besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?

[MaggieMae]

When the baby boomers had it all, no sacrifices were necessary, and the attitude expanded with their offspring deciding "Us" and "Them" were going to become the guideposts.

You seem to be doing a damned fine job of playing "us against them" here.

Why is looting your neighbor to pay for your "compassion" so important to you?...How about a little compassion for the people being shaken down to feather the nests of the moocher class, huh?

Because I don't think you ARE being "shaken down."

 

[kaz]

And that's really the crux of this whole debate. People actually believe that "welfare" programs are to blame for the nation's economic woes (setting aside even the entitlement programs, which do take a large bite). Someone actually put together a detailed breakdown of where "welfare" funding actually goes, and it's a shockingly small percentage of the overall budget. Yet to listen to some of you clowns, anyone who doesn't toe the extremist right-wing philosophy of MINE, must be a moocher, a tic, a parasite.

90% of government spending is welfare. Liberals attempt to define welfare so narrowly that almost all payments to parasites are excluded.

Medicare is welfare. Social Security is welfare. Ethanol subsidies are welfare. It's all welfare.

Then I guess the VA is welfare too, eh?

So you don't understand the difference between working for the government and getting a government check for not working? Seriously?

 

[Oddball]

When the baby boomers had it all, no sacrifices were necessary, and the attitude expanded with their offspring deciding "Us" and "Them" were going to become the guideposts.

You seem to be doing a damned fine job of playing "us against them" here.

Why is looting your neighbor to pay for your "compassion" so important to you?...How about a little compassion for the people being shaken down to feather the nests of the moocher class, huh?

Because I don't think you ARE being "shaken down."

That you accept it is your problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

SERIOUSLY. WTF is wrong with the thinking of these liberals?

I can object to the confiscatory policies of the U.S Government in the collection to taxes without staking out the position that all taxation is immoral.

I derive benefits from living here in this Republic. I therefore grasp and appreciate the claim that I have an obligation to help support that same Republic. We do it via the income tax. I can object to the MANNER in which taxation is done, but again, as I said in a prior post, I realize it is likely here to stay. To that extent, I would encourage our representatives to get about the business of changing the way the income tax is calculated and collected. It is WAY past time to abandon the Tax Code in favor of something coherent. FLAT Tax or FAIR tax. But let's get it done.

But I don't object to the concept of taxation. I DO object to the claim of our government and some of our alleged "leaders" that we need to spend on much of the stuff we do spend on. And THAT is a much overdue and badly needed debate we all need to have.

Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive. They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

People keeping more of what's yours to begin with isn't positive?

BTW, only spending money you don't have adds debt.

Let's say you make $50K a year and spend $60K a year. Sure cutting back on spending reduces your debt-no question.

But explain to me how making $55K a year, while still spending $60K doesn't.

Raising revenue also reduces debt (unless spending is also increased of course).

No. It. Does. Not.

Let me see if you can follow some simple math. You have been spending $60,000 dollars for ten years, and were only making $50,000 that entire time. Your debt is now $100,000 plus interest.

You get a raise, and are now making $55,000 a year. You still spend $60,000 dollars a year because your idiot brother in law told you that increasing revenue reduces debt. At the end of 10 years you owe an additional $50,000, the original $100,000, and compounded interest in the total. You raise did not decrease your debt in the slightest. The only way to decrease your debt is actually cut your spending to a level where you can put money toward paying it down.

By the way, if we want to actually make this about the government, they make $50,000 a year, spend $60,000 the first year, and increase spending every year by $5000 a year to get out of debt. At the end of 10 years they are $385,000 in debt, and are spending $60,000. They then try to hit you up for a raise to $55,000 a year, and promise you that they will spend even more money by increasing their spending at a rate of $10,000 a year because they get an additional $5,000.

How long will it take them to reduce the debt like that?

To the section I bolded: while this is true-it's not the ONLY way. Raising income will also off-set the deficit you face.

You clearly agreed that getting a pay increase of $5K would reduce the balance at the end of the year (provided you don't spend more). So what if instead of a $5K raise-it was a $15K raise. By this logic you'd match the $10K you overspend, AND reduce your deficit by $5K a year.

Where is the flaw in this logic? Making more than you take in is the only way to reduce the deficit-true. But there are two ways to accomplish this:

1. Cut your spending/spend within your limits

2. Increase your income, so you are now spending within your limits

Both of these conditions are of course provided you don't increase your spending.

edit: and this isn't directed at the person I quoted, but to others in this thread. Don't talk about how we need to follow the constitution, and bitch and moan about it-if you don't even know what's in it. Regardless of how it was originally drafted, ALL amendments are in effect (unless a later one makes an earlier one null and void). They are a part of the constitution. Period. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. It's not an opinion-it's a fact. Now if you don't agree with that portion of the constitution-that's a different story. If I thought that not having to house soldiers was stupid (for the record I obviously don't-just picking a very non-controversial amendment), that's fine-but it doesn't mean it's not in the constitution, and it doesn't mean it's not a part of the supreme law of the land.

 

[thereisnospoon]

besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?

added massively to Obama's deficits.

ROFL! Obama quadrupled Bush's deficit.

No one is swallowing the shtick that Bush is responsible for Obama's $1.7 trillion deficit.

That dog won't hunt.

It's a whole book, but this synopsis will prove you dead wrong. There are trillions that never appeared in Bush's deficit number. There will be billions more attributed to it.

Aida Edemariam talks to author Joseph Stiglitz about the true cost of the Iraq war | World news | The Guardian

Never appeared? C'mon...Who the hell are you kidding?
Yes, it really happened, but there's no documentation. Try again,rookie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You don't have to have taxes withheld even today if you don't want to. But I'd hate to see my tax bill in January to be paid in April if I didn't.

Yes you do. You can go to jail for not having enough withheld.

Actually one may take as many exemptions as they like. That earner simply will incur a far higher tax bill when they file.
I did it last year for about 4 months due to a job change/transition. Then I did a new witholding statement (W-4) on which I wrote "zero" for exemptions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Me keeping what's mine "gives" me nothing.

It's fun watching the logical contortions liberals go through to justify taking what they haven't earned from the people who have earned it.

This is why people like are are despised. Who the fuck made you God to decide who is doing what? I worked my ass off for 40 years and paid my taxes with zero complaints that somebody might be "taking" what they didn't "earn." And now I'm sick to death of rich bastards who currently run this country abandoning the moral obligations to sustain THE COUNTRY, not just their fucking Swiss bank accounts and foreign investments.

Oh please stop the "I am entitled"/class envy bullshit.
Moron.....The top 20% of all earners pay over 60% of the total tax burden.
Plus, it is those evil rich people who actually HAVE THE GOD DAMNED MONEY to start and expand businesses which allow YOU to have a job so you can have the money to pay for internet service so you can come on here and bug the living shit out us logical people who realize that government cannot chop the head off the top to improve the bottom.
You fucking liberals think I you are entitled to the largesse of others. That means you believe in the pooling of all resources for redistribution.
Tell me, why should I as a middle class individual have to surrender part of my income so people who are to fucking lazy to work can sit home on their asses and enjoy a taxpayer funded vacation? It is people like you who create the divisiveness in this country. Those like you who find valueless the efforts and work of others. You despise achievement and abhor success. You people. You lefties all have a peasant mentality. The same as the old guard Soviet citizenry who were absolutely incensed over the loss of their sacred cow subsidies provided by the former Communist regimes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When the Constitution opens with WE THE PEOPLE, it didn't add that it expected growth of a new country to be dependent on a new crop of money trees. I'd like to know when this I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU attitude became the norm.

"We the People" doesn't imply that what's mine belongs to you.

When did the "fuck you, gimmie your money" attitude become the norm?

When the baby boomers had it all, no sacrifices were necessary, and the attitude expanded with their offspring deciding "Us" and "Them" were going to become the guideposts.

What the fuck are you babbling about? YOU ARE a baby boomer. So you are talking about yourself.
BTW what sacrifices or lack thereof are you referring to? Why is it you lefties always involve self deprivation in your rants?
Listen cookie, there is no nobility in poverty.
How little you know. The baby boomers invented the suburbs. A place where large numbers of people settled with their families where there were good schools low crime and other amenities not found in central cities. If that is selfish, so be it.
You lefties hate private property, single family homes and cars. You would rather see us all packed into tenements like sardines. After all, it's just not fair for one to have and another to have not. Never mind the fact that we EARNED IT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's say you make $50K a year and spend $60K a year. Sure cutting back on spending reduces your debt-no question.

But explain to me how making $55K a year, while still spending $60K doesn't.

Raising revenue also reduces debt (unless spending is also increased of course).

No. It. Does. Not.

Let me see if you can follow some simple math. You have been spending $60,000 dollars for ten years, and were only making $50,000 that entire time. Your debt is now $100,000 plus interest.

You get a raise, and are now making $55,000 a year. You still spend $60,000 dollars a year because your idiot brother in law told you that increasing revenue reduces debt. At the end of 10 years you owe an additional $50,000, the original $100,000, and compounded interest in the total. You raise did not decrease your debt in the slightest. The only way to decrease your debt is actually cut your spending to a level where you can put money toward paying it down.

By the way, if we want to actually make this about the government, they make $50,000 a year, spend $60,000 the first year, and increase spending every year by $5000 a year to get out of debt. At the end of 10 years they are $385,000 in debt, and are spending $60,000. They then try to hit you up for a raise to $55,000 a year, and promise you that they will spend even more money by increasing their spending at a rate of $10,000 a year because they get an additional $5,000.

How long will it take them to reduce the debt like that?

Your example left out the scenario what if the guy got a raise meaning more income (revenue)? Look, armchair experts, every economist ALIVE says that we need to cut spending AND increase revenue to get out of this quagmire. End of story.

I never said we do not need to raise taxes did I? I just pointed out why raising taxes does not mean that the debt goes down.

By the way, the experts say we have to mix the taxes and spending cuts by putting an emphasis on the cuts. Just want you to know that I actually read the stuff before I form an opinion.

 

[Political Junky]

ROFL! Obama quadrupled Bush's deficit.

No one is swallowing the shtick that Bush is responsible for Obama's $1.7 trillion deficit.

That dog won't hunt.

It's a whole book, but this synopsis will prove you dead wrong. There are trillions that never appeared in Bush's deficit number. There will be billions more attributed to it.

Aida Edemariam talks to author Joseph Stiglitz about the true cost of the Iraq war | World news | The Guardian

Never appeared? C'mon...Who the hell are you kidding?
Yes, it really happened, but there's no documentation. Try again,rookie.

It's right there, read it. Bush kept the cost of the wars "off the books".
Obama added the costs of the two wars to the budget, thus increasing the debt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Assured that wages would become stagnant, among other things. I find cons walk away from a thread whenever I post this analysis, based on 2008 IRS tables.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

I find liberals hate it when their pet theories and falsification of data is challenged.


According to the IRS gross tax collections went from $2.1 trillion in 2001 to $2.7 trillion in 2007. There was a slight drop in collections for the first 2 years after the tax cuts, and then it rose steadily. If people were actually earning less after taxes than they were before the tax cuts doesn't that actually prove that the government got more money?

The thing is, your source used AGI for his figures, and then argued that a lower AGI meant people were investing less money. It actually means just the opposite because AGI is the number you get after you take away investments and all the other things that the IRS allows you to deduct before you figure out how much you owe. The guy is supposedly a tax expert, he should know that. I hope you are not using him for your taxes, he is probably robbing you blind.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab18.xls

What part of "The total line shows the difference between actual results" don't you get from the analysis? We already know there were big investments and tax write-offs. That's the point! Where did those investments go? Certainly not in American interests.

Write offs come after you figure AGI, not before. The guy is deliberately focusing on one part of the equation to make it seem like we got collectively poorer. If investments actually went up, as you are suddenly claiming in total opposition to the link you posted, we actually got richer.

It is your link, don't argue with me about it if you don't like it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's what Bush did twice when he cut taxes without cutting spending. He reduced the amount of revenue available for the spending he was also signing into law and directly brought back massive deficits.

That is patently false. Federal revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans increased spending even more to offset the gain, which caused the debt.

Seriously, why is it so difficult for you people to look this stuff up?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

So find some charts that show WHERE it was spent. Pure numbers don't mean squat.

Where the money was spent is inconsequential. NYC said the tax cuts reduced the amount of revenue. He's wrong and that's what I showed him.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why would I be jealous? (Another attempted at distraction so often used by a con...) I have no personal dog in either fight because NOTHING that the government does from here on out will affect me one iota. And don't talk to me about homeless, you fucking bastard, not when I also volunteer for a homeless shelter for veterans and their lifeblood is almost all from private donations from people of all walks of life, even liberals. Imagine that.

The whole class warfare argument stems from jealousy, plain and simple. It's not complicated. There are no distractions here other than the ones you've been trying to create. And I'm also not a "con", I'm a libertarian. That means I have infinitely more common sense than you can ever hope to.

Good for you for volunteering. Did the government make you donate that time or did you choose to do it all by yourself? Did you know Warren Buffet is giving away almost his entire fortune to charity when he dies? That was also his decision, not the government's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is patently false. Federal revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans increased spending even more to offset the gain, which caused the debt.

Seriously, why is it so difficult for you people to look this stuff up?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

So find some charts that show WHERE it was spent. Pure numbers don't mean squat.

Where the money was spent is inconsequential. NYC said the tax cuts reduced the amount of revenue. He's wrong and that's what I showed him.

Tax revenue fell in 2001, 2002, 2008, and 2009.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When the Constitution opens with WE THE PEOPLE, it didn't add that it expected growth of a new country to be dependent on a new crop of money trees. I'd like to know when this I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU attitude became the norm.

If you want more money then get off your ass and work for it. You are not entitled to a damn penny of what I or anyone else has. I don't give a flying fuck if Warren Buffet has $40 billion. That $40 billion rightfully belongs to him and he can do whatever he wants with it. If he wants to bathe in $100 bills in a bath tub made of gold then that is his right and it's none of your fucking business. END OF STORY

You're jealous, plain and simple. You're entire outlook is based on your own seething jealousy that other people dare to have more than you do. Well tough shit, because that's life. Your idea that government thugs should take it away from them because you think they have more than they need is authoritarian and Stalinist. Compared to a homeless man on the street, you're living like a millionaire. Mind if we come over to your house and confiscate some of your property so we can put a homeless man in a home today? I'm guessing that would bother you just a bit.

Why would I be jealous? (Another attempted at distraction so often used by a con...) I have no personal dog in either fight because NOTHING that the government does from here on out will affect me one iota. And don't talk to me about homeless, you fucking bastard, not when I also volunteer for a homeless shelter for veterans and their lifeblood is almost all from private donations from people of all walks of life, even liberals. Imagine that.

Aww here we go...." I do volunteer work for the so and so"....Who fucking cares.
Every fucking dumb ass liberal who runs out of ideas in a discussion resorts to posting their alleged resume of selflessness..
If you have no personal dog in this fight then why are your Underoos in such as wad?
Instead of going off into a rage, why don't you answer the question...Do you mind if someone less fortunate than you treats your finances and possessions in the same manner as you would treat the finances and possessions of the wealthy people you seem to despise?
Answer that question and that only. No other commentary is welcome.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Something tells me you have nothing I would be interested in stealing.

You and your ilk have voted to steal 50% of everything I earn. That's enough to feed four families on welfare.

You're not paying 50% of everything you earn in taxes. Stop.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So find some charts that show WHERE it was spent. Pure numbers don't mean squat.

Where the money was spent is inconsequential. NYC said the tax cuts reduced the amount of revenue. He's wrong and that's what I showed him.

Tax revenue fell in 2001, 2002, 2008, and 2009.

Correct, revenue was already falling in 2001 and then 9-11 hit. Tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. You'll see that revenue jumped sharply thereafter. Regarding 2008 and 2009, you already know why that happened so I'm not sure why you are even bringing those years up.

 

[GunZawga]

Your example left out the scenario what if the guy got a raise meaning more income (revenue)? Look, armchair experts, every economist ALIVE says that we need to cut spending AND increase revenue to get out of this quagmire. End of story.

Wrong. Only quisling propagandists who call themselves economists say we need to increase taxes. Raising taxes has never done a thing to reduce the deficit. No matter how much revenue the government takes in, Congress and easily spend every dime and then 10 times more. Getting spending under control is the only thing that will eliminate the deficit.

The only people who support tax increases are all sucking on the government tit.

Please compare the Clinton Years to the Dubya years and come back soon with good reasoning for the disparity.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Something tells me you have nothing I would be interested in stealing.

You and your ilk have voted to steal 50% of everything I earn. That's enough to feed four families on welfare.

You're not paying 50% of everything you earn in taxes. Stop.

How do you know what he's paying? Are you his personal accountant? Do you know where he lives? States like California and New York have an income tax around 10% for most residents. Doesn't NYC have a 6% local tax on top of that? Plus there are sales taxes everyone pays, property taxes, car registration, occupancy taxes and a whole slew of taxes and fees imposed by the government.