Obama's "I inherited this mess" excuse vs reality

[Modbert]

yeah I think reagan was dumb with his defecits for sure. I was too young to care at the time he was president but later when I do care I dont like it.

I threw a quick paragraph under Wilson's picture to explain a few of what I didn't like about him

1) Federal Reserve
2) Progressive tax system
3) Segregation

Oh trust me PP, I understand why as a Libertarian you would disagree like him.

I dislike him for some similar reasons and then some.

 

[rdean]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

Hey Dipshit. The vote in the Senate was 49 to 49 with two independents, one of which was Joe Lieberman. Does that sound like "control"?

And why didn't Bush include the cost of either war in his budgets?

Republicans are so fucked up. They want this country ruined.

All they know are lies and scams and deals and squeezing the middle class. They let Bin Laden go, why not the American Middle Class?

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's clear up a basic point of confusion. Deficits tend to arise during recessions in a very natural way, through two primary mechanisms: 1) falling revenues as taxable income falls and 2) rises in mandatory spending as automatic stabilizers kick in. Money coming in drops, money going out increases all without a single appropriations bill required. Now this particular recession had some unique features, like a teetering financial sector, which led to some extra measures that are out of the ordinary (and, no, TARP isn't merely a creation of a Democratic Congressional majority).

Where was the deficit just before Obama took office? Here's what the CBO was telling us in January 2009 (I've bolded some of the new factors contributing to the deficit):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

These factors were piled onto the other factors that were already creating deficits (e.g. two ongoing military conflicts, a revenue shortage due to tax cuts that weren't offset with spending cuts, etc). So when Obama walked through the door, the deficit for 2009 was forecast to be $1.2 trillion. And that's not because of out-of-control Congressional appropriations or whatever your chain email is suggesting, it's because he was taking office in the midst of an economic shitstorm, which never tends to bode well for the deficit.

Nobody asked Obama to spend another $2 trillion. He should have started cutting immediately, but instead he chose to double the deficit in his second year. It also doesn't help that he and the Dems keep extending unemployment benefits.

By the way....Obama helped greatly with starting the shitstorm. After all...he was in the Senate in 04'. He's been in Washington stirring up shit for around 6 years. Long enough not to inherit shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

1. The Democrats inherited the Bush tax cuts, which amount to a 2.3 trillion dollar revenue loss over 10 years.
2. The Democrats inherited the Iraq war and its ongoing cost.
3. The Democrats inherited an unfunded drug prescription benefit.

 

[edthecynic]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

What Obama inherited was the Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, which Bush kept off the books, Bush's drug bill, and the interest on $8 trillion in debt purposely rung up by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II so the government would have no money to spend on the American people. Back them out and Obama would have little or no debt in spite of the reduced revenue due to the Bush Depression.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

 

[cad]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

1. The Democrats inherited the Bush tax cuts, which amount to a 2.3 trillion dollar revenue loss over 10 years.
2. The Democrats inherited the Iraq war and its ongoing cost.
3. The Democrats inherited an unfunded drug prescription benefit.

first off, they inherited an unfunded drug prescription benefit that they wanted to be BIGGER.

secondly, obama knew all of these things when he took office. so knowing this, what did he do?

did he increase or decrease federal spending?
did he fight for an almost $1 trillion stimulus bill?
did he enact a brand new entitlement program?
did he increase the troop level of afghanistan?

knowing that Bush screwed us royally by increasing our debt levels, what is ONE step obama has taken to decrease these levels?

his big accomplishment is, after increasing spending in certain departments by almost 30%, he imposes a temporary freeze on them. wow. impressive.

 

[mudwhistle]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

1. The Democrats inherited the Bush tax cuts, which amount to a 2.3 trillion dollar revenue loss over 10 years.
2. The Democrats inherited the Iraq war and its ongoing cost.
3. The Democrats inherited an unfunded drug prescription benefit.

1. Show me a link that states tax cuts cost revenue loss. Tax cuts cause growth in the economy which means more revenue because more people have money to invest, to pay for more expensive products, and pay more taxes.

2. The Democrats could end the war.

3. This unfunded prescription benefit is worse then forced Health Insurance, Cap and Trade, the Stimulus, bailouts left and right, sending billions to foreign countries that aren't exactly our friends, bailing out foreign oil companies like Brazil, bailing out foreign banks?

Don't make me laugh.

 

[edthecynic]

1. Show me a link that states tax cuts cost revenue loss. Tax cuts cause growth in the economy which means more revenue because more people have money to invest, to pay for more expensive products, and pay more taxes.

Tax cuts increase tax collections
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)

Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3

Source - Internal Revenue Service.

Kennedy tax cuts

Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue

Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.

Clinton tax increase

Individual Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1990 $466,884 $413,355
1991 467,827 397,677 < recession year
1992 475,964 392,969
1993 509,680 411,032 < Clinton tax passes
1994 543,055 429,496 < takes effect
1995 590,244 458,300

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
--------------------------------------------
1990 $93,507 $82,786
1991 98,086 83,378 < recession year
1992 100,270 82,786
1993 117,520 94,774 < Clinton tax passes
1994 140,385 111,029 < takes effect
1995 157,004 121,907

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from tables located there.

 

[cad]

ok, i'm not sure and dont' feel like doing the investigation myself, but of all those tax increases you listed that led to higher government revenues, how many were enacted during a recession when unemployment was near a 30 year high? is there any evidence (and there very well may be in those stats you showed us) that raising taxes spurs economic growth and lowers unemployment?

 

[edthecynic]

ok, i'm not sure and dont' feel like doing the investigation myself, but of all those tax increases you listed that led to higher government revenues, how many were enacted during a recession when unemployment was near a 30 year high? is there any evidence (and there very well may be in those stats you showed us) that raising taxes spurs economic growth and lowers unemployment?

Well, that 30 year high you refer to is the Reagan Recession. During the Reagan recession UE was 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 1982. After Reagan raised taxes UE dropped and the economy grew.

 

[rdean]

Seriously, the right wing let Bin Laden go.

They apologized to BP.

Why don't they lay off the "Middle Class"?

 

[cad]

ok, i'm not sure and dont' feel like doing the investigation myself, but of all those tax increases you listed that led to higher government revenues, how many were enacted during a recession when unemployment was near a 30 year high? is there any evidence (and there very well may be in those stats you showed us) that raising taxes spurs economic growth and lowers unemployment?

Well, that 30 year high you refer to is the Reagan Recession. During the Reagan recession UE was 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 1982. After Reagan raised taxes UE dropped and the economy grew.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

that data is only showing the top marginal incomel tax rate, which remained steady after reagan lowered in 81. he did raise other taxes, but not the income tax rate, as far as i can tell. please let me know if i am wrong. and we are discussing bush's income tax cuts right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[1. Show me a link that states tax cuts cost revenue loss. Tax cuts cause growth in the economy which means more revenue because more people have money to invest, to pay for more expensive products, and pay more taxes.

2. The Democrats could end the war.

3. This unfunded prescription benefit is worse then forced Health Insurance, Cap and Trade, the Stimulus, bailouts left and right, sending billions to foreign countries that aren't exactly our friends, bailing out foreign oil companies like Brazil, bailing out foreign banks?

Don't make me laugh.

I thought you were talking about what Obama inherited.

Tax revenues fell 400 billion in 2009 compared to 2008. How is that possible if the Bush tax cuts, PLUS the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus, cause revenues to go up???

You have bought into a myth. Tax cuts do not increase revenues. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

NO ONE has ever proven otherwise in a legitimate cause and effect based argument.

btw, how much Republican support for Obama getting us out of Afghanistan on January 22nd 2009 was there?

 

[cad]

[1. Show me a link that states tax cuts cost revenue loss. Tax cuts cause growth in the economy which means more revenue because more people have money to invest, to pay for more expensive products, and pay more taxes.

2. The Democrats could end the war.

3. This unfunded prescription benefit is worse then forced Health Insurance, Cap and Trade, the Stimulus, bailouts left and right, sending billions to foreign countries that aren't exactly our friends, bailing out foreign oil companies like Brazil, bailing out foreign banks?

Don't make me laugh.

I thought you were talking about what Obama inherited.

Tax revenues fell 400 billion in 2009 compared to 2008. How is that possible if the Bush tax cuts, PLUS the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus, cause revenues to go up???

You have bought into a myth. Tax cuts do not increase revenues. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

NO ONE has ever proven otherwise in a legitimate cause and effect based argument.

btw, how much Republican support for Obama getting us out of Afghanistan on January 22nd 2009 was there?

name one step obama has taken so far that is going to decrease spending/lower the deficit?

 

[edthecynic]

ok, i'm not sure and dont' feel like doing the investigation myself, but of all those tax increases you listed that led to higher government revenues, how many were enacted during a recession when unemployment was near a 30 year high? is there any evidence (and there very well may be in those stats you showed us) that raising taxes spurs economic growth and lowers unemployment?

Well, that 30 year high you refer to is the Reagan Recession. During the Reagan recession UE was 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 1982. After Reagan raised taxes UE dropped and the economy grew.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

that data is only showing the top marginal incomel tax rate, which remained steady after reagan lowered in 81. he did raise other taxes, but not the income tax rate, as far as i can tell. please let me know if i am wrong. and we are discussing bush's income tax cuts right?

We are discussing all tax cuts and increases. The GOP likes to cut the progressive income tax and raise all regressive taxes like payroll taxes and the gas tax, etc.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

 

[jeffrockit]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

What Obama inherited was the Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, which Bush kept off the books, Bush's drug bill, and the interest on $8 trillion in debt purposely rung up by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II so the government would have no money to spend on the American people. Back them out and Obama would have little or no debt in spite of the reduced revenue due to the Bush Depression.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

None of that explains why Obama increased the deficit. If he "inherited" a deficit, the logical, wise thing to do would be to try and reduce it, not increase it. The fact remains that Obama added to the deficit so he is really no better than Bush who also added to it.

 

[edthecynic]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

What Obama inherited was the Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, which Bush kept off the books, Bush's drug bill, and the interest on $8 trillion in debt purposely rung up by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II so the government would have no money to spend on the American people. Back them out and Obama would have little or no debt in spite of the reduced revenue due to the Bush Depression.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

None of that explains why Obama increased the deficit. If he "inherited" a deficit, the logical, wise thing to do would be to try and reduce it, not increase it. The fact remains that Obama added to the deficit so he is really no better than Bush who also added to it.

So you are saying Reagan and Cheney are liars for saying deficits don't matter!
Thank you.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

 

[DiveCon]

Well, that 30 year high you refer to is the Reagan Recession. During the Reagan recession UE was 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 1982. After Reagan raised taxes UE dropped and the economy grew.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

that data is only showing the top marginal incomel tax rate, which remained steady after reagan lowered in 81. he did raise other taxes, but not the income tax rate, as far as i can tell. please let me know if i am wrong. and we are discussing bush's income tax cuts right?

We are discussing all tax cuts and increases. The GOP likes to cut the progressive income tax and raise all regressive taxes like payroll taxes and the gas tax, etc.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

and who passes "acts"


hint, it isnt POTUS

 

[Londoner]

[who] in the world [made] anyone think that by putting more money in the pockets of wealthy people means that they will go out and invest it in growth oriented, job creating investments?

Reagan, the original deficit spender.

He wanted to pile money into the Cold War and cut taxes -- ol' guns and butter gipper. So he used voodoo economics. He said "I don't need to cut spending on Star Wars because the tax cuts will pay for themselves through increased revenue." Then, when nobody was looking, he handed GW a much more expensive government than Carter handed him, i.e., massive deficits. This is what Republicans always do. They create massive deficits when they're in office, then they complain about deficits when they're out of office.

FYI: the Bush tax cuts didn't translate into jobs (because nothing is made in America anymore). Those tax cuts went to the Wall Street casino. Wall Street didn't know what to do with all the extra money. There was literally too much money chasing too few products. So they radically increased the number of securities and derivatives created from mortgages. Problem is: they needed more and more mortgages to keep the punch bowl full. These securities became the new gold rush, and they were sold all over the globe. Banks in Iceland were lining up. The banks could not hand out mortgages quick enough. Didn't matter if you were a dead illegal immigrant, the giant pool of money flooding into Wall Street could use your mortgage. Which is to say: the Bush tax cuts went into the Real Estate Wall Street orgy made possible by 30 years of hollowing out the regulatory apparatus. Meanwhile, the middle class saw an erosion of jobs and earning power. They needed credit for basic necessities. This is where Reaganomics leads: the creation of excessive, wealth on one end, combined with massive poverty on the other end. Gone is the middle class consumer [-which was the plan: capital hates an expensive, entitlement-hungry middle class clogging up one of it's supply chains. The point of the Reagan Revolution was to create cheap labor for capital investment -- this is why his policies single handedly destroyed the American Middle Class]

This is why the Reagan model gave you such a sick economy. It put too much money on top, where there were not enough quality investment products (thus resulting in the creation of bogus products). While, at the same time, the middle class consumer, i.e., people who drive the real economy, saw a decline of jobs, wages, and benefits. When the money stopped trickling down -- i.e., when the Reagan model stopped working as advertised -- you tried to cover it up with credit cards. The original deficit spender created deficit nation. This eventually destroyed you circa Bush.

One thing is certain. Tax cuts in America do not lead to job creation. Those days are long, long gone. You folks need to get of 1980. Times have changed. You have different problems now. Corporations own government, and the cheap labor they've created can no longer afford to buy stuff.

 

[edthecynic]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

that data is only showing the top marginal incomel tax rate, which remained steady after reagan lowered in 81. he did raise other taxes, but not the income tax rate, as far as i can tell. please let me know if i am wrong. and we are discussing bush's income tax cuts right?

We are discussing all tax cuts and increases. The GOP likes to cut the progressive income tax and raise all regressive taxes like payroll taxes and the gas tax, etc.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

and who passes "acts"


hint, it isnt POTUS

And who signs the "acts"

hint, it isn't Congress