The Democrats are willing to slice and dice in smaller portions so nobody has to starve.

Oh well, at least there is a line drawn in the sand from which to work, so only time will tell whether or not the Republicans (tea partiers) are willing to grow up and compromise like adults, or allow the country to default.

You side continues to call for tax increases while saying nothing about reducing deficits.
They use class envy to rope useful idiots into the "wealthy" argument.
The fact is the federal government could slap a 100% tax on all earners of $100,000 annually and up and still end up with nearly one trillion dollars in deficits.
The bottom line is your side cannot satisfy it's insatiable desire to maintain and increase spending. And THAT is the problem. Out of control spending for political purposes and the monetizing of the debt.
Get this....projected debt which includes the deficit and interest service on the debt is greater than the entire net worth of the United States...DO you not see anything wrong with this? Can you not see that government must bear the responsibility of it's own actions, i.e. skyrocketing debt and deficit brought on by irresponsible spending?
Or are your sacred cow social safety nets and other pork spending so important that you'd rather see a great nation brought to it's knees?
Higher taxes do nothing but take money away from the private sector and stifle economic growth. Higher taxes do not reduce debt and deficit. Higher taxes are simply a political tool used by the Left to insure themselves votes from those who benefit from the largesse of the producers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, as Obama eluded. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit. Cuts in Medicare, affecting those who can least help themselves, coupled with an increase in taxes for those making $250,000 a year is fair.

Of course, Republicans would be happy to stop Medicare completely and erect a Turnstile for the Super Rich to get thier bills passed in Congress.

Why should a 28 year old struggling to make ends meet have to pay the medical bills of wealthy seniors?
25% of Medicare recipients have income over $80,000 a year.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for free lunches at schools for kids that have cell phones and big screen TVs?

Spending is the problem.

Where is your source that 25% of recipients have income of over $80K? There is a means test for incomes over that amount, and reducing it is under consideration. But as of 2008, the last year figures were available, over half of Medicare recipients were earning less than $20,000 per year. And why should a 28-year old pay into payroll taxes to support Medicare? Because you too will get old one day. Surprise surprise. Unless your children are willing to pay all your health bills when you're too old and sick to pay them yourself, then you'll just be a ward of the state anyway and someone has to pay for that too.

As for your last comment, it's the usual goofy comment from someone who actually believes that all low-income people enjoy all the luxuries of high earners. Newsflash, child: It isn't true.

Medicare was never intended to be a 100% coverage program. It is a supplement. Yet, you people completely ignore the fact that Obamacare CUTS funding of medicare by over 50%. The remainder is OUR bill. Yeah, where do you think that is going to come from?
Medicare should be scrapped. Each individual should be permitted to buy their health insurance privately across state lines according to ability to pay.
The automatic payroll deduction punishes those who may never require the service during their lifetime. What really is galling is the fact that those receiving State and municipal government pensions are eligible for medicare AND social security. SS should be means tested as well. In other words if a person has say a $60,000 per year pension and medical benefit package they should not be able to use medicare or receive Social Security

 

[Gadawg73]

Bush's Medicare Plan D Gramps' Dope Plan is what has added to the debt.
Tax cuts never add to the debt. How does allowing $$ to stay in the economy add to debt?
Econ 101.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bush's Medicare Plan D Gramps' Dope Plan is what has added to the debt.
Tax cuts never add to the debt. How does allowing $$ to stay in the economy add to debt?
Econ 101.

When you are fighting two wars and cut the only source of income the goverment has, you are adding to the debt. And I really fail to see where the tax cut dollars were added to the US economy. Sure didn't see many jobs from those tax cuts.

Bluntly, I think that we should have a law that states whenever there are more than 250 US Soldiers engaged in combat, the tax structure of WW2 automatically goes into effect. That would effectively prevent wars of choice, and would sure mean that wars would be ended as soon as possible.