Why aren't the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

[NYcarbineer]

Why aren't Kennedy tax cuts working?

Why aren't Coolidge tax cuts working?

Why aren't Reagan tax cuts working?

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Just like

increased gov't spending and increased debt

funny how that works

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

We stopped making the People pay for the government they were getting. That's what caused the debt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

Why aren't Kennedy tax cuts working?

Why aren't Coolidge tax cuts working?

Why aren't Reagan tax cuts working?

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

 

[Oldstyle]

why did the Repubs insist on that budget-killing idea. I thought they were for a balanced budget and they just ripped an $800 billion hole in it

You guys are few slices short in the loaf.

First the tax cut for the rich was 700 billion over ten meaning 70 billion a year. That doesnt even put a dent in the deficit. Yet you guys managed additional social programs through the dot budget.

Youre just class warfare bitches nothing more.

70 billion a year isn't a 'dent' so it doesn't count? So there's no justification for doing anything that isn't bigger than a 'dent'?

So, conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education, right? As a budget thing.

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

71 billion. Doesn't even put a dent in the deficit.

Why wouldn't you get rid of the Department of Education? We spend 71 billion on it and it's made education in America worse instead of better. Progressives like yourself fight tooth and nail to maintain a bloated, inefficient and unneeded agency because you folks love big government and having control over your fellow citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You guys are few slices short in the loaf.

First the tax cut for the rich was 700 billion over ten meaning 70 billion a year. That doesnt even put a dent in the deficit. Yet you guys managed additional social programs through the dot budget.

Youre just class warfare bitches nothing more.

70 billion a year isn't a 'dent' so it doesn't count? So there's no justification for doing anything that isn't bigger than a 'dent'?

So, conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education, right? As a budget thing.

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

71 billion. Doesn't even put a dent in the deficit.

It's a start.

Not according to your rightwing pal full-auto.

 

[Google]

They were extended 8 months ago, when Obama caved in to the GOP's demands.

Weren't they supposed to create jobs? Wasn't another 800 billion dollar's worth of budget busting supposed to be worth it,

for the jobs?

Extending the Bush tax cuts saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs. This economy would be far worse right now had the president not extended the Bush tax cuts.

 

[grunt11b]

So you tax cut death spiralers think we need even more tax cuts to survive.

Currently we have 47% of households paying no federal income taxes.

What will that number be after your next round of cuts? 57%?

and next time, we'll up to 77%, then 87%,

at that point all federal income tax will be paid by the richest 13% of Americans...

...and LIBERALS are the class warfare crowd?

lolol

Cutting taxes creates jobs, putting more citizens to work. That 47% you speak of would drop if they have the jobs to go to. Those jobs cannot be created unless you put more wealth into the people to create more jobs with.

 

[grunt11b]

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Just like

increased gov't spending and increased debt

funny how that works

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

We stopped making the People pay for the government they were getting. That's what caused the debt.

Overspending caused the debt, not under taxing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Just like

increased gov't spending and increased debt

funny how that works

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

We stopped making the People pay for the government they were getting. That's what caused the debt.

deficits are symptomatic of spending problems not tax problems
Just like a drug addict, gov't needs an intervention

 

[Full-Auto]

why did the Repubs insist on that budget-killing idea. I thought they were for a balanced budget and they just ripped an $800 billion hole in it

You guys are few slices short in the loaf.

First the tax cut for the rich was 700 billion over ten meaning 70 billion a year. That doesnt even put a dent in the deficit. Yet you guys managed additional social programs through the dot budget.

Youre just class warfare bitches nothing more.

70 billion a year isn't a 'dent' so it doesn't count? So there's no justification for doing anything that isn't bigger than a 'dent'?

So, conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education, right? As a budget thing.

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

71 billion. Doesn't even put a dent in the deficit.

If the real concern was the deficit, your side would not have extended them.

Instead your side played pick and choose. More then proving the case of class warfare.

 

[Oldstyle]

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Just like

increased gov't spending and increased debt

funny how that works

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

We stopped making the People pay for the government they were getting. That's what caused the debt.

Gee, lets think about this...
If we were to take 100% of the money that the richest people in America have...just flat out SEIZE IT...that STILL wouldn't be enough to cover the entitlement programs that we've obligated ourselves to. But you think the problem isn't "spending too much"...you think the problem is the we aren't "taxing enough"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why aren't Kennedy tax cuts working?

Why aren't Coolidge tax cuts working?

Why aren't Reagan tax cuts working?

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

The current tax revenues for 2011 wouldn't pay for the 2004 budget. Spending is not the only problem here. Tax cuts are out of control.

 

[Google]

When ever I ask supposed progressives, which in and of itself is Orwellian, why none of the countless pieces of legislation passed during the two years that this administration enjoyed a Democrat-controlled congress, essentially controlling 2/3's of the branches of the federal government, ever yielded any substantive results, and I'm always met with one of two answers.

A) Obama's policies have worked, because things would be worse.

B) Obama hasn't really been able to be liberal enough because of Republican obstruction.

Both of these answers highlights the absolute stupidity of the left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just like

increased gov't spending and increased debt

funny how that works

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

We stopped making the People pay for the government they were getting. That's what caused the debt.

Gee, lets think about this...
If we were to take 100% of the money that the richest people in America have...just flat out SEIZE IT...that STILL wouldn't be enough to cover the entitlement programs that we've obligated ourselves to. But you think the problem isn't "spending too much"...you think the problem is the we aren't "taxing enough"?

And we could eliminate Medicaid entirely and it still wouldn't balance the budget. So we're even.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You guys are few slices short in the loaf.

First the tax cut for the rich was 700 billion over ten meaning 70 billion a year. That doesnt even put a dent in the deficit. Yet you guys managed additional social programs through the dot budget.

Youre just class warfare bitches nothing more.

70 billion a year isn't a 'dent' so it doesn't count? So there's no justification for doing anything that isn't bigger than a 'dent'?

So, conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education, right? As a budget thing.

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

71 billion. Doesn't even put a dent in the deficit.

If the real concern was the deficit, your side would not have extended them.

Instead your side played pick and choose. More then proving the case of class warfare.

Nice dodge.

 

[Full-Auto]

70 billion a year isn't a 'dent' so it doesn't count? So there's no justification for doing anything that isn't bigger than a 'dent'?

So, conservatives want to get rid of the Department of Education, right? As a budget thing.

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

71 billion. Doesn't even put a dent in the deficit.

If the real concern was the deficit, your side would not have extended them.

Instead your side played pick and choose. More then proving the case of class warfare.

Nice dodge.

actually the dodge is from your side. You had majority control at the time of passage. The tea party was waiting to take their seats.


Try something realistic.............................

 

[Google]

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

The current tax revenues for 2011 wouldn't pay for the 2004 budget. Spending is not the only problem here. Tax cuts are out of control.

Would economic growth fix the problem? How would raising taxes during a time of glacial economic growth benefit economic growth?

I know you have such a resentment and hatred towards those bastard rich, and if we could increase the tax rate on these bastards it would cause all of the ills in your life to disappear.

Economic growth is the answer. What is the point in taxing a ever decreasing population that actually earns taxable income.

 

[edthecynic]

You should check the BLS employment numbers from 2003 - 2008. Up until the shit hit the fan, those tax cuts worked pretty well.

Why are you ignoring 2001-2003?

Because you idiot, we were talking about jobs and the Bush tax cuts, which as you know were not passed until 2003. If you want to hammer Bush43 for the recession HE inherited from Clinton and also the fallout from 9/11, be my guest. At least he found a way to turn things around, which is a lot more than we can say about Obama.

You gotta just love the the evenhanded consistency of CON$ervatism. Bush is not responsible for anything that happened while he was pResident. The 2007 Bush Depression was not his fault because in 2007 there was a Dem Congress. But the 2001 Bush Recession was not his fault because even though there was a GOP Congress since 1995 it had to a president's fault and not Congress', so even though Clinton was not president in 2001, it was his fault and not the GOP congress.

See the consistency! Everything is always the Democrats' fault no matter who is president or who controls Congress.

And the Bush tax cuts were passed in June 2001. It's amazing just how ignorant of recent history CON$ are!!!!!!!!!!

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

 

[grunt11b]

So we have to cut the income tax rates to 25% on down now, to get the economy moving?

And ten years from now, in the next big recession, we'll have to cut the top rate to 15% and lower...

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

The current tax revenues for 2011 wouldn't pay for the 2004 budget. Spending is not the only problem here. Tax cuts are out of control.

HAHAHAHA!!!!! Tax cuts are out of control!?!?!?!?! ROFLMFAO!!!!! That is hysterical!!!!!

 

[Full-Auto]

Why are you ignoring 2001-2003?

Because you idiot, we were talking about jobs and the Bush tax cuts, which as you know were not passed until 2003. If you want to hammer Bush43 for the recession HE inherited from Clinton and also the fallout from 9/11, be my guest. At least he found a way to turn things around, which is a lot more than we can say about Obama.

you gotta just love the the evenhanded consistency of CON$ervatism. Bush is not responsible for anything that happened while he was pResident. The 2007 Bush Depression was not his fault because in 2007 there was a Dem Congress. But the 2001 Bush Recession was not his fault because even though there was a GOP Congress since 1995 it had to a president's fault and not Congress', so even though Clinton was not president in 2001, it was his fault and not the GOP congress.

See the consistency! Everything is always thew Democrats fault no matter who is president or who controls Congress.

And the Bush tax cuts were passed in June 2001. It's amazing just how ignorant of recent history CON$ are!!!!!!!!!!

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

Let me guess, you thought GW's approval numbers were because they only polled democrats...............

OH BROTHER.

 

[grunt11b]

When ever I ask supposed progressives, which in and of itself is Orwellian, why none of the countless pieces of legislation passed during the two years that this administration enjoyed a Democrat-controlled congress, essentially controlling 2/3's of the branches of the federal government, ever yielded any substantive results, and I'm always met with one of two answers.

A) Obama's policies have worked, because things would be worse.

B) Obama hasn't really been able to be liberal enough because of Republican obstruction.

Both of these answers highlights the absolute stupidity of the left.

The left love semantics. "If Obama had not done this then this would have happened", knowing there is no way in hell to prove it either way. Just like the "Saved or created" saying, if they cannot prove it created jobs then they switch it over to "It saved" because there is simply no way to argue against it even if you know it is bullshit.