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

[bripat9643]

Bush was the "only" President in US history that pushed tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, during a time of war. Gee, I wonder why. He padded the pockets of the wealthy at the same time that friends like Haliburton were getting huge government contracts.

Obama is granting those same contracts to Halliburton.

Tax cuts are always good.

Sending money to Washington is worse than flushing it down the sewer. At least in the sewer it will wash out to sea without harming anyone. Most government programs are positively detrimental to this nation.

 

[bripat9643]

So, now people have to prove that keeping what's theirs in the first place benefits you.

Is there no end to the entitlement mentality?

It's not all theirs.

The money I earn doesn't belong to me?

Are you serious?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't expect honesty from that user handle, but keeping liars in check is always honorable.

Is that your promise to keep your mouth shut?

 

[G.T.]

So, now people have to prove that keeping what's theirs in the first place benefits you.

Is there no end to the entitlement mentality?

It's not all theirs.

The money I earn doesn't belong to me?

Are you serious?

It's not 100% yours, unless you live in a zero-cost Infrastructure/Society. Do you?

If it's all yours, why are you paying taxes? Ohh.....the alternative is prison.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what Bush did twice when he cut taxes without cutting spending. He reduced the amount of revenue available for the spending he was also signing into law and directly brought back massive deficits.

The only problem with your theory is the record, which shows that revenue increased after the tax cuts.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

If you're a member of Congress, when you make an extra $5000, you immediately go out and spend an extra $10000. furthermore, Government doesn't "earn" anything. It takes money from the people who earn it. It takes money from productive people and gives it to useless moochers. tics and leaches. That damages the productive capacity of the economy.

Libs believe they can confiscate 100% of our wealth every year with no ill effects.

 

[Liability]

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

With reference to the dishonest thread title: "besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?" I cannot help but note that dishonesty is a hallmark of modern American liberalism.

No tax cut has EVER added ANYTHING, much less "massively" added anything, to any national debt.

The very thought process behind blu's silly thread headline is revealing.

Tax cuts don't contribute to debt. Tax cuts MIGHT (under certain circumstances) lead to a reduction in Government "income." But ONLY -- as in EXCLUSIVELY -- SPENDING can POSSIBLY increase debt.

 

[bripat9643]

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

added massively to Obama's deficits.

ROFL! Obama quadrupled Bush's deficit.

No one is swallowing the shtick that Bush is responsible for Obama's $1.7 trillion deficit.

That dog won't hunt.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Funded the movement of millions of jobs to China.

How did it do that?

next you'll blame the Bush tax breaks for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Only a worthless leach who sucks off the taxpayer would be opposed to tax cuts.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a mix. When you live in a society propped up by laws and infrastructure, you're obligated to pay for such. As a result, all of the dollars you work for are not "yours." That's pretty self explanatory, one would think.

ROFL! Sorry, bud, but only about 5% of what I pay in taxes goes to pay for enforcement of laws and infrastructure. The rest goes to useless tics like you.

It's a whole nother "sense of entitlement" to think that all money is yours, and that 0% of it is paid to run the Society in which you partake.

No, that is pretty close to reality. Government is mostly a vast extortion racket that shakes down one group of people so it can pass out the resulting swag to it's assorted toadies, jobholders and dependents.

 

[bripat9643]

Because it's when the Credit bubble was getting more and more inflated, coinciding with the Economy doing the same, and when the Credit bubble popped, what else popped?> The Economy, meanwhile, still same taxes all around.

Then you admit Bush's tax rates didn't cause today's deficit an high unemployment.

You just undercut your own argument.

 

[bripat9643]

You thus agreed with me, idiot. (the fact you KNOW you have to pay taxes, means you KNOW that all the money you make isn't YOURS. You ADMIT some is for infrastructure, laws, security, etc etc. YOU ARGUED MY POINT FOR ME, LUMMOX).

I also have to turn my money over to a mugger pointing a gun at me. According to you, that means the money belongs to the mugger.

Now who's the idiot?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not standing anywhere with my hand out expecting you to pay my way, so sit the fuck down.

You certainly are. You're demanding higher taxes. You aren't asking. You want to shake us down for cash at gunpoint.

And until you pay 0% taxes, it's a FACT, all money you work for is NOT all yours. You may not like the way that sounds, but it's true and it's not disputible. Just because you think it sounds prettier to say "mine mine mine," doesn't change the fact that Society isn't free of cost and that it's false. You like to deal in facts, the fact is, taxes aren't 0%.

Not for most, anyways.

that is the most servile attitude I have ever witnessed. The fact that government takes my money doesn't prove that the money isn't mine. Thieves also take my money.
According to your theory of morality, a thief owns the money he takes from you.

And, yes, parasites do have a cost, but that doesn't mean they are morally entitled to what they suck out of the rest of us.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not 100% yours, unless you live in a zero-cost Infrastructure/Society. Do you?

If it's all yours, why are you paying taxes? Ohh.....the alternative is prison.

that's right, I pay taxes only because men with guns will come and put me in prison if I don't. If I don't hand my money over to a mugger with a gun in his hand, he may put a bullet in me. According to you, that means he is the true owner of the money he takes.

You have the morality of a mugger or a thief. That's all liberalism is, the morality of mass theft.

Thanks for admitting it.

 

[Imma B Me]

I think the substance of the OP's question is solid but the labeling automatically makes it divisive. It's probably best to say the 2001/2003 tax rates instead of "Bush tax cuts" for two reasons. One, whenever things are labeled along partisan lines, the dog whistle sounds and some people quickly run to the defend and/or attack things strictly along partisan lines, with little regard for facts. Secondly, we are a collective society in the USA through "government", which carries out our collective will that we vote on. Therefore, even when individually we don't agree with something that has been done legally by "government", we ALL own it as a nation. If some don't like what "we the people" have done collectively, then they use the power of their vote and rally others to do the same for different representation. So "Bush tax cuts", "Obamacare", "Clinton surplus", "Reganomics" etc, are all moot labels because these were US Presidents making US policy through the power of "we the people", so we ALL own it.

Now to the question, this tax policy of lowering the tax on those with the highest income with an expectation to "promote the general welfare", has not worked. I caught Andrew Sullivan on Real Time last night and he made an interesting point about the US having tried this policy for around a total of 25 years and it has not worked. US fiscal history shows that the country as a whole is the most prosperous and the wealthy still continue to benefit, when taxes are highest on those with the most income.

I like keeping things simple whenever possible so if tax policy can be set around fiscal year 2000 blueprint, with the rich still getting richer and the country as a whole being better off, I am all for that. I could go on for days about how some people are allowing themselves to get to caught up in partisan rhetoric and political divides. However, most of us have more in common than we do differences if we just stop making each other out to be boogeymen and have honest discussion.

The tax debate should really be about how best to use tax revenue, not if there should be tax revenue. When people say "tax money is their money", their money is "taxed" and that portion taken from their money is now "we the people's" to decide what to do with collectively. If you advocate cutting taxes so people can have more money to spend as they like, that's cool and if someone else advocates raising taxes so "we the people" can spend that money through a collective decision, that's cool too. The issue arises when you have people advocating for cutting taxes claiming people will then individually decide to spend that money, not only to "promote the general welfare" but do it BETTER than "we the people" would have done collectively and others advocating raising taxes claiming to use it to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity" but actually using most of that money for their own personal gain and a select number of others.

Tax policy is as American as freedom of speech because individually we have a say about it through representation by our vote. Taxation WITH representation is a founding principle of the USA and tax does not equal lost funds but means shared decision making for how they are spent.

I often hear people talk about how great America is while seeming like they have no idea of the things that are the greatest about our country. For all the mistakes and flaws of our nation the fact that we have a stake in and own EVERYTHING that our nation does is the greatest thing about being an American. We as citizens have full responsibility for the good, the bad and everything in between this nation does because as US citizen's we have a say in it.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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

Funded the movement of millions of jobs to China.

How did it do that?

next you'll blame the Bush tax breaks for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Only a worthless leach who sucks off the taxpayer would be opposed to tax cuts.

I'm opposed to the tax cuts, and I probably pay more in taxes a year than most people on USMB make. The "leech" argument just doesn't hold water. It's a juveinlle argument to say all liberals want people to pay 100% of their income in taxes. The answer isn't 100% paid-but it's not 0% either.

Somebody's gotta pay for food inspections, roads, court system, police, firefighters, hospitals, EMTS, etc. There are no free hand outs-and those are no exceptions.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes-if they're used in responsible ways. They're currently not-that's what really bothers me, not the fact that I have to pay them.

I am for a flat tax rate for all Americans though.

 

[SwingVoter]

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

that's because you don't have your facts straight

Bush's tax cuts did not create the deficit, but his massive spending increases on medicare drug, Iraq, DHS, and the Federal Bureaucracy did

If he had grown spending at the same rate Clinton did, the budget would have been balanced in much of his 2nd term

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Funded the movement of millions of jobs to China.

How did it do that?

next you'll blame the Bush tax breaks for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Only a worthless leach who sucks off the taxpayer would be opposed to tax cuts.

I'm opposed to the tax cuts, and I probably pay more in taxes a year than most people on USMB make. The "leech" argument just doesn't hold water. It's a juveinlle argument to say all liberals want people to pay 100% of their income in taxes. The answer isn't 100% paid-but it's not 0% either.

Somebody's gotta pay for food inspections, roads, court system, police, firefighters, hospitals, EMTS, etc. There are no free hand outs-and those are no exceptions.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes-if they're used in responsible ways. They're currently not-that's what really bothers me, not the fact that I have to pay them.

I am for a flat tax rate for all Americans though.

The problem is that you liberals think you can mandate what we pay. So far, liberal/progressive ideology is a fucking bust.

 

[Oddball]

It's not all theirs.

The money I earn doesn't belong to me?

Are you serious?

It's not 100% yours, unless you live in a zero-cost Infrastructure/Society. Do you?

If it's all yours, why are you paying taxes? Ohh.....the alternative is prison.

Right...It's being forced from us, at gunpoint if necessary.

Of course the difference between gubmint and a common street thug is that the mugger doesn't have tools like you pimping for him.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

How did it do that?

next you'll blame the Bush tax breaks for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Only a worthless leach who sucks off the taxpayer would be opposed to tax cuts.

I'm opposed to the tax cuts, and I probably pay more in taxes a year than most people on USMB make. The "leech" argument just doesn't hold water. It's a juveinlle argument to say all liberals want people to pay 100% of their income in taxes. The answer isn't 100% paid-but it's not 0% either.

Somebody's gotta pay for food inspections, roads, court system, police, firefighters, hospitals, EMTS, etc. There are no free hand outs-and those are no exceptions.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes-if they're used in responsible ways. They're currently not-that's what really bothers me, not the fact that I have to pay them.

I am for a flat tax rate for all Americans though.

The problem is that you liberals think you can mandate what we pay. So far, liberal/progressive ideology is a fucking bust.

I'm not a liberal, and will not be voting for Obama in 2012, but nice try trying to box somebody into a political ideal based on one view. Really, nice try.

PS-did you not even read when I said I'm for a flat tax rate? That's certainly NOT what the Democrats want.

edit: I want all Americans to pay the same amount of taxes, and the fairest way in my opinion to do that is with a flat tax rate.

If you don't want to pay any taxes at all I guess you want to drive a car without safety inspections, eat food with no safety inspections, not be able to drive on (any) road, have no police force, have no firefighters, have no court system. Somebody has to pay for them.

If you have a better way to pay for these (and many more) services that Americans need, and use everyday, let's hear it. Until then we have to pay some sort of taxes.