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

[skookerasbil]

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.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!!!!!

Every night you can come on here and find dozens of examples why there are millions of bumper stickers on cars referring to far left guys as complete k00ks.........

 

[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.

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.

ebr.org
Let us look at the facts:
2009 over age 65 average income: (married household income included)
High school dropout and some vocational skill $17K
High school diploma $27K
4 year degree $43K
Graduate degree $63K

Mean average income of all seniors over 65: $37K
Top tier 20% (not the 25% I incorrectly stated) $74K a year
2nd tier 20% 39K a year
3rd tier 20% 34K a year
4th tier 20% 21K a year
Bottom tier 20% 17K a year

Why we pay the medical bills of any senior household with income over 60K a year is criminal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I have a great idea! How about you name this thread "Bush was the only, only President of the United States, and he's responsible for every single itsy-bitsy financial ill that we ever have been or will be faced with!!! And, and and I really really hate Bush!"

Pretty accurate?

1. But funny, as this current President is far more financially irresponsible....don't you agree?

2. But if you really want to pin the tail on the donkey...try this guy: paragon of the Dependency Party....(drum roll) LBJ!

a. LBJ fit the progressive mold perfectly, and he wanted to continue FDR’s advances toward a cradle-to-grave European style government. The theater of endeavor was not as much economic equality, but racial, but still aimed at undoing the attempts of Truman and Eisenhower to return America to its tradition of fiscal responsibility (between 1946 and 1960, the national debt had fallen from 122% of GDP to less than 56% of GDP; over that period, America’s total deficit was some $740 million versus FDR’s deficit of $15.6 billion in 1946 alone. Historical Tables | The White House

b. A cautionary tale from LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ discredits the progressive principle of more services via ever-expanding government. And, in fact, unemployment and inflation did occur simultaneously. “Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years.” Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it

c. LBJ accomplished the expansion of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). Under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and needed help to support the children. To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying. See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

So, my biased friend, if you would like to go after Bush for spending, do so by all means....but remember Democrat LBJ was worse by several measures, including the fiscal timebombs of Medicare and Medicaid...

President Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ. From 2001 to 2006, Republicans controlled the presidency and House, and, with the exceptions of ’01 and ’02, the Senate. This was the 'conservative' Progressive Era. . Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest):
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House


I know you're and honest man, so I breathlessly await your thread on Obama and LBJ.

It was LBJ who virtually created Halliburton by his dealing with Brown & root. Back when he was a senator he would get bags of money from Brown & Root (later purchased by Halliburton) and dish out government contracts to them.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What is it that you expect "the private sector" to do, pay people not to work like the government does? Spend billions on useless boondoggles like "green energy?" Give farmers subsidies to grow things nobody wants?

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

The SBA is a boondoggle that flushes money down the toilet by giving it to business ventures that either don't have a hope in hell of succeeding or that don't really need it but have political pull.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's time for those sucking on the government tit to sacrifice. Greedy geezers who live in gated communities and spend all day on the golf course can go suck it. the elderly are the most well off quintile in America. Government employees can start paying for their own healthcare and retire at 65 like the rest of us.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Part A of Medicare only covers 100% of certain hospitalization costs, and has a cap that is ridiculous based on average hospital costs. But there are still deductibles and co-pays for many hospital services. Medicare Part B doesn't cover 100%; it covers 80% of specific treatments on an annual basis, again after deductibles. The only big change this year is that PREVENTIVE care, i.e., flu shots including the doctor visit, are paid 100%.

The Obama cut to Medicare amounts to saving $500 billion from Medicare ADVANTAGE plans which is coverage by private insurers and SUBSIDIZED by funding from the general Medicare fund.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!!!!!

Every night you can come on here and find dozens of examples why there are millions of bumper stickers on cars referring to far left guys as complete k00ks.........

People where you live still put bumper stickers on their vehicles? That says a lot as it relates to your comment.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

ebr.org
Let us look at the facts:
2009 over age 65 average income: (married household income included)
High school dropout and some vocational skill $17K
High school diploma $27K
4 year degree $43K
Graduate degree $63K

Mean average income of all seniors over 65: $37K
Top tier 20% (not the 25% I incorrectly stated) $74K a year
2nd tier 20% 39K a year
3rd tier 20% 34K a year
4th tier 20% 21K a year
Bottom tier 20% 17K a year

Why we pay the medical bills of any senior household with income over 60K a year is criminal.

The irony is that the wealthier are more than happy to take it, as well as Social Security on top of other retirement benefits. As I mentioned before, a means test for both is (or should be) on the table, because I agree that retired people with sizeable incomes should not be expecting full benefits of Medicare if they can afford their own private policies. BUT, any means test should also reduce on a sliding scale any amounts they are required to make in contributions via the payroll tax as incomes increase over a lifetime of employment, in order to be fair. Frankly, without looking it up, I have no idea how it's calculated now.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What is it that you expect "the private sector" to do, pay people not to work like the government does? Spend billions on useless boondoggles like "green energy?" Give farmers subsidies to grow things nobody wants?

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

The SBA is a boondoggle that flushes money down the toilet by giving it to business ventures that either don't have a hope in hell of succeeding or that don't really need it but have political pull.

So which industry do you guess will replace the loss of other industries that have since gone to foreign countries? Like it or not, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY projects are where J.O.B.S will be in the future (that is, if we're not already too late with other merging capitalist countries forging far ahead of us). Those jobs will be everywhere from the development of technology to production and right down to the janitors who will clean the offices. Deal with it.

As for the SBA, it's one of the most successful agencies of the government. Are you nuts? Do some homework. There's page after page of success stories confirming that fact.

Success stories of the SBA - Google Search

 

[MaggieMae]

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

Now I know you're just an ignorant person, whereas before I only suspected as much.

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

And when has the government ever shaken you down and taken cash at gunpoint, genius?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

Now I know you're just an ignorant person, whereas before I only suspected as much.

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

And when has the government ever shaken you down and taken cash at gunpoint, genius?

Bush 43 was a big spending populist..During his administrations the largest deficit was 400 billion dollars..
Obama has spent more than all other presidential administrations combined.
The current budget deficit is $1.6 trillion....Nuff said.
When politicians refuse to take the proper course and reduce spending and therefore DEMAND more from the producers, that is in effect a shakedown. Government takes our money under threat of civil and criminal sanctions. THAT is a shakedown.
Ya know what? IF government were truly accountable to the people, spent our tax dollars wisely, completed all projects on time and all departments stayed within budget, few would object paying taxes.
As it is, government is horridly wasteful. Programs which have been funded by the hundreds of billions of dollars are simply a waste of money. OUR money.
Government increases or creates new taxes and still it's never enough. Every dollar these people get they spend $1.50...
Why is it you liberals oppose responsible government spending?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

I certainly do - I have more guns because of them.

And, knowing that The Obama approves of those so much that He continued them, I decided to take the $ I was not going to have to pay in taxes and bought another machinegun - this one, fed by a belt!

There's ALL KINDS of positive there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Wrong.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and pay 500 at the end of the month, you add zero to your debt.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and cut your monthly payment to 400, you add 100 dollars (plus interest) to your DEBT every month.

That is what cutting taxes does. Cutting taxes even without increasing spending adds to the debt. Cutting taxes while increasing spending, which every president/Congress in the last 30 years except Clinton has done, adds even more to the debt.

The only way you can cut taxes without adding the debt is to cut spending simultaneously, at an amount comparable to the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Econ 100

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Deficit spending itself boosts tax revenues because it pumps borrowed money into the economy. Your mathematical acrobatics aren't taking that into account.

 

[EriktheRed]

I look at it like this. You'll know DC is serious about the deficit and debt when you see Republicans talking about tax raises and Democrats talking about hurtful cuts to social programs.

It's going to be interesting to see how Obama plays-off to his base why he extended the Bush rates. That's in the same column as Gitmo.

They were only extended for two years. It's called wiggle room.

And I still personally think it was a bad idea.

 

[bripat9643]

The CoC is a lobbying organization. It doesn't have much money, and it certain can't shake people down at gunpoint and take their cash like the government. That's the best thing about the private sector: private companies can't rob people.

Now I know you're just an ignorant person, whereas before I only suspected as much.

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

And when has the government ever shaken you down and taken cash at gunpoint, genius?

The Federal and state government shake me down every time I get a paycheck. You think guns aren't involved because they don't come to your home and point them at you? Only a fool doesn't understand that if you don't pay your taxes, eventually men with guns will will show up to take it.

 

[Antiderivative]

Leave it up to "fiscal conservatives" to cut taxes while waging the the second most expensive war ever.

I do respect McCain for voting against the Bush tax cuts since they didn't come with appropriate spending cuts, but the "fiscal conservative" mantra rings on: Tax less, but spend more.

 

[Agit8r]

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

well, nothing positive, but they did subvert our founding principles

"each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expence of other generations... that each generation should not only bear its own burdens, but that the taxes composing them, should include a due proportion of such as by their direct operation keep the people awake, along with those, which being wrapped up in other payments, may leave them asleep, to misapplications of their money."
-- James Madison, from Universal Peace (1792.)

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and pay 500 at the end of the month, you add zero to your debt.

If you put 500 a month on your credit card, and cut your monthly payment to 400, you add 100 dollars (plus interest) to your DEBT every month.

The solution you are unable to comprehend is putting only $400 on your credit card. Furthermore, I'm not the one putting $500 on the credit card. Those criminals in Congress are the ones doing that.

That is what cutting taxes does. Cutting taxes even without increasing spending adds to the debt. Cutting taxes while increasing spending, which every president/Congress in the last 30 years except Clinton has done, adds even more to the debt.

The only way you can cut taxes without adding the debt is to cut spending simultaneously, at an amount comparable to the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Econ 100

Oh puhleeeeze. Clinton wanted to spend more every year than the budgets the Republicans actually passed. He gets zero credit for balancing the budget.

Furthermore, your assumption that cutting taxes decreases revenue in the exact same proportion doesn't hold water. The rich are paying more in taxes now than they ever paid under the rates in effect during the Carter regime.

 

[Mr Liberty]

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

I have a great idea! How about you name this thread "Bush was the only, only President of the United States, and he's responsible for every single itsy-bitsy financial ill that we ever have been or will be faced with!!! And, and and I really really hate Bush!"

Pretty accurate?

Since I don't read your history lessons anymore, I'll only say that there is no denying that Obama didn't create an economic mess all by himself, ergo the reason the policies of the Bush Administration are so frequently made a part of the discussion. Obama inherited much of it from Bush, then had to deal with his own set of economic nightmares. Let's just stick with those two, shall we?

No, I think we are in this mess because of all of them.