Happy 10th Birthday.....Bush Tax Cuts

[CrusaderFrank]

TRICKLE DOWN theory economics is nonsense when the problem is NOT on the supply side.

And of course when BUSH II's tax cuts for billionaires policies happened, the problems were NOT on the SUPPLY SIDE.

FWIW, they're STILL not on the SUPPLY side.

Private industry is sitting on something like 14 TRILLION dollars they could invest into supply side if there was a DEMAND side that made such investments woth their time.

What we need is a REAL Keynesian response.

Instead we got OBAMA's continuation of BUSH II's trickle down bullshit.

You sounds like Paul Krugman, you should sent this in to the Nobel Committee, you should win for economics.

"The Stimulus needs to be, um, er, lemme see 2, 3, 8 Trillion. Yeah thats's the ticket 8 trillion"

 

[mal]

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

We are Experiencing a Generational Correction...

Just like from 1978 to 1983...

Look for this to Recover Fully and Strong in about a year or two.

Whoever is President will get the Credit, and that's how it works.



peace...

 

[theHawk]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

Yes, yes, yes....PLEASE Obama and all Dems run on the promise of raising taxes in the upcoming election. For once be truthful about your intentions.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

Yes, yes, yes....PLEASE Obama and all Dems run on the promise of raising taxes in the upcoming election. For once be truthful about your intentions.

He ran on raising taxes in 2008 and won by a landslide

Too bad he backed away from his promise

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

Yes, yes, yes....PLEASE Obama and all Dems run on the promise of raising taxes in the upcoming election. For once be truthful about your intentions.

He ran on raising taxes in 2008 and won by a landslide

Too bad he backed away from his promise

Well, that's a bit of a stretch to say the least. But hey, when you have nearly half the population paying $0 in income taxes, it isn't outside the realm of possibilities.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who wants taxes on the other guy?

I DO! I DO!

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, yes, yes....PLEASE Obama and all Dems run on the promise of raising taxes in the upcoming election. For once be truthful about your intentions.

He ran on raising taxes in 2008 and won by a landslide

Too bad he backed away from his promise

Well, that's a bit of a stretch to say the least. But hey, when you have nearly half the population paying $0 in income taxes, it isn't outside the realm of possibilities.

Why does half the population pay 0% ??

Blame Bush

In order to sell his tax cuts, he had to offer up cuts for the lower brackets. That, combined with the economy Bush crashed drove half the population into the 0% bracket

 

[Cal]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

It's so amazing how much these cuts have boosted our economy and created jobs.. Oh waiit.. They haven't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

It's so amazing how much these cuts have boosted our economy and created jobs.. Oh waiit.. They haven't.

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

 

[RDD_1210]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

It's so amazing how much these cuts have boosted our economy and created jobs.. Oh waiit.. They haven't.

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's so amazing how much these cuts have boosted our economy and created jobs.. Oh waiit.. They haven't.

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

 

[Skynet]

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Genocide happens in Africa every day, are you supporting their system? because i dont hear you campaigning for changes there.

you have a stupid argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

A child was raped somewhere in America today. Why didn't you stop it? Do you support child raping?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Exhibit A: White Folks Greed

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Careful there Frank... you're about to b called a racist by RDD... it is what he does... and prolifically at that.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Careful there Frank... you're about to b called a racist by RDD... it is what he does... and prolifically at that.

For someone that supposedly has me on ignore, you sure do pay a lot of attention to my posts. Hmmm, have I perhaps caught you lying about something else? It seems so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you insist on making up arguments that don't exist?

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Genocide happens in Africa every day, are you supporting their system? because i dont hear you campaigning for changes there.

you have a stupid argument.

It's because of the stupid US tax policy that lets people keep more than they need. We could solve all these problems if we take the trillion US business are hoarding and if people only kept the money the really needed

 

[Skynet]

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Genocide happens in Africa every day, are you supporting their system? because i dont hear you campaigning for changes there.

you have a stupid argument.

It's because of the stupid US tax policy that lets people keep more than they need. We could solve all these problems if we take the trillion US business are hoarding and if people only kept the money the really needed

this sounds like youre more in favor of social or communism than democracy, where the government has control of everything.....

can you clarify?

 

[Too Tall]

Cruise ship throw out more food that people in Haiti eat in a year...why do you support a system that starves Haitians?

Genocide happens in Africa every day, are you supporting their system? because i dont hear you campaigning for changes there.

you have a stupid argument.

It's because of the stupid US tax policy that lets people keep more than they need. We could solve all these problems if we take the trillion US business are hoarding and if people only kept the money the really needed

I agree, and I need a new Mercedes every year, a bigger yacht and a villa in the south of France. Who is it that decides what I need? Me or the government.

 

[Shadow]

Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

It's so amazing how much these cuts have boosted our economy and created jobs.. Oh waiit.. They haven't.

I thought that was what the Obama $787 billion stimulus package was for?

 

[rdean]

Well hell.

Lets raise taxes in this economy and see what happens.

I'm game.

Are you??

OK. Cutting them didn't work. Rich people aren't "creating jobs". The middle class doesn't have money now. What we need is some good old government involvement with some investment in "infrastructure". Let's rebuild some of those 70,000 bridges that are falling apart before more fall down. Let's bring our electrical grid up to standard. Let's educate our children.

Screw Republicans. First, they ruin the economy, then they work tirelessly to keep the country down.