|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the House Dems Health Care|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf So, if we simply let the Bush tax cuts expire, health care will be paid for. |
||
|
Member |
Oh no you don't. You're not going to convince me with those fancy numbers and spreadsheets. I know what I know and that's good enough for me. Besides, who ever heard of words like deficit before Obama took office? We were doing just fine financially before this administration took power.
 |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
 |
|||
|
Member |
Do you realy believe a tax cut(allowing people to keep their own money) is anything like spending the peoples money for them(probably meaning a tax raise)?
Shockey |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Sorry it took me so long to respond but I was watching Jeter tie Lou Gehrig's hit record. Of course that was Bush's fault also. When will you limp ***** out there let your man, Bro Obama stand on his own two feet and stop making excuses for him? I have never in my life seen such sorry a bunch of sorry butt cry babies in my life.
|
|||
|
----------------  Proud Member ----------------  |
You're talking about the Boo-hoo no one in Washington to represent me butt cry babies, right? Yeah. Of course you are... Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Wow it is very interesting that President Bush cut taxes, but increased tax revenue.
Can you show me anything that will show that tax revenue went down by that amount? Not too long ago the lefties on this site were lambasting President Bush for being the biggest taxer ever because he brought in the most tax revenue in history, but now you say this is not the case? Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
Member |
Tax revenues would have been even higher without the massive tax cuts to the top 1%, and the country would not have doubled a 5 trillion dollar debt to 10 trillion over 8 years under George W. Bush. The idea that record trillion dollar tax cuts to the top 1% automatically creates new jobs has been proven to be false time and time again. Most of the time it sits as numbers on a computer screen, generating interest, creating wealth from nothing, and artificially inflating economic growth. +http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html]http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Cheney and Rove screwed over the budget and Bush wasn't strong enough to rein them in, according to Paul O'Niell, George Bush's Treasury Secretary. In his own words: “Yes, well, in the last quarter the growth rate was 8.2 percent. It was terrific,” says O’Neill. “I think the tax cut made a difference. But without the tax cut, we would have had 6 percent real growth, and the prospect of dealing with transformation of Social Security and fundamentally fixing the tax system. And to me, those were compelling competitors for, against more tax cuts.” The 2.2% increase over what would have been normal, real growth was at the expense of the future of America and that's why we're where we're at now. |
|||
|
|
Member |
And on a side note regarding Paul O'Neill :
Paul O'Neill on the Bush tax cut: 'I would not have done it' +http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030112oneilltwonat2p2.asp |
|||
|
Member |
How is a tax cut bad? We do not work for the federal gov't. They work for us. It's not their money to give away. It's not their money to spend on health care. The Federal Gov't has no money. It has our money.
|
|||
|
|
10 DAYS SUSPENSION NEMESIS |
Tax cuts do not "cost" the government money. That assumption is a silly perversion of the way things really are. The point as stated presupposes that all money belongs to the government, which benevolently allows the citizens to keep a portion of it.
The reality is that the money belongs to the people, and giving money back to the people who worked to earn it is not an "expense." It is the right thing to do. We can quibble about what is and is not necessary to fund, but when we do things like spend half a million dollars to paint a fish on an airliner, I have a feeling that tax cuts are not the expense that the confiscators make it out to be. |
|||
|
Member |
The tax cuts cost the US Government zip, zilch zero.
Aside from its total departure from logic the statement ignores the many time proven fact that tax cuts increase tax revenue. Go ahead raise taxes on those you consider wealthy. Youll see even more money and jobs move offshore with our manufacturing capability. Do you have any idea how many practical things and how much common sense exists in the third world because their governments are preoccupied with staying in existence rather than dippin every last finger into every last aspect of their citizens' lives? Diesel powered Ford Rangers. Almost the perfect truck. Illegal for sale in US. Simple 1970s technology motorcycles, easy to maintain and they last for decades...illegal for sale in US. One could go on all day. They buy cheap (price) stuff that works almost forever and when it don't they can fix it with rocks and a screw driver. We need test only smog stations and state regulated diagnostic computers. Eh. A silly frikkin rant for a useless silly thread. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Tax cuts DO cost when they are deficit financed as Bush's were.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The point your missing is that the deficit did not fund the tax cuts. The deficit funded a bunch of government programs that should have been curtailed due to insufficient tax revenue. The Bush administration and his Republican congress were certainly guilty of spending more then they had. A trait that seems to persist with the current administration and congress times 4.. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Did you happen to notice the deficit President Bush left behind? How about the job loses and economic recession? Pretty clear his tax cuts for the rich neither helped the deficit nor created jobs nor enhanced our economy. Year 2000 Budget Deficit: - 230 billion (that’s a surplus) Jan 2001 Unemployment Rate: 4.2% Year 2008 Budget Deficit: 438 billion (that’s a shortfall) Jan 2009 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% Your plan sucks and has been proven time and again to not work. Pull your head out of the sand and see reality. Anybody that thinks the country was better off in Jan 2009 than in Jan 2001 is clearly clueless. Let's face it; the Bush Presidency was an utter failure in every sense of the word. Cleaning up the Bush disaster is an expensive endeavor. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If that's true why was a tax increase not the first order of business for Obama and the democratic congress. Its been nearly 9 months now. What are they waiting for? I mean they are running deficits that make Bush look like a rookie. If deficits are so no no to dems and raising taxes has no negative economic effects then get it done. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
It is easier to just let the tax cuts expire than trying to roll them back. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yea its $1.8 trillion easier? Keep telling yourself that. |
|||
|
|
Member |
yawn... |
|||
|
SlackMaster Actual |
sounds like political cowardess... "Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master of the soldier." THEODORE ROOSEVELT |
|||
|
 |
Prove it. Just because you think/wish it was true doesn't make it so. If you look at the OMB's historical budget tables, you'll find quite the opposite. Tax cuts can temporarily stimulate the economy, but they have never been shown to increase tax revenue - at least not at the federal level. In fact, the Reagan Tax Cuts (the most famous example) not only helped run up record deficits, but significantly reduced government tax receipts. And what about the Bush tax cuts? Did they increase revenue? Nope.  I eagerly look forward to your proof. This message has been edited. Last edited by: rcjarrell, |
|||
|
New Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boots_:
Tax revenues would have been even higher without the massive tax cuts to the top 1%, and the country would not have doubled a 5 trillion dollar debt to 10 trillion over 8 years under George W. Bush. The idea that record trillion dollar tax cuts to the top 1% automatically creates new jobs has been proven to be false time and time again. Most of the time it sits as numbers on a computer screen, generating interest, creating wealth from nothing, and artificially inflating economic growth. ________________________________________________ You're referring to trickle down economics. In the 80's, it was called Reaganomics. It's been the standard Republican tax policy for many years. It's a great way to turn the economy around, except it doesn't work. On paper and in theory, it sounds great, but the money never trickles down. Give the biggest tax breaks to the big corporations and then they can use the money saved on taxes to expand their business, create more jobs, and pay the workers better wages, while keeping costs of their products at the same or lower price. The main problem w/this type of tax break is that the money never trickles down. They, the corporations, may let a little trickle down or use it the way it was intended, but for the most part, it just goes into their pockets. By the end of Bush Sr.'s term we were at near record deficits. Bush Jr. continued the same economic policies and before the Iraqi war even started, we had wiped out one the biggest surplus' we've had in decades and had the largest deficit since his Dad was president. Steel mills, manufacturers, banks and Savings and Loan's were failing big time back in the 80's. Sounds awfully familiar to the 2000's to me. |
|||
|
Member |
I believe that we should turn over every dime we earn to the government, and for that privledge, we should be happy to live on government cheese.
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
While I do know that the Bush tax cuts utilized deficit spending in order to make it possible (especially in light of the war spending that would follow), I also know that our dollar has depreciated since and that deficits today are far different from deficits in 2001. You must remember that tax revenues are way down and that government spending is way up. Not to mention disparity between our currency units and the rest of the world.
To be honest, I would prefer if you could compile records that are using a static-state comparison. Sure, I know that Bush was borrowing the tax cuts (i.e. was not making the correct cuts in government spending), but that is past, and what we have now is an accelerated version of that economic methodology. In today's world, the US government never shrinks... It continues to grow. So much, in fact, that most of the good news today in the unemployment numbers has been due to increased government hiring; not to mention the disparity between the U-3 and U-6 numbers. No matter what, in Bush's administration or of that in Obama's, there is definitely a direct correlation between government spending and the deficit (Bush I. Reagan and Clinton all proved this). And, it has little to do with overall economic factors outside of government expenditures, other than the data in reference to annual tax revenues (recession data, essentially). It isn't hard to come to a conclusion when faced with these facts. Also, just as a teaser... When was the last time the government decreased yearly expenditures? When was the last time that government shrank and conformed to the economic conditions? Because, as far as I can recall, Keynesian Economics has ruled the economics sector of government for over 40 years, and it's recipe calls for increased government spending on whatever the government can spend money on, no matter what it is (gotta love aggregates). It seems to me that it has always been the people of this nation that must fund this, and they are also the ones that must endure the hardships of this economic school. This message has been edited. Last edited by: 10tenths, |
|||
|
|
Member |
http://forums.military.com/eve...712001#5260012712001
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? "I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference." -- George W. Bush The Historic Realities • Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash. • High income taxes correlate with economic growth. • Income tax increases are followed by economic growth. • Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy. • All of this is especially true as applied to the top tax rates, the amount paid on income that exceeds the highest bracket. The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash 1. Hoover During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high. In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent. The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble. It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929. There were bank failures and the Great Depression. 2. Reagan From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range. Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent. The economy was already in "the worst recession since the Great Depression," a recession that was caused by the disastrous Carter years. However, in 1982 Reagan raised Social Security taxes, a tax that hit employers, employees and those receiving SS benefits, since for the first time ever, those benefits were taxed. Even with a 50% tax burden and new SS taxes, the country prospered. In 1986, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday. Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate. The rich used the extra money to make more money, using the newly deregulated Savings and Loan industry as a piggy bank. Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout - the Reagan Administration nationalized part of the financial sector. Another recession hit in 1990. 3. Bush II George Bush came into office with the healthiest, most powerful economy in American history – one where taxes had been raised. A recession due to the dot com bubble hit in 2000. Bush immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. Eventually, the economy began to grow, but the economy never really got going for the middle class. Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat (10,500 Jan 2001 when Bush first took office 10,800 in Jan. 2005. But the financial sector -- and only the financial sector -- grew. OK the housing sector grew, but we now know that was due to shenanigans by the financial sector. Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was … a bubble. There was a crash. Bank failures. A bailout. The Bush Administration nationalized part of the financial sector. The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash. High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are: • World War II (1941-45): top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent • Post-war under Truman and Eisenhower: top rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent • Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent • First two Roosevelt administrations (1933-40). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent. A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war. Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes. Likewise, many right-wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28 percent to 31 percent). Tax Increases Are Followed by Economic Growth Three of the four high-growth periods cited above followed significant tax hikes. The fourth, the Truman-Eisenhower years, began with a top tax rate of 91 percent -- it couldn't get much higher. Moderate Tax Cuts Are Followed by Flat Growth John F. Kennedy is generally credited with starting the tax cut craze. He proposed it, but, as with most of his ideas, it was Lyndon Johnson who actually got it enacted. The top rate was cut from 91 percent to 77 percent, then to 70 percent, on all income over $200,000 for a single person and over $400,000 for a married couple. That's where it stayed, through Nixon, Ford and Carter. The Dow Jones average was pretty much the same when that period ended as when it began (860 in Jan 1968; 855 in Jan 1980.) Median personal income stayed roughly the same. These are the historic facts. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
You are taking a priori knowledge to a far off level, my friend. In regard to our current situation, you are not accounting for derivative activity or interest rates as prescribed by the Fed. Nor are you accounting for increased Federal expenditures (i.e. war funding, new departments, increased contracting, etc). Let us not mention the amount of government backing of loans and the allowing of banks to leverage themselves near 10,000 times their reserve capacity. Then, there is the trade deficit with China (who have been holding the Yuan down to appease American consumers); we filled the gap by selling them dollars and called it a fair trade. Hmm!??
Facts are great, but you can have facts that are completely separate from what happened. Sure, there have been other times in our history where this has happened in an aggregate. But, you still are not looking at the whole picture. In all of your cases posed, was there ever a decrease in Federal expenditures? That is the question. I will save you the trouble, government spending and growth never ceased. In fact, the last time government shrank was in the year leading up to the end of the 'Great Depression' where the federal budget shrank by 2/3 (between '37-'38). Many, including myself believe that this is what ended the depression. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Lets assume that's true. You still have billions to go just to get the deficit to near zero much less zero. I mean we are running a $1.8 trillion deficit without health care. Your answer to that was always that the Bush Tax cuts would expire. Seems now you have that spent already. Bush's tax cuts cost the country supposedly $2.4 trillion interest adjusted dollars over 10 years. That would cover Obama's $1.8 trillion deficit this year and a portion of his deficit next year and you'd have none left to cover health care nor the deficit for the next 8 years. Bottom line getting spending under control is a necessity. This message has been edited. Last edited by: floersh, |
|||
|
|
Member |
•“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” — Vladimir Lenin
SeaWitch.. you are a true Socialist/Communist Hero! The way this administration is printing money, increasing the deficit, and your attitude toward taxation....YOU ARE IT!!!! Add "health care/insurance reform" or what ever you all are calling Socialized medicine...and you rock the Marx boat!!!!!! |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hey seawitch, I didn't see you complain when you got your check from Bush...Now you are complaing? hahahahahahahahaha...Now go figure.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the House Dems Health Care
