How much wealth did GWB tax rates add to your bottom line?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has
and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

Greedy MF'r.

 

[jgarden]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

What "JRK" fails to mention is that under the Bush Administration, the national debt skyrocketed from 56.4% to 84.2% of GDP - a $6.13 trillion increase!

Under the Clinton Administration, the national debt actually DECREASED by 9.7%, while under the Bush Administration it INCREASED by 27.8% - the largest for any president since WW2.

What "RFK" fails to realize is that any president can give American taxpayers a tax rate cut it comes at a cost - if its done with borrowed money.

Tax cuts, when the nation is already deep in debt, is nothing more than a deferred tax that some other Administration will be forced to deal with at a later date!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I'm demonstrating (via calculations of The Tax Foundation) that a single person claiming the standard deduction got a larger tax cut from the 2010 payroll tax cut than they did from the Bush reduction in rates.

You weren't very clear in your claim.

"A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts"

See that looks like higher tax burden after the Bush cuts than before.

from the year 2000?
Look do you read anything I write?
GWB tax cuts began the year 2001
from the year 2001 I have save 30,000
are you trying to be hard to get along with?

I read and agree with your claim.
8537 had his numbers reversed.

 

[JRK]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

What "JRK" fails to mention is that under the Bush Administration, the national debt skyrocketed from 56.4% to 84.2% of GDP - a $6.13 trillion increase!

Under the Clinton Administration, the national debt actually DECREASED by 9.7%, while under the Bush Administration it INCREASED by 27.8% - the largest for any president since WW2.

What "RFK" fails to realize is that president can give him/her a lower tax rate comes at a cost - if its all done with borrowed money which is nothing more than a deferred tax some other Administration will be forced to deal with at a latter date!

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE STOP LYING
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

 

[JRK]

You weren't very clear in your claim.

"A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts"

See that looks like higher tax burden after the Bush cuts than before.

from the year 2000?
Look do you read anything I write?
GWB tax cuts began the year 2001
from the year 2001 I have save 30,000
are you trying to be hard to get along with?

I read and agree with your claim.
8537 had his numbers reversed.

He is spinning it
he is talking about what Obama did with his failed stimulus and trying to compare it as though Obama had something to do with GWB tax cuts in 01

Its this simple
from 2000, Last year of Clinton's rate
75,000 75,050 17,939 15,307 18,818 16,438
2008
75,000 75,050 14,938 11,119 15,129 13,604
He is trying to say thats not 3000.00
I do not know what he is doing but trying to make something look different than it is

 

[8537]

from the year 2000?
Look do you read anything I write?
GWB tax cuts began the year 2001
from the year 2001 I have save 30,000
are you trying to be hard to get along with?

I read and agree with your claim.
8537 had his numbers reversed.

He is spinning it
he is talking about what Obama did with his failed stimulus and trying to compare it as though Obama had something to do with GWB tax cuts in 01

You are lying. I never claimed that Obama had anything to do with GWB's tax cuts in 2001. I simply pointed out the relative value of each president's tax cut to an individual making 75K and taking the standard deduction.

Its this simple
from 2000, Last year of Clinton's rate
75,000 75,050 17,939 15,307 18,818 16,438
2008
75,000 75,050 14,938 11,119 15,129 13,604
He is trying to say thats not 3000.00
I do not know what he is doing but trying to make something look different than it is

One again, you don't understand what you're talking about. The standard deduction changed, among other things.

I provided a link that does the math for you.

 

[JRK]

I read and agree with your claim.
8537 had his numbers reversed.

He is spinning it
he is talking about what Obama did with his failed stimulus and trying to compare it as though Obama had something to do with GWB tax cuts in 01

You are lying. I never claimed that Obama had anything to do with GWB's tax cuts in 2001. I simply pointed out the relative value of each president's tax cut to an individual making 75K and taking the standard deduction.

Its this simple
from 2000, Last year of Clinton's rate
75,000 75,050 17,939 15,307 18,818 16,438
2008
75,000 75,050 14,938 11,119 15,129 13,604
He is trying to say thats not 3000.00
I do not know what he is doing but trying to make something look different than it is

One again, you don't understand what you're talking about. The standard deduction changed, among other things.

I provided a link that does the math for you.

If have that much in taxable income
I have used my deduction

 

[8537]

If have that much in taxable income
I have used my deduction

The size of the deduction has changed. Therefore, your taxable income has changed - unless your income has magically tracked the exact changes in the standard deduction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I'm demonstrating (via calculations of The Tax Foundation) that a single person claiming the standard deduction got a larger tax cut from the 2010 payroll tax cut than they did from the Bush reduction in rates.

You weren't very clear in your claim.

"A person making 75K would pay:
$13,855 with the Bush tax cuts and
$12,500 without said cuts"

See that looks like higher tax burden after the Bush cuts than before.

from the year 2000?
Look do you read anything I write?
GWB tax cuts began the year 2001
from the year 2001 I have save 30,000
are you trying to be hard to get along with?

Bush borrowed that money you saved. It should have gone to pay the government's bills.

 

[jgarden]

What "JRK" fails to mention is that under the Bush Administration, the national debt skyrocketed from 56.4% to 84.2% of GDP - a $6.13 trillion increase!

Under the Clinton Administration, the national debt actually DECREASED by 9.7%, while under the Bush Administration it INCREASED by 27.8% - the largest for any president since WW2.

What "RFK" fails to realize is that president can give him/her a lower tax rate comes at a cost - if its all done with borrowed money which is nothing more than a deferred tax some other Administration will be forced to deal with at a latter date!

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[PLEASE STOP LYING
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed .....

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States

..... Heritage is primarily funded through donations from private individuals and charitable foundations. Businessman Joseph Coors contributed the first $250,000 to start The Heritage Foundation in 1973. Other significant contributors have included the conservative Olin, Scaife, DeVos and Bradley foundations. In 2007, Heritage reported an operating revenue of $75.0 million dollars ..... the Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

"JRK" is following the traditional conservative approach on forums:

- conveniently ignore the facts and/or challenge the credibility of any source that doesn't conform with their viewpoint

- substitute personal attacks (PLEASE STOP LYING) for a rational response

- attempt to regain control of the thread by introducing information from some obviously conservative source - in this particular case "JRK" uses the "The Foundry" as his/her supposed unbiased source. "The Foundry" just happens to be affiliated with "The Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank, that was established by Joseph Koors and is currently part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program.

"The foundation (The Heritage Foundation) took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership"

Under the Reagan/GHW Bush Administrations and their conservative policies, the national debt went from 32.5% to 66.1% of GDP.

With The Heritage Foundation as a leading advisor to these presidents, "JRK's" source is anything but credible when it now criticizes the Obama Administration for inheriting a debt problem that the Foundation's policies helped create.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms[/b]

 

[Full-Auto]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has
and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

The left has never been for the little guy. Only special interests that claim they speak for everyone else.

 

[jgarden]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has
and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

The left has never been for the little guy. Only special interests that claim they speak for everyone else.

..... House Tea Party founder Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) ran the most expensive campaign, high above the average, at more than $11.6 million.

And even though money often matters, the most expensive Senate campaign didn't result in a win.

Republican Linda McMahon of Connecticut, the former chief executive officer of World Wrestling Entertainment, spent more than $50 million of her own money to finance her unsuccessful campaign. McMahon ultimately lost to Democrat Richard Blumenthal.

OpenSecrets.org Unveils 2010 'Big Picture' Analysis - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Given that the most expense 2010 election campaigns in the Senate (Linda McMahon) and the House of Representatives (Michele Bachmann) were both conducted by Republican candidates, perhaps "Full Auto" might want to reexamine his assertion about who best represents the "little guy!"

 

[Full-Auto]

Mine was 3-5% savings
I avg about 75k
10 years
4%
75k

Thats 30,000 I have put back into the economy that under Clinton's rate the federal govt has
and not me

And the left is for the working man?
think about it

The left has never been for the little guy. Only special interests that claim they speak for everyone else.

OpenSecrets.org Unveils 2010 'Big Picture' Analysis - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Establishment dems or repubs are only out for who gives them the most cash. I have never questioned that. They hide it in the details. I especially love how the government can now legally rob your 401 k

 

[JRK]

The left has never been for the little guy. Only special interests that claim they speak for everyone else.

OpenSecrets.org Unveils 2010 'Big Picture' Analysis - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Establishment dems or repubs are only out for who gives them the most cash. I have never questioned that. They hide it in the details. I especially love how the government can now legally rob your 401 k

As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

 

[jgarden]

..... As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

And we have established that these tax cuts from the Bush Administration were financed with borrowed money. It was Bush's decision to introduce tax cuts and leave a ballooning national debt for somebody else to "carry the can."

If "JRK" gives Bush a "free-pass" for 9-11 to cover a multitude of "sins," why doesn't Obama warrant a "free-pass" for inheriting an economy left in shambles?

 

[Ravi]

OpenSecrets.org Unveils 2010 'Big Picture' Analysis - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Establishment dems or repubs are only out for who gives them the most cash. I have never questioned that. They hide it in the details. I especially love how the government can now legally rob your 401 k

As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

You were just shown where Obama gave you a bigger tax cut than Bush did.

Are you this stupid in real life?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Establishment dems or repubs are only out for who gives them the most cash. I have never questioned that. They hide it in the details. I especially love how the government can now legally rob your 401 k

As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

You were just shown where Obama gave you a bigger tax cut than Bush did.

Are you this stupid in real life?

That was the claim. I didn't see any proof.

Maybe you could use this calculator and prove Obama's cut was larger?

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

 

[Ravi]

I did.

Last year someone making $75,000 would have paid $9300 in SS.

This year it is $7800.

A savings of $1500.

 

[8537]

As I hsve established
the working class person like my self GWB did more for than any other president
When it comes to the dificits the left ignores the fact 9-11 did more to harm his 8 years in office than everything else combined

You were just shown where Obama gave you a bigger tax cut than Bush did.

Are you this stupid in real life?

That was the claim. I didn't see any proof.

Maybe you could use this calculator and prove Obama's cut was larger?

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

The math is pretty simple. The payroll tax was dropped from .062 to .042. so...

75,000* .02 = 1500

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You were just shown where Obama gave you a bigger tax cut than Bush did.

Are you this stupid in real life?

That was the claim. I didn't see any proof.

Maybe you could use this calculator and prove Obama's cut was larger?

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

The math is pretty simple. The payroll tax was dropped from .062 to .042. so...

75,000* .02 = 1500

I was interested in this claim.....
"For those keeping score at home, that's a maximum difference of $1,355"

I thought you were claiming someone with an income of $75000 only saved $1,355 from the Bush cuts.