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

[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?

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.

I sure wish they'd come after my husband, an uber conservative who cheated the system for 20 years. It would have saved me the expense of hiring a divorce lawyer.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Ya think?

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

 

[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.

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

That is the Keynesian theory of economics which has found several times over to be faulty.
It is not government that grows the economy. That is a FACT.
The economy grows through productivity in the PRIVATE sector. Lowering taxes has been proved time and again to actually INCREASE revenues to the federal government.
The problme with you and the rest of the Left is you cannot stomach the idea of your sacred cow social safety nets being reduced in any way.
You people think government is the answer to all of your constant problems. In fact it is the Left that thinks in terms of problems rather than facing and overcoming challenges. You view life's responsibilities as a burden. You want someone else to take responsibility for your lives.
The Left does not view taxation as a means to fund government, but as a means to punish those whom you believe have too much.
The only part of your post that is correct is that government must cut spending. Your side refuses to allow that. The GOP wanted to cut 0.05% of the budget( $60 billion of over $3 trillion) and Sen Charles Schumer( Democrat NY) referred to the cust as "draconian"....What a bunch of bullshit. That comment tells me that the typical democrat want nothing to do with spending reductions of ANY kind.

I don't think you get how much the private sector relies on subsidies from the government (excluding social programs, although they're even subsidized there, too). Even building and maintaining nuclear power plants, which conservatives always claim is the only viable alternative energy solution, is subsidized by loan guarantees from the government; the cost of uranium extraction, enrichment, security and distribution is heavily subsidized by the government. The spent rods are owned by the government, which is tasked with the dirty work of safely storing them--not the job of the private investment groups who "own" the plants.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

WHAT?!!! That makes no sense and is patently false. Based on your logic, the current rate of deficit spending would mean our economy would be growing at the highest annual rate in the history of the nation. When it is your side that agrees and advertises that we are on the verge of a depression. Of course they do that only when it suits their political needs.
The fact of the matter is government removes wealth from the economy because government produces nothing.
You people bitch and moan about all the money the private sector is allegedly sitting on. It is the idea above that is the reason why investment borrowing and hiring are at current levels. It is because those with investment capital are preparing for massive tax increases.
No one with any business savvy is going to spend when the government is going to take it all away.

You do realize that last part is an unproven talking point only. Since when does the private sector sit on its proverbial ass and not take risks? They're using that as excuse to squeeze more productivity out of existing workers and not having to rehire. Profits are up, so if businesses aren't spending on expansion because they're scared, then where are those profits coming from?

 

[thereisnospoon]

YouTube - Cynthia McKinney Economic planks - Green Party Presidential candidate

This woman is koo koo for cocoa puffs.
As an analyst of traits, tells and body language there are issues about Mc Kinney that jump off the page. She is searching for words. She does not make eye contact with the person who asked for her comments. This indicates unpreparedness. She looks down when she begins a sentence and uses "umm and "Ahh" which indicates she is making up her response as she goes along.

All that aside, what about the issues?

\
Please elaborate. The question is entirely too vague.
Thanks

 

[P F Tinmore]

This woman is koo koo for cocoa puffs.
As an analyst of traits, tells and body language there are issues about Mc Kinney that jump off the page. She is searching for words. She does not make eye contact with the person who asked for her comments. This indicates unpreparedness. She looks down when she begins a sentence and uses "umm and "Ahh" which indicates she is making up her response as she goes along.

All that aside, what about the issues?

\
Please elaborate. The question is entirely too vague.
Thanks

Nationalize the Fed.
Cut waste (theft) in the military budget.

It doesn't seem vague to me.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Ya think?

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

Very cleverly written.
No matter. The top 20% of all earners pay 70% of the total US Federal tax burden.
Now, what is the top 20% of all earners?.....Well, how about right at $100 grand per year.
Which would put many unionized public employees in the area of the so-called "wealthy"..Yes. For example. In my home school district in NJ of the 500 teachers and staff, 50% of them earn $100,000 per year and up....Now, you people on the left are all fired up over "tax breaks for the rich"..Hey, top 20% of all earners .....RICH.....
So are you and the rest of the libs who are hell bent on soaking the rich going to explain to the very people you support 100%( unionized government workers) how you consider them to be "wealthy"?.....
It's a trap. You're stuck. You want government to slam it to the people who you think have too much or don't pay their fair share when the facts say otherwise. If your wish for higher taxes comes true, you then have to explain that....LOL.....It'll be fun watching the Left try to worm their way out of that one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

All that aside, what about the issues?

\
Please elaborate. The question is entirely too vague.
Thanks

Nationalize the Fed.
Cut waste (theft) in the military budget.

It doesn't seem vague to me.

Yeah....And McKinney is going to the plate with that?
She conveniently left out the waste fraud and mismanagement of the sacred cow social entitlements...
The federal reserve should be abolished. Not Nationalized...
BTW if you are really interested in reducing government debt and deficit, you should support spending cuts and oppose the current policy of monetizing the debt.
Issues..Please. McKinney, who could not even hold on to her seat in a heavily black district, is completely clueless.
As a matter of fact, I hope she gets on the ballot on all 50 states. She will dilute what little of the black vote that is anticipated in 2012.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Obama's people would ask McKinney not to run in return she will get a high paying do-nothing job in the Obama White House should Obama be re-elected.
Issues.. Go on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interestingly, all of the GDP growth in the Reagan presidency, after his 1981 tax cuts, only occurred AFTER Reagan began rolling back his own tax cuts,

which he did over and over again from 1982 on.

Explain that, boyz.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Here are the numbers from the GPO:

_____Total (in millions of dollars)
Year__Receipts__Outlays___Surplus or Deficit (&#8722
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585

(after Bush tax-cuts)

2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489


Revenue had been falling but after the tax-cuts it increased and the deficit shrank. I'll post a graph of it when I got 15 posts.

The Bush tax cuts were phased in from 2001 to 2003. The deficit grew every year through those increases and up to 2005.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

That is the Keynesian theory of economics which has found several times over to be faulty.
It is not government that grows the economy. That is a FACT.
The economy grows through productivity in the PRIVATE sector. Lowering taxes has been proved time and again to actually INCREASE revenues to the federal government.
The problme with you and the rest of the Left is you cannot stomach the idea of your sacred cow social safety nets being reduced in any way.
You people think government is the answer to all of your constant problems. In fact it is the Left that thinks in terms of problems rather than facing and overcoming challenges. You view life's responsibilities as a burden. You want someone else to take responsibility for your lives.
The Left does not view taxation as a means to fund government, but as a means to punish those whom you believe have too much.
The only part of your post that is correct is that government must cut spending. Your side refuses to allow that. The GOP wanted to cut 0.05% of the budget( $60 billion of over $3 trillion) and Sen Charles Schumer( Democrat NY) referred to the cust as "draconian"....What a bunch of bullshit. That comment tells me that the typical democrat want nothing to do with spending reductions of ANY kind.

I don't think you get how much the private sector relies on subsidies from the government (excluding social programs, although they're even subsidized there, too). Even building and maintaining nuclear power plants, which conservatives always claim is the only viable alternative energy solution, is subsidized by loan guarantees from the government; the cost of uranium extraction, enrichment, security and distribution is heavily subsidized by the government. The spent rods are owned by the government, which is tasked with the dirty work of safely storing them--not the job of the private investment groups who "own" the plants.

Oh cut the bullshit..60% of all business is small business. I am a part owner of a small business. I receive no subsidies.
The federal government will shower with money, wanted or not, any enterprisewhich government can use to further an agenda.
I find it amusing that here you are claiming the political right has a nuclear power focus when not only have democrat controlled Congress contributed to nuclear power ,but Obama during his campaign mentioned nuclear power as part of his Green Energy initiative. You cannot have it both ways.
Energy production is/are de facto public works anyway.
We're talking REAL Business here. Private enterprise.
Government is not needed here. The fact is government often offers subsidies with "take this or else you will have a rough time getting permits".
Subsidies come with lots of strings attached. Private business would rather the federal government just get the hell out of the way.
Often many businesses which do send lobbyists to Washington are then saddled with interference in return for favorable legislation.
Private enterprise would function just fine, thank you, with the meddling from Capitol Hill.
The federal government subsidizes in much the same manner as the local loan shark.
"oh, you need a few million for your (fill in the blank)? No problem. You just have to let us "help" you run your business the way WE see fit.
You can try spinning this any way which makes you comfy. The fact is , we'd rather the federal government stick to what it is supposed to do. Govern.

 

[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

No....YOU DON'T USE CREDIT.....You spend only what you have and if you don't have it you don't spend it. Sensible people refer to this as "fiscal responsibility.

You're using credit when you cut taxes without cutting spending and subsequently have to add to the deficit to make up for the lost revenue.

 

[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

That is the Keynesian theory of economics which has found several times over to be faulty.
It is not government that grows the economy. That is a FACT.
The economy grows through productivity in the PRIVATE sector. Lowering taxes has been proved time and again to actually INCREASE revenues to the federal government.
The problme with you and the rest of the Left is you cannot stomach the idea of your sacred cow social safety nets being reduced in any way.
You people think government is the answer to all of your constant problems. In fact it is the Left that thinks in terms of problems rather than facing and overcoming challenges. You view life's responsibilities as a burden. You want someone else to take responsibility for your lives.
The Left does not view taxation as a means to fund government, but as a means to punish those whom you believe have too much.
The only part of your post that is correct is that government must cut spending. Your side refuses to allow that. The GOP wanted to cut 0.05% of the budget( $60 billion of over $3 trillion) and Sen Charles Schumer( Democrat NY) referred to the cust as "draconian"....What a bunch of bullshit. That comment tells me that the typical democrat want nothing to do with spending reductions of ANY kind.

That has nothing to do with Keynes.

Bush went from surpluses to deficits because he cut taxes without cutting spending. Period.

 

[Eric Cartman]

No matter. The top 20% of all earners pay 70% of the total US Federal tax burden.
Now, what is the top 20% of all earners?.....Well, how about right at $100 grand per year.
Which would put many unionized public employees in the area of the so-called "wealthy"..Yes. For example. In my home school district in NJ of the 500 teachers and staff, 50% of them earn $100,000 per year and up....Now, you people on the left are all fired up over "tax breaks for the rich"..Hey, top 20% of all earners .....RICH.....
So are you and the rest of the libs who are hell bent on soaking the rich going to explain to the very people you support 100%( unionized government workers) how you consider them to be "wealthy"?.....
It's a trap. You're stuck. You want government to slam it to the people who you think have too much or don't pay their fair share when the facts say otherwise. If your wish for higher taxes comes true, you then have to explain that....LOL.....It'll be fun watching the Left try to worm their way out of that one.

Average teacher salary is $46696.

Income tax brackets are based on income not career choice, if a teacher makes a million then they should be taxed accordingly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush went from surpluses to deficits because he cut taxes without cutting spending. Period.

Another assertion you have absolutely no hope of supporting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush went from surpluses to deficits because he cut taxes without cutting spending. Period.

Another assertion you have absolutely no hope of supporting.

And YOUR explanation as to how Bush went from surpluses to deficits???

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

WHAT?!!! That makes no sense and is patently false. Based on your logic, the current rate of deficit spending would mean our economy would be growing at the highest annual rate in the history of the nation. When it is your side that agrees and advertises that we are on the verge of a depression. Of course they do that only when it suits their political needs.
The fact of the matter is government removes wealth from the economy because government produces nothing.
You people bitch and moan about all the money the private sector is allegedly sitting on. It is the idea above that is the reason why investment borrowing and hiring are at current levels. It is because those with investment capital are preparing for massive tax increases.
No one with any business savvy is going to spend when the government is going to take it all away.

You do realize that last part is an unproven talking point only. Since when does the private sector sit on its proverbial ass and not take risks? They're using that as excuse to squeeze more productivity out of existing workers and not having to rehire. Profits are up, so if businesses aren't spending on expansion because they're scared, then where are those profits coming from?

You should stick with subjects in which you have knowledge. This is way above your pay grade, cookie.
Your entire post is a self contradiction. In one sentence you imply that private enterprise takes risks. Then you insist it is not taking risks based on your assumption that business is not taking risks( Not hiring/ expanding)...
Question....What is the primary function of a business whether it be privately owned or publicly traded?
Oh, and please spare me the pro union workers unite because the MAN is screwing us bullshit. I'm not buying it and few others are either. You're crying wolf out on the tundra of no one is listening.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

No....YOU DON'T USE CREDIT.....You spend only what you have and if you don't have it you don't spend it. Sensible people refer to this as "fiscal responsibility.

You're using credit when you cut taxes without cutting spending and subsequently have to add to the deficit to make up for the lost revenue.

No...you do not spend more than you have or in this instance expect in revenue in the first place.
For budget planning , all government whether it be municipal, state or federal assumes anticipated revenues will be available. Often, governments will anticipate these numbers then write budgets based not on expected revenues, but the requests made by politicians.
Based on the above,there is no such thing as "lost revenue" because the government never had the money in the first place. The government simply anticipated a certain level of inbound revenue.
For example, a tax cut according to those on a political Left must be "paid for"....With what", I always ask. And why is it no one in government who has a pro-spending agenda ever concerns them self with how a tax INCREASE will be paid for.

The fact is government has been able to get away with deficit spending because it appeals to those who benefit the most from the largesse of government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No matter. The top 20% of all earners pay 70% of the total US Federal tax burden.
Now, what is the top 20% of all earners?.....Well, how about right at $100 grand per year.
Which would put many unionized public employees in the area of the so-called "wealthy"..Yes. For example. In my home school district in NJ of the 500 teachers and staff, 50% of them earn $100,000 per year and up....Now, you people on the left are all fired up over "tax breaks for the rich"..Hey, top 20% of all earners .....RICH.....
So are you and the rest of the libs who are hell bent on soaking the rich going to explain to the very people you support 100%( unionized government workers) how you consider them to be "wealthy"?.....
It's a trap. You're stuck. You want government to slam it to the people who you think have too much or don't pay their fair share when the facts say otherwise. If your wish for higher taxes comes true, you then have to explain that....LOL.....It'll be fun watching the Left try to worm their way out of that one.

Average teacher salary is $46696.

Income tax brackets are based on income not career choice, if a teacher makes a million then they should be taxed accordingly.

that number represents the nationwide average salary. I specifically mentioned the state of New Jersey. BTW, many municipal employees in NJ are very well compensated. In fact, in my home town of 4,700 there are 15 police officers on the payroll. 6 earn over $100,000 per year and three more are close to that.

"Taxed accordingly"...In a perfect world, yes. Politically, for the Left, impossible

 

[P F Tinmore]

\
Please elaborate. The question is entirely too vague.
Thanks

Nationalize the Fed.
Cut waste (theft) in the military budget.

It doesn't seem vague to me.

Yeah....And McKinney is going to the plate with that?

Yes as did Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich.

She conveniently left out the waste fraud and mismanagement of the sacred cow social entitlements...

Actually she was upset that 1.1 trillion dollars went missing in HUD. She brought that up on a recent radio interview.

The federal reserve should be abolished. Not Nationalized...

OK but some of its functions are necessary. Someone has to do them. The main point is to eliminate the Fed as a private bank cartel that is there only to suck the wealth out of our country.

BTW if you are really interested in reducing government debt and deficit, you should support spending cuts and oppose the current policy of monetizing the debt.

That is a Federal Reserve thing.

Issues..Please. McKinney, who could not even hold on to her seat in a heavily black district, is completely clueless.

That is a story that you have never heard. I could fill you in if you are interested but you probably are not.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Obama's people would ask McKinney not to run in return she will get a high paying do-nothing job in the Obama White House should Obama be re-elected.

Highly unlikely. McKinney is a nationalist and Obama is a globalist. They very much do not like each other.

Issues.. Go on.

.