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

[MaggieMae]

It's a mix. When you live in a society propped up by laws and infrastructure, you're obligated to pay for such. As a result, all of the dollars you work for are not "yours." That's pretty self explanatory, one would think.

Yeah, if you're a dyed in the wool Marxist you'd think something absurd like that. I've news for you. The money I work for doesn't belong to you or the government. I don't work for the government and they just happen to be nice enough to let me have some of that money. Every penny of it is mine so when taxes are cut that's just less they are taking from me to meet your alleged "obligations."

It's a whole nother "sense of entitlement" to think that all money is yours, and that 0% of it is paid to run the Society in which you partake.

Exactly who here said that nobody should pay any taxes? Hmm? Name me one person who said that nobody should pay any taxes whatsoever for roads, infrastructure, etc. Even the most libertarian among us understand that some taxes are a necessary evil. It's the level of taxation and amount of government injected into our lives that is the debate.

If you want to live in a society where nothing is yours then go move to Cuba or North Korea where you can proudly live in a one room shack without electricity, serving at the hand of the government, because here in America you aren't entitled to anything you haven't earned you wussified little bitch.

In the first paragraph, you say everything is yours. In the second, you say you don't object to taxes. By the time you get to your third statement, it seems you want to pay taxes only on what benefits YOU, personally. Well guess what, pal. I didn't like tax dollars amounting to billions every goddamned week going into that shithole called Iraq, either, but I had no choice.

Oh, and by the way, your federal income taxes haven't gone up since Clinton was president, so most of your gripes about taxes and the expense of governing should be directed to your state if you've seen dramatic rises. You remember states--that's where conservative fools want all governing to be done. Good luck with that.

 

[Oddball]

It's not all theirs.

Whose is it then?

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?

 

[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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's not all theirs.

Whose is it then?

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

It kept money in my pocket. Only an imbecile would think that's not a good thing.

1. More money for me: Good
   
2. More money for moochers, tics, and parasites: Bad

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.

How much do we REALLY spend on Welfare?

If you total up the direct and non-direct spending categories which are all the programs that are meant to help the poor, you will see that the federal government only spent 191$ billion on “welfare” for the poor. That would be 5.5% of the unified budget. I counted off-budget programs since the pie graphs in the beginning counted social security and other “off-budget” accounts. If you only want to go with on-budget expenditures it’s 6.4%, still a far cry from the 12% that most internet graphs will show you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They sure as shit didn't raise employment, revenues or strengthen the Middle Class.

Oh really? We never saw 4.5% unemployment?

It's easy to get numbers down to that level when a company lays off one full-timer and hires two part-timers to do the job.

Oh yeah, the old McDonald's jobs argument.

Prove it.

 

[Jackson]

Once those tax cuts were passed and signed by Obama this past year, he owns them. Enough about Bush.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In the first paragraph, you say everything is yours. In the second, you say you don't object to taxes. By the time you get to your third statement, it seems you want to pay taxes only on what benefits YOU, personally.

What I want is for the government to abide by the United States Constitutions and the framework laid out by the founders of this nation that the federal government should have a very minor and limited roll in our lives. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Most of the stuff the feds do should be handled by the states.

Well guess what, pal. I didn't like tax dollars amounting to billions every goddamned week going into that shithole called Iraq, either, but I had no choice.

Neither do it. What's your point?

Oh, and by the way, your federal income taxes haven't gone up since Clinton was president, so most of your gripes about taxes and the expense of governing should be directed to your state if you've seen dramatic rises.

Where did I say my taxes have gone up? I don't even know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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?

That assumes his claims about income are correct. he provides no supporting evidence. furthermore, it's based on the premise that "if income had remained at 2000 levels." and that tax cuts caused a decline in income. He ignores the tech bubble that collapsed at the end of the Clinton Administration and also the economic income of 9/11.

Only a scumbag would ignore these other factors.

He's a quack and a political hack.

The IRS sources are right there. Go to the IRS if you think they're copied wrong. You obviously didn't read the link. But why am I not surprised...

Ironically, that website is one that the Bush Administration relied greatly on to do analyses, so I'd hardly call the writer a quack and a hack. Amazing that some of these economic analysists probably make 7 figures, while assholes like you are relegated to posting on message boards, and yet you call them quacks. Anyone, ANYONE who proves you morons wrong is considered a quack. When will you *get* that only makes you look stupid?

 

[MaggieMae]

I look at it like this. You'll know DC is serious about the deficit and debt when you see Republicans talking about tax raises and Democrats talking about hurtful cuts to social programs.

It's going to be interesting to see how Obama plays-off to his base why he extended the Bush rates. That's in the same column as Gitmo.

Wrong. Anyone who claims tax increases will solve the deficit problem is either an idiot or a scumbag. If we taxed the rich at 100%, it still wouldn't eliminate the deficit.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. No conceivable amount of revenue could ever pay for all the promises that DimoRAT politicians make.

What was the top tax rate during the Clinton Administration? Close to 39%; we had a booming economy, and the budget was balanced. When were you born? 2002?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Once those tax cuts were passed and signed by Obama this past year, he owns them. Enough about Bush.

BINGO!!

 

[bripat9643]

The IRS sources are right there. Go to the IRS if you think they're copied wrong. You obviously didn't read the link. But why am I not surprised...

Ironically, that website is one that the Bush Administration relied greatly on to do analyses, so I'd hardly call the writer a quack and a hack. Amazing that some of these economic analysists probably make 7 figures, while assholes like you are relegated to posting on message boards, and yet you call them quacks. Anyone, ANYONE who proves you morons wrong is considered a quack. When will you *get* that only makes you look stupid?

Bush wasn't inaugurated until Jan 20 2001, and his first budget didn't take effect until Nov of 2001. Yet, income was already headed down in 2001. Yet, this numskull blames Bush's tax cuts. Obviously, something else was the cause, like the collapse of Clinton's tech bubble and 9/11.

This guy is a hack and a propagandist.

No is surprised that you find his "analysis" enlightening.

 

[bripat9643]

What was the top tax rate during the Clinton Administration? Close to 39%; we had a booming economy, and the budget was balanced. When were you born? 2002?

The Republican Congress balanced the budget, not Clinton. He wanted to spend far more than was in every budget the Republicans passed. He even shut down the government because the Republicans wouldn't approve all the spending he wanted.

We also had the end of the cold war during his administration. He benefited from the peace dividend that Reagan paid for.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the substance of the OP's question is solid but the labeling automatically makes it divisive. It's probably best to say the 2001/2003 tax rates instead of "Bush tax cuts" for two reasons. One, whenever things are labeled along partisan lines, the dog whistle sounds and some people quickly run to the defend and/or attack things strictly along partisan lines, with little regard for facts. Secondly, we are a collective society in the USA through "government", which carries out our collective will that we vote on. Therefore, even when individually we don't agree with something that has been done legally by "government", we ALL own it as a nation. If some don't like what "we the people" have done collectively, then they use the power of their vote and rally others to do the same for different representation. So "Bush tax cuts", "Obamacare", "Clinton surplus", "Reganomics" etc, are all moot labels because these were US Presidents making US policy through the power of "we the people", so we ALL own it.

Now to the question, this tax policy of lowering the tax on those with the highest income with an expectation to "promote the general welfare", has not worked. I caught Andrew Sullivan on Real Time last night and he made an interesting point about the US having tried this policy for around a total of 25 years and it has not worked. US fiscal history shows that the country as a whole is the most prosperous and the wealthy still continue to benefit, when taxes are highest on those with the most income.

I like keeping things simple whenever possible so if tax policy can be set around fiscal year 2000 blueprint, with the rich still getting richer and the country as a whole being better off, I am all for that. I could go on for days about how some people are allowing themselves to get to caught up in partisan rhetoric and political divides. However, most of us have more in common than we do differences if we just stop making each other out to be boogeymen and have honest discussion.

The tax debate should really be about how best to use tax revenue, not if there should be tax revenue. When people say "tax money is their money", their money is "taxed" and that portion taken from their money is now "we the people's" to decide what to do with collectively. If you advocate cutting taxes so people can have more money to spend as they like, that's cool and if someone else advocates raising taxes so "we the people" can spend that money through a collective decision, that's cool too. The issue arises when you have people advocating for cutting taxes claiming people will then individually decide to spend that money, not only to "promote the general welfare" but do it BETTER than "we the people" would have done collectively and others advocating raising taxes claiming to use it to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity" but actually using most of that money for their own personal gain and a select number of others.

Tax policy is as American as freedom of speech because individually we have a say about it through representation by our vote. Taxation WITH representation is a founding principle of the USA and tax does not equal lost funds but means shared decision making for how they are spent.

I often hear people talk about how great America is while seeming like they have no idea of the things that are the greatest about our country. For all the mistakes and flaws of our nation the fact that we have a stake in and own EVERYTHING that our nation does is the greatest thing about being an American. We as citizens have full responsibility for the good, the bad and everything in between this nation does because as US citizen's we have a say in it.

Great post, but I don't think the attitude of greed that seems so pervasive these days will change one iota.

 

[MaggieMae]

How did it do that?

next you'll blame the Bush tax breaks for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Only a worthless leach who sucks off the taxpayer would be opposed to tax cuts.

I'm opposed to the tax cuts, and I probably pay more in taxes a year than most people on USMB make. The "leech" argument just doesn't hold water. It's a juveinlle argument to say all liberals want people to pay 100% of their income in taxes. The answer isn't 100% paid-but it's not 0% either.

Somebody's gotta pay for food inspections, roads, court system, police, firefighters, hospitals, EMTS, etc. There are no free hand outs-and those are no exceptions.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes-if they're used in responsible ways. They're currently not-that's what really bothers me, not the fact that I have to pay them.

I am for a flat tax rate for all Americans though.

The problem is that you liberals think you can mandate what we pay. So far, liberal/progressive ideology is a fucking bust.

So it was liberals who mandated that YOU pay for prescription drugs for elders? And didn't even pretend to fund it by an added tax or even pay-go? Hmm, I seem to recall that was done by one strong-armed Tom DeLay, who is a Republican.

 

[MaggieMae]

I look at it like this. You'll know DC is serious about the deficit and debt when you see Republicans talking about tax raises and Democrats talking about hurtful cuts to social programs.

It's going to be interesting to see how Obama plays-off to his base why he extended the Bush rates. That's in the same column as Gitmo.

They were only extended for two years. It's called wiggle room.

Yep, But what they had to admit when they extended them is the important thing. All these libs in here want us to believe they did nothing to help the Economy. Yet when Obama and the Dems agreed to extend them, they did it because they agreed that ending them WOULD HURT THE ECONOMY. Therefore you can conclude they Helped the economy.

In that package, the Democrats also got another unemployment extension and a payroll tax holiday, which put more cash into the hands of lower income people. If any of that could have been possible AND raised the tax rate for the upper income to where it was in the 90's, that would have been the prize Obama had been going after all along. So they had to compromise on another two years of the richer getting richer and the rest getting a little better, but not by much.

 

[MaggieMae]

Right...It's being forced from us, at gunpoint if necessary.

Of course the difference between gubmint and a common street thug is that the mugger doesn't have tools like you pimping for him.

Taxes are in the constitution.

Really, please do point out the provision of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to not only tax your income, but to use Withholding to do it.

I can't wait for this.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

is all I can really say if that's what you got out of that.

What I got is that you, like all libs, have the moral code of a thief.

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