Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years

counter WHAT 'claims'?....that yo're a partisan liberal hack?,no need.
keep thinking you bring 'substance' to the dicussion...we need the laughs

 

in over 6 years?


Hate to tell you kid, but bleeding that long is invariably fatal

 

So you were lying then...why even bother making the claim?

 

Ecvept youa re the ones who have no facts and only blind parisan hatred and bigotry. The lawyers would look at that too and see you for the slander, liberl, and frauds you partisan hacks really are.

I might not have been presenting any facts, but my opinions were not ads hominems personal attacks. They were statements of truth that you people can not be objective in any way and any attempt to bring actual, objective, unbiased facts would be futile because all you want to do is trash and bash conservatives.

I have been very honest with my personal opinions of you.

Which is another thing that your lawyers would look for. Many lawyers are very food and very experienced at detecting dishonesty and lies.

And they too would see through you, especially when I show them your tactics are right out of Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals.

So your fraudulent claims and dishonest argumentation are not working. intelligent and educated people who have many years of experience with frauds like you can see right through them.

The only people you will be impressing are the people who are just like you.


As of this point it will be you and your sock puppet that will be continuing this. I am dropping this matter.

This is not a win for you, you haven't proven or convinced me of anything.

 

^^^^^CON Sock Puppet^^^^^

 

That's hardly accurate. That graph is based off of estimates, mainly CBO estimates, and a very flawed selection of them. Actual costs of the Bush tax cuts over 10 years was $1.285trillion. But judging from that graph alone the cost was over 20% of 2012 GDP, which was 16.16trillion. That's 3.232trillion at 20% of 2012 GDP, but the graph suggests that it is over that. Which it obviously isn't. The actual cost of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 was under 8% of GDP.

It also seems that the graph is distorted. Even CBPP's own flawed figures don't show the Bush tax cuts accounting for over 20% of GDP in 2012.

 

'Sure he did' what? Inherit? He didn't apply? LOL!

The wars cost around $700,000,000,000 on Obama's watch. Obama extended the tax cuts so that's on him. So what did Obama spend the other $6,300,000,000,000 on? Obama could have stopped the wars his first year he had the votes. The govt also spent $943,000,000,000 on the war on poverty last year. Comment? And it's funny how libruls never talk about cutting spending.

 

Got it you don't understand the actual graph AND didn't bother to go to the link AND don't add in the costs of interest AND you use conservative "math"


Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies



lol, they aren't measuring via GDP BUT THE ACTUAL DEBT

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849


CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf


The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

 

Yes, AND THE POLICIES WEREN'T OBAMA'S AND HE COULDN'T JUST WAVE HIS HANDS AND STOP THEM OR THEIR COSTS?



"$943,000,000,000 on the war on poverty last year. Comment?"

conservative "math"???

 

So he had both houses but had no power to do anything? Interesting. Librul dodging at it's best.

Lefty lie? $22,000,000,000,000 has been spent on the war on poverty over 50 years. And it has failed. Prove otherwise.

 

You mean he had a " super majority" for less than a year AS DUBYA'S economy was tumbling 9%+ AND losing millions of jobs?




The War on Poverty’s surprising success



Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson declared “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Narrowly defined, the war failed, in two ways. Most obviously, poverty still exists—indeed, the official poverty rate is only four percentage points lower today than it was then. Moreover, the government agency created to implement the War on Poverty–the long-forgotten Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)–had lost Johnson’s active support by 1967, was actively undermined by President Richard Nixon (who briefly appointed the reactionary Howard Phillips to run it), and was finally put out of its misery by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so. Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.




None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.




http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-povertys-surprising-success


We spent trillion on wars, should we stop spending on them Bubba? lol

Parrott observes that in 1967, government raised a mere 4% out of poverty, and today it raises more like 44%.

 

When you cut taxes and spend a ton of money that does. Pretty much it like quitting your job and living off your credit card, buying toys and going out to eat, partying, then not getting a job and saying (*)(*)(*)(*) paying bills les someone else do it. The best part of this theory is people will believe it is someone else's fault, because the person or people blame someone other than themselves. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

Republican by and large are the biggest freeloaders there are, they spend money wildly, then get mad when someone fixes the problem. They love to blame minorities and everyone else for taking "handouts". yet they have not minded sticking their hand in the piggy bank every chance they get. All they have to say is I am Christian and it gets them off the hook with their knuckle dragging base

 

Ah, okay! So I guess then we must be agreeing that the tax cuts were a big fail and contributed to the deficit right? I mean, since the tax cut extension is on Obama, that can't be good for the economy, right?

 

Only a progressive would think your labor belongs to someone else. I am not surprised that progressives are Democrats, the historic champions of slavery.

 

Wrong! That's your argument. If you want to blame the cuts then blame Obama.

Cuts are about the budget and deficit, not the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

And did nothing.

MSNBC op-ed?

 

In order to understand Obama's debt you must take a history lesson going back to Reaganomics, started by Reagan; http://zfacts.com/p/318.html As the article points out, voodoo economics began as a mortgage and ballooned with massive interest on that debt, unnecessary wars, continued tax cuts, and a housing gambling spree, auto failure, all have contributed to Obama looking like the big spender. When in fact, if left with a surplus like Bush because of Clinton, we wouldn't be having this conversation about accelerated debt. Folks on the Right think they can play voodoo economics for thirty years at the expense of the taxpayer then make Obama out as the fall guy for the failed policies of the Right. And the reason people know longer buy the nonsense, is because they voted twice for Obama.

 

Wrong. Obama is the POTUS, his issue. Understand that lefty. Obama extended tax cuts and the wars. Deal with it.

 

What labor is that? Oh, you mean the sweat coming from people pushing money around, then get tax cuts for pushing it around, while taking that same money overseas, never to be seen again?

 

Your argument will never catch any momentum without learning history. Everything we do and understand today, is a direct reflection of the consequences of our history. If you aren't willing to accept that reality, your arguments will be lost with the wind. Go back in your hole. You're wasting my time.

 

I don't need your spin lefty. Now go play with your ******* pals.

 

Theft seems to be the cornerstone of progressive ideology. It may be that you don't work enough to actually pay taxes and are jealous of those that do.

 

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The middle class has been eviscerated.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012#table3

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.






The Republican Party hasn't had a single idea that benefited the majority of Americans since before Reagan.

 

Thanks for the picture describing your belief perfectly. The fast rate of growth the country ever saw was before 1926 from around 1870 to 1900.

 

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins

LIKE CHINA IS DOING TODAY WITH THEIR INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND GOV'T INVOLVEMENT??? LOL

 

This isn't a real argument, nor is it true.

Oh really? Bush's tax cuts, which were set to expire in 2010 as only temporary measures, and the War in Iraq (which supposedly aren't in anymore) are going to continue until 2019 unchanged? Nope.

You mean that the % indicator on the left hand side isn't a measure of GDP? Huh. "lol"

Funny, the Bush tax cuts expired before 2011.

And why would you bother blaming Bush for an extension of his plan that he set to expire over a short period? that would be like blaming Obama because the next President has stimulus plans and saying oh, those stimulus plans are now Obama's fault. They obviously wouldn't be.

The main problem, pointed out in the WP article, is that the CBO estimates were based on our never having the 2001 recession. In 2001, tax revenues were 18.8% of GDP, and they fall off precipitously the next year to 17%, primarily as a result of the mini-recession. When Bush's tax cuts really took full effect, the following year, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP dropped further to 15.7% of GDP, but by 2007 they had risen back to 17.7%. They were 17.1% in 2008, and dropped off precipitously in 2009 to 14.6%. They remained there for 2010, yet last year in 2014 they were back up to 17.5%. The problem with the incorrect CBO estimates used is that they end up assigning the blame for revenue loss due to economic factors to the Bush Tax Cuts. Notice again in that flawed CBPP graph how much more rapidly the 'cost' of the tax cuts expand when the recession hit. That isn't a cost of the tax cuts, that is a flawed graph.