Why extend the Bush tax cuts?

[The T]

So does the debt. It's an inescapable fact that the American people through their elected representatives chose to take on the debt we now have.

Whom in their proper state of mind would tell someone to go ahead and spend us into obscurity?

Your lack of logic is astounding...but at the same time your arrogance is the same as those we elected.

Another dumb fuck. Bushie Baby and his minions spent us into an economic debacle.

You fucking dipshit...MANY of us saw what was going on and chastised Bush for the stupidity of his actions.

And people like you were right there cheering him on.

Bullshit you sorry fucking toad.

Gave tens of billions to Haliburton and Cheney, a company that showed it's gratitude by moving overseas.

You asswipe. Cheney SOLD his interest in the company but that doesn't stop shitheads like you crowing.

What a peice of work you dingbat Conservatives are.

Fuck OFF you TOAD. Go back to what you do best and that is Enviro-Terrorism.

 

[cad]

As stupid as cutting taxes during two wars?

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

By paying for it without driving us into debt. DUH!

If you remember, one of the lies we were told was that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so even a useful idiot like Bush knew that wars cost a lot of money.

so iraqi oil wasn't used to pay for the war.

i thought the purpose of the iraq war was to takeover their oil? remember all hte blood for oil signs?

if the reason bush got us in to the war was for the oil, what have we done with it?
do we control iraqi oil? if we don't, why not?

why would we go to war to steal a countries oil, defeat them, but not take their oil?

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain to me how liberals are to blame for the massive debt. As I remember it, we had a surplus under Clinton, and Bush ran us into a deficit.

There was no "surplus." Any balancing of the budget happened when Newt Gingrich was speaker. The deficit exploded once Nancy Pelosi became Speaker. Then it doubled when Obama became president.
Congress sets the budget, not the president.
Does this make it clear to you? Or will you come back spewing more partisan hack bullshit that exonerates Democrats and skewers Republicans?

I stand corrected; we went from a projected surplus to massive deficit. I do disagree that the president doesn't have anything to do with the budget, however:

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/RS20179.pdf

If you look at the following graph, it shows that about half way through the Clinton Administration the national debt began to go back down. It began its dramatic climb back up at the end of the Bush Administration.

U.S. National Debt Graph: What the Press Won't Tell You

Also, I disagree that the national debt shows immediate response to a politician taking office. You said, "The deficit exploded once Nancy Pelosi became Speaker." I think the policies need a little time to work before the effects show themselves.

I'm interested in hearing you defend your point. Give examples of things the Republican Congress did during the Clinton Administration that lowered the national debt. Give examples of things the Democratic Congress did during the Bush Administration that increased the national debt.

So, hmm. Halfway through the Clinton administration would have been, what? About 1996? And what happened in that mid-term election? Isn't that about the time that you say deficits began to go down? Maybe combine Clinton's gutting of the military (Remember the "peace dividend"?) with the incoming Congress' fiscal rectitude and maybe that might explain it?
And it began its dramatic climb back at the end of the Bush Administration? Let''s see...what happened in 2006? Remember those Congressional mid terms? Maybe Congressional policies (they pass the budget, remember?) were a big contributor to this? Remember the "stimulus plan" with those stupid useless rebate checks?
Yup, that could explain it.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

By paying for it without driving us into debt. DUH!

If you remember, one of the lies we were told was that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so even a useful idiot like Bush knew that wars cost a lot of money.

so iraqi oil wasn't used to pay for the war.

i thought the purpose of the iraq war was to takeover their oil? remember all hte blood for oil signs?

if the reason bush got us in to the war was for the oil, what have we done with it?
do we control iraqi oil? if we don't, why not?

why would we go to war to steal a countries oil, defeat them, but not take their oil?

That was just a metaphor. OR didn't you get the memo on that particular paranoid rant? Also, remember that Bush was never elected president.

 

[Guerrilla]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYNWztgHQtI]YouTube - Rachel Maddow Uses Bush Sr Voodoo Economics Statement Against GOP Tax Cuts[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to Moody's, extending the Bush tax cuts has far less of an effect than extending Unemployment Insurance benefits, increasing food stamps, or giving aid to state and local governments. So why push for extending these tax cuts?




Table 1: Fiscal Economic Bang for the Buck
One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase
in spending

Tax CutsNon-refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.02
Refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.26

Temporary tax cutspayroll tax holiday 1.29
Across the board tax cut 1.03
Accelerated depreciation 0.27
Permanent tax cuts
Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.48
Make Bush income tax cuts permanent 0.29
Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37
Cut in corporate tax rate 0.30

Spending IncreasesExtending UI benefits 1.64
Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73
General aid to state governments 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending 1.59
Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impact-of-the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

"An extension of benefits for unemployed workers who exhaust their regular 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits has been part of the federal government response to most past recessions..."

So now 99 weeks is too little now?

 

[edthecynic]

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

By paying for it without driving us into debt. DUH!

If you remember, one of the lies we were told was that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so even a useful idiot like Bush knew that wars cost a lot of money.

so iraqi oil wasn't used to pay for the war.

i thought the purpose of the iraq war was to takeover their oil? remember all hte blood for oil signs?

if the reason bush got us in to the war was for the oil, what have we done with it?
do we control iraqi oil? if we don't, why not?

why would we go to war to steal a countries oil, defeat them, but not take their oil?

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil - Times Online
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Mar. 27, 2003
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing

 

[asterism]

Originally Posted by Political Junky
As stupid as cutting taxes during two wars?

Of course it is relevant to the original question you are trying to avoid.

Sounds like a non-answer.

I asked the question, not you.

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

Still dodging the original question.

Ah.

Ok, I didn't realize you wanted me to answer someone else's question. I'll answer it in the hopes that you will answer mine:

Tax rates in the midst of a war have no bearing on the military objectives so if the concern is winning a war the tax debate is not relevant.

 

[asterism]

By paying for it without driving us into debt. DUH!

If you remember, one of the lies we were told was that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so even a useful idiot like Bush knew that wars cost a lot of money.

so iraqi oil wasn't used to pay for the war.

i thought the purpose of the iraq war was to takeover their oil? remember all hte blood for oil signs?

if the reason bush got us in to the war was for the oil, what have we done with it?
do we control iraqi oil? if we don't, why not?

why would we go to war to steal a countries oil, defeat them, but not take their oil?

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil - Times Online
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Mar. 27, 2003
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing

Alan Greenspan, a Republican (but not a fiscal conservative) said that control of oil reserves was part of the strategic reason to support taking out Saddam.

What does this prove exactly?

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by Political Junky
As stupid as cutting taxes during two wars?

Sounds like a non-answer.

I asked the question, not you.

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

Still dodging the original question.

Ah.

Ok, I didn't realize you wanted me to answer someone else's question. I'll answer it in the hopes that you will answer mine:

Tax rates in the midst of a war have no bearing on the military objectives so if the concern is winning a war the tax debate is not relevant.

Napoleon said an army marches on its stomach which means an army depends on its supplies, and supplies cost money. Nothing runs up a countries debt as much as war so a country's revenue is essential in conducting a successful war.
What is not relevant to war is your worthless opinion.

 

[topspin]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

 

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Political Junky
As stupid as cutting taxes during two wars?

Sounds like a non-answer.

I asked the question, not you.

How does raising taxes help the war effort?

Still dodging the original question.

Ah.

Ok, I didn't realize you wanted me to answer someone else's question. I'll answer it in the hopes that you will answer mine:

Tax rates in the midst of a war have no bearing on the military objectives so if the concern is winning a war the tax debate is not relevant.

Especially in light of the fact that the wars have been financed through borrowing from China and not direct tax revenues.

But you're dealing with a pure far left political hack there, and not someone rooted in actual reality.

 

[Jarhead]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

 

[edthecynic]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

 

[MikeHoncho]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

hmmm, interesting theory.

back to the cuts, democrats hate to see anyone get half of their income taken from them. unless of course that person makes more than them.

 

[Jarhead]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

I would not trust the GOP to sdtimulate a free market nd I do not trust the dems to stimulate a free market.

Neither are honest with the people. They spin and they lie to protect their parties.

 

[oreo]

According to Moody's, extending the Bush tax cuts has far less of an effect than extending Unemployment Insurance benefits, increasing food stamps, or giving aid to state and local governments. So why push for extending these tax cuts?




Table 1: Fiscal Economic Bang for the Buck
One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase
in spending

Tax CutsNon-refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.02
Refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.26

Temporary tax cutspayroll tax holiday 1.29
Across the board tax cut 1.03
Accelerated depreciation 0.27
Permanent tax cuts
Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.48
Make Bush income tax cuts permanent 0.29
Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37
Cut in corporate tax rate 0.30

Spending IncreasesExtending UI benefits 1.64
Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73
General aid to state governments 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending 1.59
Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impact-of-the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

"An extension of benefits for unemployed workers who exhaust their regular 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits has been part of the federal government response to most past recessions..."

So now 99 weeks is too little now?

Yeah--maybe we should all just take a 99 week vacation? The point is while we're driving this deficit into serious unknown territory--there has to be a cut-off somewhere--or eventually we will all be unemployed and this country bankrupt.

Unemployment insurance is NOT an economic stimulus--it's an economic hand-out. The money one receives does not nearly cover their expenses--it just let's them eat. They have no additional money to purchase to help stimulate the economy--so it cannot be considered an economic stimulus.

 

[oreo]

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

I would not trust the GOP to sdtimulate a free market nd I do not trust the dems to stimulate a free market.

Neither are honest with the people. They spin and they lie to protect their parties.

And how long did it take you to figure that one out?

 

[edthecynic]

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

hmmm, interesting theory.

back to the cuts, democrats hate to see anyone get half of their income taken from them. unless of course that person makes more than them.

And, of course, Libs earn more than CON$ so you lazy slackers don't have to worry, the Libs will be taxing themselves.

 

[oreo]

just the upper 5% will bring in a trillion.

So it will offset the approx trillion that the Obama adminsitration used to ensure job creation and an unemployment no higher than 8% with that number driopping 6 months in.

SO maybe he would get more support if he said:

In an effort to rectify the error of the stimulus, we need to roll back the tax cuts to the top 5% to offset our losses and start from scratch.

Bet he would have a hell of a lot less resistance.

Honesty goes a long way.

Well, let's see just how far honesty goes.

Obama said that BEFORE the GOP chose to delay, stall, and pretend they would support the stimulus if some cuts were made. The Dems made the cuts but the GOP didn't vote for it anyway. The GOP purpose was to pretend to want to support the stimulus to delay it as long as possible so the economy would get worse, and they succeeded. Unemployment was well over 8% by the time the pared down stimulus package was signed into law without a single GOP vote.

The GOP never ONCE supported the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill--nor did they ever state we'll cut somewhere else and we'll see if we support it. This bill was rammed down our throats in fire department speed without ONE SINGLE elected representative having the time to actually read the bill. Only 2 Republicans voted for this bill--and they have been trashed over it--and one has lost his seat--and the other is on the verge.

On the exact same day that Obama signed this bill--he stated it was in effort to keep unemployment from rising over 8.2%. So your statement is 100% FALSE. Nice try though--LOL

Then the week after Obama crammed this down our throats--and while he was stating that we were in the worst economic crisis since the great depression--he signed off on another 450 BILLION dollar Ominus bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks, political pay-back--favors and goodies--"claiming that it was last years business."

The economic stimulus bill has been an absolute FAILURE. A economically moron President trying to micromanage this economy--LOL.

You voted for it--You got it--and now You OWN it.