Why aren't the Bush Tax Cuts Working?

[grunt11b]

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

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

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

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

I say make every entitlement program voluntary, if they are such good programs like the left claim they are then there should be no problem, if they suck like those of us in reality know they do, they will go away rather quickly, saving trillions a year.

 

[grunt11b]

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

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

The 2011 budget for the DoE?

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

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

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

Nice dodge.

 

[Trajan]

The economy has slowed up SINCE the tax cuts were extended.

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

and the correlation please?

Question: What was the original intent of the Bush tax cuts, 8 and 10 years ago?

grow federal revenue and create jobs.

I don't have to show correlation. I'm using the 'Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues' wingnut logic,

yes actually you do, unless of course you'll just let this pass as more trash that you spew as a very weak and ignorant smoke screen.

unless of course you'd like to establish once and for all that that logic is horseshit.

and here is a clue for you, what we need is tax cuts via a tax code restructure, ala, erskine bowles.

 

[Google]

Why are you ignoring 2001-2003?

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

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

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

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

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

The immaturity of leftist individuals never ceases to astound me. Since you are so obviously educated on recent history which party, preceding the multi-billion dollar accounting scandals that rocked the government backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resisted any and all regulation or auditing of these institutions that undeniably caused the housing crisis that resulted in the economic recession we are still fighting against?

The Bush recession? You are a disingenuous, ill-informed, childish partisan.


Franklin Delano Raines is a prominent Democrat, but that hadn't kept him from currying favor with the new Republican President. For more than 30 years Fannie Mae has straddled two worlds--business and politics--and the company placed enormous emphasis on maintaining good relations with key government officials. In 2001, Raines had written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lauding Bush's faith-based initiative. He had also reached out to Bush allies in the faith-based community, including Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Houston pastor who gave the benediction at Bush's first inaugural. In October 2002, at the White House Conference on Minority Home Ownership, Raines and Caldwell were both on hand to be praised warmly by Bush for their work.

It hasn't even been three years since that sunny day in Atlanta, but oh, how the world has changed. Both Brendsel and Raines have been deposed in the wake of multibillion-dollar accounting scandals. Brendsel fell in 2003, after government regulators accused Freddie Mac of understating billions in profits in an effort to smooth earnings. More recently the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that Fannie Mae--the larger and more important of the two companies--had violated accounting rules, overstating profits by an estimated $9 billion since 2001, which represents almost 40% of its total earnings during that period. Raines, who was paid more than $90 million during his six years as CEO--much of it linked to meeting profit targets--made a last-ditch effort to save his job, but to no avail. CFO Tim Howard was also forced out. Fannie's accounting firm of 36 years, KPMG, was fired. Once one of the most politically powerful companies in America--with staunch allies in Congress who did its bidding, a notoriously weak regulator, and a willingness to steamroller its critics--Fannie today is more vulnerable, in both a business and political sense, than it has ever been before. However it emerges from this scandal, it will almost surely never again be the unstoppable force it once was.

The Fall of Fannie Mae - January 24, 2005

Now here is the congressional hearings before this happened.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs]Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah, tax cuts cause this recession. It's Bush's fault. That is about as deep as you get.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OH BROTHER.

Talk about a Non Sequitur!!!!!

OH BROTHER.

 

[kiwiman127]

The OBAMA tax cuts aren't working because of the uncertainty that the anti-business Obama administration is fostering. And then we have the biggest fear factor of them all ....Obamacare. The 2000+ page behemoth monstrosity of a law that nobody understands or can explain say for certain how much it will cost employers.

US Corporations have been realizing record profits for the last couple of years, that's a fact. How exactly does that happen with an anti-business president?
Also, I wouldn't sweat Obamacare,,,,,,the mandate will kill it. Actually, the biggest fear among economists isn't Obamacare, it's the continuous out-of-control rising cost of health care as it continues to out pace inflation at a pace of 3 to 4 times annually. Being as politicians are basically servants to the health care lobby, nothing serious is getting done or will get done until the politicians cut their umbilical cord to the health care industry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

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

Right, because Obama deficits are bigger than any Reagan budget, it's Spending!!!

 

[Google]

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

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

and then to 5% and lower...

and then to zero...

all in order to keep the US economy alive?

That's mentally retarded.

Yes!

If we control spending we can keep cutting taxes

You got it!!

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

Raising taxes on a the decreasing number of people that actually earn a taxable income will only hinder economic progress and further decrease tax revenue.

Why is this such an incredibly difficult concept? The left doesn't rationalize raising taxes economically, rather the babble on about it being the just thing to do. They don't have any interest in increasing the tax base.

Besides, you never answered my response to the OP.

The Bush tax cuts saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and had the president not extended the Bush tax cuts the economy would be much worse off.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

The immaturity of leftist individuals never ceases to astound me. Since you are so obviously educated on recent history which party, preceding the multi-billion dollar accounting scandals that rocked the government backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resisted any and all regulation or auditing of these institutions that undeniably caused the housing crisis that resulted in the economic recession we are still fighting against?

The Bush recession? You are a disingenuous, ill-informed, childish partisan.

Are you talking about the regulations and audits that never got out of the GOP controlled committees??? Or are you talking about the Pelosi bill that was the only reform that became law???

Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing

In 2003, Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.
Here's what I found when I searched THOMAS for the phrase Fannie Mae for the 108th Congress (2003-2004): eight bills .... but only six appear to relate to this topic, per their title. Of those six, only one was introduced after the White House weighed in (at least rhetorically) in September ... and the prime sponsor of that bill was a Democrat. The other bills seem to have resulted from the July scandal. No bill moved out of committee.





On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).
Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-289 on 30 July 2008.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Right Obama deficits are bigger than any Reagan budget, it's Spending!!!

This is factually incorrect.

The deficit for 2010 was approximately 9% of GDP. Reagan routinely had budgets over 22% of GDP.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The left doesn't rationalize raising taxes economically, rather the babble on about it being the just thing to do. They don't have any interest in increasing the tax base.

Factually incorrect.

The Left talks about raising taxes because it will raise revenue. Bush proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, so an increase in tax rates will lead to an increase in revenue.

And The Left talks a lot about increasing the tax base! We just know you can do that by raising people's salaries instead of just raising their taxes.

 

[grunt11b]

The OBAMA tax cuts aren't working because of the uncertainty that the anti-business Obama administration is fostering. And then we have the biggest fear factor of them all ....Obamacare. The 2000+ page behemoth monstrosity of a law that nobody understands or can explain say for certain how much it will cost employers.

US Corporations have been realizing record profits for the last couple of years, that's a fact. How exactly does that happen with an anti-business president?

The bigger question here is which companies have seen record profits? I would be wiling to bet it's companies like GE that helped obama get elected. Because he has done nothing else other than pick and choose winners and losers since he got into office. To say American companies have seen record profits is unreasonable, if that where the case our economy would not be in the wreck it's in right now, it would be more fair to say Obamas buddies have seen record profits in the last 2 years.

Also, I wouldn't sweat Obamacare,,,,,,the mandate will kill it. Actually, the biggest fear among economists isn't Obamacare, it's the continuous out-of-control rising cost of health care as it continues to out pace inflation at a pave of 3 to 4 times annually. Being as politicians are basically servants to the health care lobby, nothing serious is getting done or will get done until the politicians cut their umbilical cord to the health care industry.

I hope it gets repealed in 2013.

 

[Oldstyle]

Repeatedly lowering taxes is what caused the deficit/debt.

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

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

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

That simply points out how out of control spending is EVERYWHERE in the Federal budget. How does that make us "even"?

 

[grunt11b]

Right Obama deficits are bigger than any Reagan budget, it's Spending!!!

This is factually incorrect.

The deficit for 2010 was approximately 9% of GDP. Reagan routinely had budgets over 22% of GDP.

Along with the 20,000,000 jobs he created, you could get away with it under those circumstances.

 

[grunt11b]

The left doesn't rationalize raising taxes economically, rather the babble on about it being the just thing to do. They don't have any interest in increasing the tax base.

Factually incorrect.

The Left talks about raising taxes because it will raise revenue. Bush proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, so an increase in tax rates will lead to an increase in revenue.

And The Left talks a lot about increasing the tax base! We just know you can do that by raising people's salaries instead of just raising their taxes.

And if business owners cannot afford to raise salaries they lay off workers, losing jobs.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The left doesn't rationalize raising taxes economically, rather the babble on about it being the just thing to do. They don't have any interest in increasing the tax base.

Factually incorrect.

The Left talks about raising taxes because it will raise revenue. Bush proved we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, so an increase in tax rates will lead to an increase in revenue.

And The Left talks a lot about increasing the tax base! We just know you can do that by raising people's salaries instead of just raising their taxes.

And if business owners cannot afford to raise salaries they lay off workers, losing jobs.

I'm not suggesting we force owners to raise salaries. I'm merely pointing out that there are two ways to get a poor person to pay more in taxes. Raise his tax rate or pay him more. Conservatives only focus on raising the tax rates. Why not focus on raising his income, and then everyone wins?

 

[clevergirl]

Bush tax cuts did work for several years... The problem is that spending continued to increase- then we hit the housing bubble crisis. Instead of cutting spending we got the Obamacare cluster fuck spending.

Does anyone else remember how Obama bragged that his first order of business, if elected, would be to attack the budget with a scalpel? This was his big boy statement to counter John McCain's promise to cut spending and even freeze non mandatory spending to reign in Washington.

Of course Obama promised his followers and our country many things that he has failed to follow through on.

NOBAMA 2012

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right Obama deficits are bigger than any Reagan budget, it's Spending!!!

This is factually incorrect.

The deficit for 2010 was approximately 9% of GDP. Reagan routinely had budgets over 22% of GDP.

You're an Obama Fluffer.

Reagan Sends $1 Trillion Budget to Congress, and Battle Is Joined - NYTimes.com

"Most of the details of the President's plan for spending $1.02 trillion in the fiscal year 1988 had been disclosed in recent days, and the Democrats who will control both houses of the new Congress were quick to attack when the document was issued this morning"

2011 Deficit | How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - Los Angeles Times

"The deficit is estimated at $1.27 trillion in 2011 -- down from a record $1.56 trillion in the current year."

Obama deficit $1.27T > Reagan $1.02T budget

 

[driveby]

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

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

for the jobs?

Unemployment would have gone way up without those tax cuts.....

Sound familiar? .....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right Obama deficits are bigger than any Reagan budget, it's Spending!!!

This is factually incorrect.

The deficit for 2010 was approximately 9% of GDP. Reagan routinely had budgets over 22% of GDP.

Also, you're a flat-out fucking liar