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

[Eric Cartman]

Tax cuts are good. Needed. To be applauded.

Deficit reduction is good. Needed. Essential.

Thee is no necessary connection between the two EXCEPT that if a tax cut is implemented properly, it can yield increased revenues to the gubmint.

Still, what is MOST urgently needed to get a rein on the deficit is to stop spending so much.

And no. You can't reasonably JUST say "stop spending." For some spending is essential. That brings us to the topic of WHERE the cuts can properly and safely be made and over what period of time.

Your post, jimbo, merely underscores that you studiously do not get it.

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

No no, Jimbo. I was right. You DON'T get it. Your language gives that fact away.

Your contention: 'The WEALTHY will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit.'

(A) You are engaging in the old divide and conquer class warfare rhetoric of your ilk. Unpersuasive, to say the least.
(B) You are factually stupid. Tax cuts don't add to deficits. Period.
(C) Spending, and spending alone is capable of adding to deficits.
(D) Perhaps most importantly, you START with an old, ridiculous and much refuted premise. You begin what would-be your "analysis" by presupposing that what "those" rich guys earn is somehow justifiably taken by you and the liberal governmental policies you endorse. In that premise you are flatly wrong.

The government was NEVER granted the Constitutional AUTHORITY to take from "the rich" in order "to give to the poor." You confuse the Robin Hood mythology with proper governance and political theory. Probably not entirely your fault. You are a lib, after all.

You should look up what a deficit is to avoid looking... uninformed.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

 

[jillian]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

 

[Liability]

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

No no, Jimbo. I was right. You DON'T get it. Your language gives that fact away.

Your contention: 'The WEALTHY will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit.'

(A) You are engaging in the old divide and conquer class warfare rhetoric of your ilk. Unpersuasive, to say the least.
(B) You are factually stupid. Tax cuts don't add to deficits. Period.
(C) Spending, and spending alone is capable of adding to deficits.
(D) Perhaps most importantly, you START with an old, ridiculous and much refuted premise. You begin what would-be your "analysis" by presupposing that what "those" rich guys earn is somehow justifiably taken by you and the liberal governmental policies you endorse. In that premise you are flatly wrong.

The government was NEVER granted the Constitutional AUTHORITY to take from "the rich" in order "to give to the poor." You confuse the Robin Hood mythology with proper governance and political theory. Probably not entirely your fault. You are a lib, after all.

You should look up what a deficit is to avoid looking... uninformed.

Unlike you, I already know what a deficit is. YOU need to stop being so baselessly pedantic and -- just for a change of pace -- you should face facts.

If you need help, just ask. I'd be more than pleased to attempt to educate you at least a little.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

Tarp 2?
Stimulus?
Tax Cuts for Billionaires signed by Obama?
Wall St donated more money to Democrats than any other party in 2008?



eat the facts bitch

 

[Liability]

Oh, I get it as do all the wealthy that will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit. But, no problem from the GOP. That added amount to the Deficit can be forgiven. It was for their constituents, the rich. I will try not to mention that again. Let it be our secret...

No no, Jimbo. I was right. You DON'T get it. Your language gives that fact away.

Your contention: 'The WEALTHY will see the tax cuts that have added to the deficit.'

(A) You are engaging in the old divide and conquer class warfare rhetoric of your ilk. Unpersuasive, to say the least.
(B) You are factually stupid. Tax cuts don't add to deficits. Period.
(C) Spending, and spending alone is capable of adding to deficits.
(D) Perhaps most importantly, you START with an old, ridiculous and much refuted premise. You begin what would-be your "analysis" by presupposing that what "those" rich guys earn is somehow justifiably taken by you and the liberal governmental policies you endorse. In that premise you are flatly wrong.

The government was NEVER granted the Constitutional AUTHORITY to take from "the rich" in order "to give to the poor." You confuse the Robin Hood mythology with proper governance and political theory. Probably not entirely your fault. You are a lib, after all.

You should look up what a deficit is to avoid looking... uninformed.

Oh hell. I'm feeling charitable. Let's give you an example, Cartman. I doubt you will be honest enough to follow along, but still, as I say, I'm feeling charitable. So, just in case you can be honest.

Let's say that the Government of Libdumb has taxed its citizens so hard and so high for so long that there is no longer any production in their economic sector earning any appreciable income above bare minimum subsistence.

So, in the past year, during fiscal year 2010-2011, the dopey liberal leaders of Libdum "spent" 5 Billion dollars -- which they did not have -- on programs they clearly could not afford. They drove themselves 5 Billion Libdum Dollars deeper into debt. Now they have to make some choices.

Can they cut taxes to the point where the income and wealth producing sector of the land can earn wealth above bare minimum subsistence? Sure they can. In fact, there's no reason not to try it.

Let's say they do that. They cut their unGodly high confiscatory tax rate. Commerce and industry come back with a bang. Even on the much lowered new Libdum national income tax "rate," the Government of Libdum finally HAS some revenues! (O joy!) NOW they can spend that money on their national needs (including possibly paying down a bit on their debt). Or, in the alternative, they can spend far more than they take in yet again. If they do the latter, their deficit spending will increase the national debt, not lower it.

Oddly, though, the first step was crucial. LOWERING TAXES CAN CLEARLY YIELD INCREASED Government revenues.

Now, tell me how ANY spending (except the spending needed to pay for interest and principle on the debt) can possibly do anything helpful in terms of cutting the deficit?

 

[JimH52]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

They have to. They have no choice.

The tax cut for the wealthy is all but forgotten, well, except for the Tea Party. They remember it and they are going to make the GOP pay in 2012. Count on it. Their first target is Beaner.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

They have to. They have no choice.

The tax cut for the wealthy is all but forgotten, well, except for the Tea Party. They remember it and they are going to make the GOP pay in 2012. Count on it. Their first target is Beaner.

If you forget about Democrat Tax cuts for Billionaires, they never happened.


LOL


Democrats are educated

 

[JimH52]

Everyone knows who is in the pocket of the GOP. They are the ones who pushed the tax cuts for wealthy. They were the ones who defended BP. They are the ones who listen to corporate lobbiest. Remember this?

LiveLeak.com - Boehner Hands Out Lobbyist Checks on House floor for subsidy vote

 

[The T]

Everyone knows who is in the pocket of the GOP. They are the ones who pushed the tax cuts for wealthy. They were the ones who defended BP. They are the ones who listen to corporate lobbiest. Remember this?

LiveLeak.com - Boehner Hands Out Lobbyist Checks on House floor for subsidy vote

Class WARFARE ensues...

Gets YOU nowhere.

 

[Liability]

Democrat is the Fat Cat Wall St party of billionaires
Tax Cuts
Bailouts
Political donations



Democrats are evil

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

They have to. They have no choice.

The tax cut for the wealthy is all but forgotten, well, except for the Tea Party. They remember it and they are going to make the GOP pay in 2012. Count on it. Their first target is Beaner.

The tax cut was for those who PAID taxes. Since, generally speaking in this land of ours, the poor don't pay taxes, there is nothing to cut.

Your sophistry is quite stale.

Your honesty is quite lacking.

The Tea Party doesn't just TARGET liberal Democratics. It is also quite willing to take down unfaithful "Republicans." IF Boehner is unwilling to stand up to the liberal Democrat Senate and the liberal Democrat President, then he SHOULD get booted out.

You look at this as though it's a game. It absolutely is not.

This is a mtter of urgent public policy. It is (if you must use the "game" analogy) one which we cannot afford to lose. And when I say "we," I mean our Republic. That doesn't mean anything to you. That's another symptom of your problem.

Here's a little blast from the not too distant past:

For the 2016-20 period, CBO estimates that deficits will average more than 5 percent of GDP, even while assuming the economy will be near full employment, with an average jobless rate of 5 percent during that same five-year period.

One economist concerned about unsustainable fiscal policy in the out years is OMB Director Peter R. Orszag.

* * * *

. . . CBO projects that federal budget deficits, after dropping sharply, then will begin to rise continuously from 4.1 percent of GDP in 2014 to 5.6 percent in 2020.

“Deficits in the, let’s say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable,” Mr. Orszag acknowledged to reporters on March 20, 2009, two months after the administration entered office.

-- CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP - Washington Times

Those were fucking ROSY projections by comparison to what we have had since those words, by the way.

The threat of the incredible debt we are accumulating is noted by many learned folks. For example: Defense.gov News Article: National Debt Poses Security Threat, Mullen Says

 

[Eric Cartman]

Oh hell. I'm feeling charitable. Let's give you an example, Cartman. I doubt you will be honest enough to follow along, but still, as I say, I'm feeling charitable. So, just in case you can be honest.

Let's say that the Government of Libdumb has taxed its citizens so hard and so high for so long that there is no longer any production in their economic sector earning any appreciable income above bare minimum subsistence.

So, in the past year, during fiscal year 2010-2011, the dopey liberal leaders of Libdum "spent" 5 Billion dollars -- which they did not have -- on programs they clearly could not afford. They drove themselves 5 Billion Libdum Dollars deeper into debt. Now they have to make some choices.

Can they cut taxes to the point where the income and wealth producing sector of the land can earn wealth above bare minimum subsistence? Sure they can. In fact, there's no reason not to try it.

Let's say they do that. They cut their unGodly high confiscatory tax rate. Commerce and industry come back with a bang. Even on the much lowered new Libdum national income tax "rate," the Government of Libdum finally HAS some revenues! (O joy!) NOW they can spend that money on their national needs (including possibly paying down a bit on their debt). Or, in the alternative, they can spend far more than they take in yet again. If they do the latter, their deficit spending will increase the national debt, not lower it.

Oddly, though, the first step was crucial. LOWERING TAXES CAN CLEARLY YIELD INCREASED Government revenues.

Now, tell me how ANY spending (except the spending needed to pay for interest and principle on the debt) can possibly do anything helpful in terms of cutting the deficit?

Sure.

Your example seems loosely based on the conservatives much loved "Laffer curve", the problem is that even if you believe the concept you will notice that there is a sweet spot on the curve where revenue is maximized and it starts to drop after that if you keep lowering the tax rate. Our current tax rates are historically low and we have had decades of growth under much higher rates.

Government spending is frequently used to soften an economic downturn which in turn maintains more tax revenue by saving jobs and business. Government money that is spent is just like any money that is spent, it goes to businesses and employees that are taxed and who in turn spend and the cycle goes on creating a multiplier effect.

 

[The T]

damn... one lie after another after another after another.


and they say you aren't any good at trolling.

poor nutbar.

They have to. They have no choice.

The tax cut for the wealthy is all but forgotten, well, except for the Tea Party. They remember it and they are going to make the GOP pay in 2012. Count on it. Their first target is Beaner.

The tax cut was for those who PAID taxes. Since, generally speaking in this land of ours, the poor don't pay taxes, there is nothing to cut.

Your sophistry is quite stale.

Your honesty is quite lacking.

The Tea Party doesn't just TARGET liberal Democratics. It is also quite willing to take down unfaithful "Republicans." IF Boehner is unwilling to stand up to the liberal Democrat Senate and the liberal Democrat President, then he SHOULD get booted out.

You look at this as though it's a game. It absolutely is not.

This is a mtter of urgent public policy. It is (if you must use the "game" analogy) one which we cannot afford to lose. And when I say "we," I mean our Republic. That doesn't mean anything to you. That's another symptom of your problem.

Here's a little blast from the not too distant past:

For the 2016-20 period, CBO estimates that deficits will average more than 5 percent of GDP, even while assuming the economy will be near full employment, with an average jobless rate of 5 percent during that same five-year period.

One economist concerned about unsustainable fiscal policy in the out years is OMB Director Peter R. Orszag.

* * * *

. . . CBO projects that federal budget deficits, after dropping sharply, then will begin to rise continuously from 4.1 percent of GDP in 2014 to 5.6 percent in 2020.

“Deficits in the, let’s say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable,” Mr. Orszag acknowledged to reporters on March 20, 2009, two months after the administration entered office.

-- CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP - Washington Times

Those were fucking ROSY projections by comparison to what we have had since those words, by the way.

The threat of the incredible debt we are accumulating is noted by many learned folks. For example: Defense.gov News Article: National Debt Poses Security Threat, Mullen Says

'Nuff said, eh?

 

[Liability]

Oh hell. I'm feeling charitable. Let's give you an example, Cartman. I doubt you will be honest enough to follow along, but still, as I say, I'm feeling charitable. So, just in case you can be honest.

Let's say that the Government of Libdumb has taxed its citizens so hard and so high for so long that there is no longer any production in their economic sector earning any appreciable income above bare minimum subsistence.

So, in the past year, during fiscal year 2010-2011, the dopey liberal leaders of Libdum "spent" 5 Billion dollars -- which they did not have -- on programs they clearly could not afford. They drove themselves 5 Billion Libdum Dollars deeper into debt. Now they have to make some choices.

Can they cut taxes to the point where the income and wealth producing sector of the land can earn wealth above bare minimum subsistence? Sure they can. In fact, there's no reason not to try it.

Let's say they do that. They cut their unGodly high confiscatory tax rate. Commerce and industry come back with a bang. Even on the much lowered new Libdum national income tax "rate," the Government of Libdum finally HAS some revenues! (O joy!) NOW they can spend that money on their national needs (including possibly paying down a bit on their debt). Or, in the alternative, they can spend far more than they take in yet again. If they do the latter, their deficit spending will increase the national debt, not lower it.

Oddly, though, the first step was crucial. LOWERING TAXES CAN CLEARLY YIELD INCREASED Government revenues.

Now, tell me how ANY spending (except the spending needed to pay for interest and principle on the debt) can possibly do anything helpful in terms of cutting the deficit?

Sure.

Your example seems loosely based on the conservatives much loved "Laffer curve", the problem is that even if you believe the concept you will notice that there is a sweet spot on the curve where revenue is maximized and it starts to drop after that if you keep lowering the tax rate. Our current tax rates are historically low and we have had decades of growth under much higher rates.

Government spending is frequently used to soften an economic downturn which in turn maintains more tax revenue by saving jobs and business. Government money that is spent is just like any money that is spent, it goes to businesses and employees that are taxed and who in turn spend and the cycle goes on creating a multiplier effect.

We have a debt to GDP ratio of over 5% and climbing. We have unsustainable debts long term. By 2020 it has been projected to cost us 90% of our GDP -- and that's based on rosy projections. Have you ever seen what happens AFTER 2020?

The POINT is not to debate the specific of the LAffer curve. The POINT is to RECOGNIZE that we have allowed ourselves (by our failure to rein in our elected representatives) to accumulate MASSIVE and dangerous debt.

The POINT is that you can have a year of ZERO additional debt (not counting interest payments, sadly) even if revenues are brought down to zero by the simple expedient of spending nothing.

It is SPENDING that drives the deficit.

You can't tax your way into prosperity. The very notion is foolish lib-think. Even 60 Minutes had a piece on the fact that the unduly high corporate tax structure in our nation drives businesses (and jobs) overseas. I can't help it that you libs live your life with your head in the sand. But he fact is pretty obvious. IF you want to "create" jobs (which the government doesn't actually EVER do), you can FOSTER the climate where the businesses that make such a thing POSSIBLE might be inclined to do so. LOWER taxes.

 

[The T]

Oh hell. I'm feeling charitable. Let's give you an example, Cartman. I doubt you will be honest enough to follow along, but still, as I say, I'm feeling charitable. So, just in case you can be honest.

Let's say that the Government of Libdumb has taxed its citizens so hard and so high for so long that there is no longer any production in their economic sector earning any appreciable income above bare minimum subsistence.

So, in the past year, during fiscal year 2010-2011, the dopey liberal leaders of Libdum "spent" 5 Billion dollars -- which they did not have -- on programs they clearly could not afford. They drove themselves 5 Billion Libdum Dollars deeper into debt. Now they have to make some choices.

Can they cut taxes to the point where the income and wealth producing sector of the land can earn wealth above bare minimum subsistence? Sure they can. In fact, there's no reason not to try it.

Let's say they do that. They cut their unGodly high confiscatory tax rate. Commerce and industry come back with a bang. Even on the much lowered new Libdum national income tax "rate," the Government of Libdum finally HAS some revenues! (O joy!) NOW they can spend that money on their national needs (including possibly paying down a bit on their debt). Or, in the alternative, they can spend far more than they take in yet again. If they do the latter, their deficit spending will increase the national debt, not lower it.

Oddly, though, the first step was crucial. LOWERING TAXES CAN CLEARLY YIELD INCREASED Government revenues.

Now, tell me how ANY spending (except the spending needed to pay for interest and principle on the debt) can possibly do anything helpful in terms of cutting the deficit?

Sure.

Your example seems loosely based on the conservatives much loved "Laffer curve", the problem is that even if you believe the concept you will notice that there is a sweet spot on the curve where revenue is maximized and it starts to drop after that if you keep lowering the tax rate. Our current tax rates are historically low and we have had decades of growth under much higher rates.

Government spending is frequently used to soften an economic downturn which in turn maintains more tax revenue by saving jobs and business. Government money that is spent is just like any money that is spent, it goes to businesses and employees that are taxed and who in turn spend and the cycle goes on creating a multiplier effect.

We have a debt to GDP ratio of over 5% and climbing. We have unsustainable debts long term. By 2020 it has been projected to cost us 90% of our GDP -- and that's based on rosy projections. Have you ever seen what happens AFTER 2020?

The POINT is not to debate the specific of the LAffer curve. The POINT is to RECOGNIZE that we have allowed ourselves (by our failure to rein in our elected representatives) to accumulate MASSIVE and dangerous debt.

The POINT is that you can have a year of ZERO additional debt (not counting interest payments, sadly) even if revenues are brought down to zero by the simple expedient of spending nothing.

It is SPENDING that drives the deficit.

You can't tax your way into prosperity. The very notion is foolish lib-think. Even 60 Minutes had a piece on the fact that the unduly high corporate tax structure in our nation drives businesses (and jobs) overseas. I can't help it that you libs live your life with your head in the sand. But he fact is pretty obvious. IF you want to "create" jobs (which the government doesn't actually EVER do), you can FOSTER the climate where the businesses that make such a thing POSSIBLE might be inclined to do so. LOWER taxes.

Especially when the Private-to-Public Sector looks like this:

Slightly outta kilter? And they have the audacity to demand MORE that doesn't have it and is prohibited from attaining it from the entity that denies it?

Rather convoluted...

 

[Eric Cartman]

Oh hell. I'm feeling charitable. Let's give you an example, Cartman. I doubt you will be honest enough to follow along, but still, as I say, I'm feeling charitable. So, just in case you can be honest.

Let's say that the Government of Libdumb has taxed its citizens so hard and so high for so long that there is no longer any production in their economic sector earning any appreciable income above bare minimum subsistence.

So, in the past year, during fiscal year 2010-2011, the dopey liberal leaders of Libdum "spent" 5 Billion dollars -- which they did not have -- on programs they clearly could not afford. They drove themselves 5 Billion Libdum Dollars deeper into debt. Now they have to make some choices.

Can they cut taxes to the point where the income and wealth producing sector of the land can earn wealth above bare minimum subsistence? Sure they can. In fact, there's no reason not to try it.

Let's say they do that. They cut their unGodly high confiscatory tax rate. Commerce and industry come back with a bang. Even on the much lowered new Libdum national income tax "rate," the Government of Libdum finally HAS some revenues! (O joy!) NOW they can spend that money on their national needs (including possibly paying down a bit on their debt). Or, in the alternative, they can spend far more than they take in yet again. If they do the latter, their deficit spending will increase the national debt, not lower it.

Oddly, though, the first step was crucial. LOWERING TAXES CAN CLEARLY YIELD INCREASED Government revenues.

Now, tell me how ANY spending (except the spending needed to pay for interest and principle on the debt) can possibly do anything helpful in terms of cutting the deficit?

Sure.

Your example seems loosely based on the conservatives much loved "Laffer curve", the problem is that even if you believe the concept you will notice that there is a sweet spot on the curve where revenue is maximized and it starts to drop after that if you keep lowering the tax rate. Our current tax rates are historically low and we have had decades of growth under much higher rates.

Government spending is frequently used to soften an economic downturn which in turn maintains more tax revenue by saving jobs and business. Government money that is spent is just like any money that is spent, it goes to businesses and employees that are taxed and who in turn spend and the cycle goes on creating a multiplier effect.

We have a debt to GDP ratio of over 5% and climbing. We have unsustainable debts long term. By 2020 it has been projected to cost us 90% of our GDP -- and that's based on rosy projections. Have you ever seen what happens AFTER 2020?

The POINT is not to debate the specific of the LAffer curve. The POINT is to RECOGNIZE that we have allowed ourselves (by our failure to rein in our elected representatives) to accumulate MASSIVE and dangerous debt.

The POINT is that you can have a year of ZERO additional debt (not counting interest payments, sadly) even if revenues are brought down to zero by the simple expedient of spending nothing.

It is SPENDING that drives the deficit.

You can't tax your way into prosperity. The very notion is foolish lib-think. Even 60 Minutes had a piece on the fact that the unduly high corporate tax structure in our nation drives businesses (and jobs) overseas. I can't help it that you libs live your life with your head in the sand. But he fact is pretty obvious. IF you want to "create" jobs (which the government doesn't actually EVER do), you can FOSTER the climate where the businesses that make such a thing POSSIBLE might be inclined to do so. LOWER taxes.

Spending and revenue are equal in determining the deficit but cutting spending or raising taxes too much could hurt our recovery which would hurt revenues.

If you are serious about deficit reduction you should cut spending and maybe reform taxes. You don't have to raise the tax rates just cut some of the deductions that were bought by lobbyists.

 

[grunt11b]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Cutting taxes don't add to the debt, spending more then you take in does.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

Nonsense.

Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I really don't see anything positive that came from it

Cutting taxes don't add to the debt, spending more then you take in does.

More nonsense.

If you spend $100 and take in $100 of taxes your budget is balanced.

If you spend $100 and cut taxes 20%, you take in $80 and you now have a $20 deficit.

It's math people.