Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts

President Obama seems to have a strategy to terminate all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for “the rich,” as he has been saying since 2008. He is offering the Republicans exactly zero concessions in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. No spending cuts, no entitlement reform, no compromise on the rates. It is entirely my way or the highway, and if the Republicans refuse to do everything exactly as he demands, he will let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely, for the middle class and working people as well as the upper incomes, and blame the Republicans for refusing to go along with him, and for the economic results.

It is a cynical game worthy of an undeveloped, third world country, not the United States of America. But this is just one more reason, with many more to come, for the American people to regret the mistake they made on Election Day.

Because so many major media institutions, like the *New York Times *and the *Washington Post, *have been so duplicitous and dishonest in discussing the Bush tax cuts, most Americans don’t know much about them, even though they have been living with them for 10 years or more now. Indeed, most of what they think they know is not true. But the American people will understand them better, when they see what life is like without them.

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom *50% *declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being *paid *cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged.

more…
 
As usual, the Democrats can’t lose with their strategy, and the Republicans cannot win. It’s folly, but I am convinced that without divine intervention, nothing will change.
 
As usual, the Democrats can’t lose with their strategy, and the Republicans cannot win. It’s folly, but I am convinced that without divine intervention, nothing will change.
That’s what’s so sad about this country: it’s obvious that the President is screwing with the country and the MSM and Obama allies are doing an amazing job to cover-up the truth despite how obvious it is.

And no matter what happens, he still wins. It’s utterly pathetic.
 
These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit
The Bush tax cuts were not designed to cut or explode the deficit. They were passed through reconciliation (not allowing a filibuster) on a ten-year plan, not two years or eleven years. CBO scored the two-year plan and found it defective but found that the ten-year plan would be revenue neutral. It’s actually remarkable that the ten year plan actually achieved its CBO revenue objective, surviving the turmoil of 9/11 and the housing bubble and bust.

The big problem, though, of the Bush tax cuts was that it LOCKED in a tax plan for the ten year period which afforded no additional revenues in unexpected events such as 9/11. There shouldn’t have been ANY deficits (increase in debt) during that period or thereafter for that matter.
 
These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged.
The increase in federal debt was much higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Bush however was a big spender, so reckless spending along with tax cuts is a recipe for higher deficits.
 
The increase in federal debt was much higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Bush however was a big spender, so reckless spending along with tax cuts is a recipe for higher deficits.
Just so I understand - it is your contention that Bush had unilateral spending power?
 
Just so I understand - it is your contention that Bush had unilateral spending power?
When things like “Deficits don’t matter” are muttered by your own Vice President, one certainly does wonder.
 
Yes indeed, but the veto sends it back to be revoted on.
A fiscally responsible act would have been a veto, regardless of what happens afterwards. If they have 2/3 votes in both chambers to override your veto, so be it, but one should stand on his principles. Either you want a balanced budget or you don’t. If you don’t then we’ll be debating on who caused the most damage till the cows come home.
 
A fiscally responsible act would have been a veto, regardless of what happens afterwards. If they have 2/3 votes in both chambers to override your veto, so be it, but one should stand on his principles. Either you want a balanced budget or you don’t. If you don’t then we’ll be debating on who caused the most damage till the cows come home.
Here is the problem. The absence of line item veto puts one in the crosshairs of the political attack people.

When your advisors tell you a veto will be overridden there is no advantage. In order to prosecute the war I believe Bush let these crazy budgets be unchallenged. The dems took advantage.

I wish it were different but it isn’t. Even in the hurricane Sandy aid package they tried to put in pork. So if the president would reject it the press wouldn’t focus on the real reason they would exploit it. If Obama vetoed it though they sure would bring up the pork. It is a no win situation with them unless you are a liberal.

In a nutshell this is what the tea party and GOP face. America already knows them as “uncaring”.
 
In a nutshell this is what the tea party and GOP face. America already knows them as “uncaring”.
Well, more specifically, many immigrants, students, single women, blacks, and hispanics. Just saying.
 
Well, more specifically, many immigrants, students, single women, blacks, and hispanics. Just saying.
They are not uncaring - they just differ in how to fix the problems. Dems put bandaids on with money. Pubs go to the root of the problems and want to fix them there. Dems will provide the fish forever for a vote, pubs will teach how to fish.
 
They didn’t make the deficit explode alone, but they did help.

At any rate, I don’t know why everyone thinks tax hikes will hurt the economy but spending cuts won’t. Do people not realize government spending is a term in the GDP equation?
 
They didn’t make the deficit explode alone, but they did help.

At any rate, I don’t know why everyone thinks tax hikes will hurt the economy but spending cuts won’t. Do people not realize government spending is a term in the GDP equation?
Indeed. At least that’s what the macro-economic books say. I wonder if they count temporary tax cuts/credits as spending in that equation, though. I think the 2009 stimulus was filled with tax cuts and credits but I heard it was all counted as spending.
 
Indeed. At least that’s what the macro-economic books say. I wonder if they count temporary tax cuts/credits as spending in that equation, though. I think the 2009 stimulus was filled with tax cuts and credits but I heard it was all counted as spending.
Tax cuts usually show up in the gdp equation through consumption, since tax cuts increase disposable income. Of course, if the tax cut is saved it will not affect gdp directly.
 
Tax cuts usually show up in the gdp equation through consumption, since tax cuts increase disposable income. Of course, if the tax cut is saved it will not affect gdp directly.
This may sound like I advocate social engineering but by that reasoning, do you think it would be better to increase deductions and tax credits, which presuppose that the money is actually spent? I agree that tax cuts won’t guarantee that the money would go back into the economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top