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

"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. "

Don't know what policy IS and how the GOP blackmailed Obama in Dec 2010 on stopping the top 2%'s tax rates from increasing, losing the US treasury $4 trillion huh??


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

NO BUBBA, IT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF DEBT ESTIMATED BY 2019. lol




"Funny, the Bush tax cuts expired before 2011. "

Sure they did Bubba, sure

EVERYTHING else you posit is the usual right wing nonsense.. I'mshocked, no really I am



Recession Caused Sharp Deterioration in Budget Outlook


We calculate that changes in the economic outlook since the summer of 2008 account for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and smaller amounts in later years. We estimate that the downturn has pushed up deficits by $2.5 trillion (including the associated interest costs) over the 2009-2018 period (see Figure 1).




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


lol

 

Recession Caused Sharp Deterioration in Budget Outlook


We calculate that changes in the economic outlook since the summer of 2008 account for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and smaller amounts in later years. We estimate that the downturn has pushed up deficits by $2.5 trillion (including the associated interest costs) over the 2009-2018 period (see Figure 1).



Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.

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.


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

 

The only cornerstone is you not being able to answer my question. What's new?

 

And this explains exactly why we have such an inflated debt. Thanks!

 

Answering questions like your totally biased and partisan ones are akin to dealing with conspiracy theorists. Pretty useless.

Keynes was right, laissez faire was over by the 1920's which was when progressive ideology took over government and the previous growth rates have not been seen since.

 

How is that?

- - - Updated - - -

And so are your non answers!

 

Are those figures a belief? Where are yours to counter that belief? Lol! I can see more non answers on the way. What a joke.

 

That's fine - so go ahead and explain why the CBPP estimated costs of the Bush tax cuts, as reflected in the graph, show rapidly increasing costs of tax cuts at the time of the recession.

Again, you keep citing a left-wing "think-tank", using their figures as just facts without consideration to look at their data. Again, the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010, any 'extension' was actually Obama's. The War in Iraq goes on until 2019? hah.

Oh, and the little nugget I love most: 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.

by the end of 2014, the debt was already 18trillion.



But again, the CBPP methodology is fundamentally flawed, though I understand that any discussion of methodology behind estimates is just "right wing nonsense" and any estimates not in agreement with this liberal think tank is just "right wing nonsense", but let's be adults and drop that. The CBPP estimate takes lost revenue, doesn't take any consideration of the feedback effect (which greatly mitigates the costs), then without having taken any consideration of the feedback effect adds debt servicing costs, which are actually a separate category, though CBPP conveniently does that for the Bush tax cuts and doesn't consider, for example, the ballooning costs of entitlement programs to bear any responsibility for the rising debt and thereby inflation costs. It's a cheap gimmick. The economic feedback effect of taxcuts is also cumulative, like the debt interest, but your figures make zero account for economic feedback effect, but are quick to assign heavy blame for debt financing. ^_- very shoddy CBPP stuff.

Not considering the economic feedback effect would be like not deducting money loaned out by the Obama Admin to banks which was later returned. Which, oh, the CBPP does. Again, very shoddy stuff that you get from partisan groups w/o considering their methodology.

 

Then where is your counter argument from a Right-wing think tank then?

 

"That's fine - so go ahead and explain why the CBPP estimated costs of the Bush tax cuts, as reflected in the graph, show rapidly increasing costs of tax cuts at the time of the recession. "

You mean AS revenues shrink because of a recession the percentage that DEFICITS explode because of tax cuts ALSO explodes???? Really? You don't get as revenues shrink the loss of revenues from a MAJOR source will explode? And interest costs ALSO explode thanks to those cuts???

I KEEP GIVING YOU THE LINK, WHATS THE PROBLEM BUBBA??

Selected Components of Deficits Under Current Policies, Through 2019

2009'S THE FIRST NUMBER BUBBA



Bush-era tax cuts 371 340 346 309 343 299 305 350 427 505 558 1,955


2009-19 costs

Bush era Tax cuts $4,154 trillion
War costs $1,499

Economic downturn $2,544

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


"Again, you keep citing a left-wing "think-tank", using their figures as just facts without consideration to look at their data. Again, the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010, any 'extension' was actually Obama's. The War in Iraq goes on until 2019? hah."


Really? They expired in 2010? THOSE BUSH ERA TAX CUTS DID??? LOL Sure Bubba sure. Obama get's to change policy like that in the middle of Dubya's great recession when the GOP blocked his even getting the top 2% increased? THIS IS WHERE THE RIGHTS LACK OF HONESTY IOS CALLED INTO QUESTION BUBBA!!!

Iraq's war costs sure haven't stopped Bubba, estimates put the FORTY year cost at $4-$6 trillion.


" Oh, and the little nugget I love most: 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."




[1] We focus here on debt held by the public, which reflects funds that the federal government borrows in credit markets to finance deficits and other cash needs. That is the proper measure on which to focus because it is what really affects the economy. We compare it to GDP because stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio is a key test of fiscal sustainability. See James R. Horney et al., “Fiscal Commission Should Not Focus On Gross Debt,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 21, 2010,


US DEBT


09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

WHO KNEW THE GOP WOULD STOP US FROM CLIMBING OUT OF THE HOLE THEY DUG RIGHT BUBBA???

 

Why does a left-wing think tank need to be countered with a right-wing think tank? I didn't cite a right-wing think tank, I cited The Post, which endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012, which had the cost at 1.285trillion, not some bogus outrageous figure. And I also was blessed with this fleshy thing between my ears, same as you, which I find quite adequate to use to point out flaws with the CBPP's analysis, namely that it (much like The Post) doesn't take the economic feedback effect into account at all. It's a hard thing to account for, and would require an estimate, but assuming NO economic feedback would be like accounting for the costs of the bailouts and ignoring the bailout money paid back.

 

lol, you mean as revenues shrink the loss of revenues increases?

No, what I'm talking about is the problem with the graph. The figures on that graph don't even reflect the CBPP's numbers, the graph inflates them. I'm really not sure where the disconnect is.

You should read more closely what I'm saying. The 2009-19 costs of the "Bush era Tax cuts" are a fantasy. The Bush era Tax cuts are over, we have the Obama era tax cuts, which are not the same. And again, that figure itself is incredibly flawed because it adds interest costs to the Bush tax cuts (which could just as easily have been blamed on ballooning entitlement costs), it uses flawed estimates (as shown by The Post), and it makes zero account for the economic feedback effect. As I've said, doing that would be like measuring the costs of Obama's bailouts and then not deducting the amount paid back. It's a cheap gimmick.

note: wrong thumbnail attached, disregard.

 

You mean the RIGHT WINGER WRITING FOR THE POST??? lol, SOME credibility ONCE in awhile PLEASE??



In a report released last week, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revised the total cost of permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts to $5.048 trillion over the next ten years. The revised amount, which is significantly higher than the $2.8 trillion figure CRS reported in September, takes into account the cost of servicing the debt due to lost revenue and indexing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to inflation.*


As for the revised total cost of permanently extending the tax cuts, CRS observes that debt service costs alone would amount to roughly $606 billion between now and 2020


http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/11353


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

 

MORE right wing nonsense. BUSH STARTED THE DAMN TAX CUTS KNOWING IT WOULD BE POLITICAL SUICIDE (LIKE 1993) TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. TO ATTEMPT TO HANG THE BUSH ERA TAX CUTS ON THE NEXT PREZ IS BS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE BIGGEST DOWNTURN SINCE THE FIRST GOP GRAT DEPRESSION.

Weird how conservatives NEVER accept responsibility for THEIR FAILED POLICIES! I THOUGHT TAX CUTS WERE SUPPOSED TO BOOM THE ECONOMY SO MUCH THEY MADE MORE REVENUES??? lol

 

hahahahahhaa, the "RIGHT WINGER WRITING FOR THE POST"? It's Kessler. He's been called a liberal by conservative groups, and a conservative by liberal groups, groups which seem to have made the same faulty conclusion you seem to have made, which is that anyone disagreeing with you must be a right winger. He's best known for his fact checking, and a George Mason study of fact checkers found him to be unbiased.

^

Again, a flawed estimate (I've already covered this, repeateding the same debunked info won't change anything). In addition to it's miscalculation it also excludes interest and excludes any economic feedback effect.

[video=youtube;yQzAUAe6mjM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzAUAe6mjM[/video]

lol, so the Bush tax cuts which expired and could have been kept from ever coming back with a simple Presidential veto were somehow forced on Obama, because it would have been too hard for Obama to say no? oh poor Obama.

 

\
Wait YOU are saying a NEWSPAPER that backed Obama has credibity on the costs of Dubya's tax because they backed Obama? Whether Kessler is right wing (which I DO), left wing OR moderate????

THAT'S SERIOUSLY YOUR LOGIC??? lol

CBO and CRS are wrong, BUT a right winger from WAPO is correct???


"Again, a flawed estimate (I've already covered this, repeateding the same debunked info won't change anything). In addition to it's miscalculation it also excludes interest

Weird, you mean they''ll lose MORE because of the excluded interest which they didn't even bother because the number was ALREADY astronomical??? lol More likely just din't try to estimate when the interests might increase, after all right wingers have claimed for more than a decade it's going to explode and take inflation with it, lol




"excludes any economic feedback effect."



administration's Treasury Department put together a "dynamic" analysis of the president's proposal to make the tax cuts he'd enacted in 2001 and 2003 permanent. As Jane Gravelle wrote for the Congressional Research Service, that analysis estimated that the resulting budget impact would be 7 percent smaller than what was suggested by conventional scoring methods.


WOO HOO


http://www.vox.com/2014/12/7/7315961/dynamic-scoring-tax-reform




"lol, so the Bush tax cuts which expired and could have been kept from ever coming back with a simple Presidential veto were somehow forced on Obama, because it would have been too hard for Obama to say no? oh poor Obama. "



Hard? You mean during the worst GOP caused meltdown since the first GOP great depression, you expected Obama to increase taxes on ANYONE other than the "job creators" who were the ONLY ones the GOP blocked (not they didn't put up a fight for payroll taxes

HONESTY , TRY IT SOMETIME. Policy ENACTED under a Prez IS OWNED BY HIM UNTIL IT STOPS, WHETHER IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TEMP OR NOT. BUSH WAR? DUBYA

Ronnie Reagan increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ trillion and excess revenues used to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich the next 30 years, STILL on Ronnie!




See how that works?

 

I showed that WAPO isn't right wing. I showed that the author isn't right wing. What, besides the fact that the author disagrees with dad2three, do you have to go on to show that the author is right wing? Because so far that's the only basis you have.

I didn't present a 'logic', I refuted your phantom bases for why it is a right winger source. So far, all that we have, short of that the author disagrees with you, is just that you say that the author is a right winger. :/ So why is it a right winger source?

Nope. That's a straw man. Those rarely stand to a gust of wind. Even using the 7% figure which you prefer, which you took from a "liberal writer" who cited a non-existent source, the compound interest of the economic feedback at that amount more than makes up for the financing costs, so why include financing costs but not economic feedback?

Which was the low end estimate. As VOX notes, "The most optimistic model that the Bush administration felt was credible still ended with the conclusion that the Bush tax cuts substantially decreased revenue." So no, you were wrong earlier - not even the Bush administration said that lowering taxes would increase end revenue. But there's an obvious problem there - the link provided by VOX is a dead link, so you've essentially provided just that: a dead link. Look for yourself.

Jane Gravelle source

And while you're on about the honesty about bias, the author of that article is Matthew Yglesias, who is outright a "liberal writer". Why is it that you're perfectly fine with citing liberals and liberal think tanks, but when I cite nonpartisan sources you feel comfortable dismissing those moderate sources as "right wingers"?

GOP caused meltdown? Right, that's neither here nor there, nor have you provided any basis for that assertion whatsoever.

So b/c Obama, who had two houses of Congress after 2008 and one after 2010, didn't change it, it's Bush's fault? You realize that Bush passed the main portion of the tax cuts with only one house of Congress, right? Hell Obama could have just vetoed if he wished to, BUT HE DIDN'T. I mean, you're really trying to blame Bush for Obama signing extensions?

 

Facts show otherwise. Below is in 2009$ so it is apples-to-apples:

FY Revenues Change %change
2000 2,540.7
2001 2,432.9 -107.8 -4.2%
2002 2,227.3 -205.6 -8.5%
2003 2,083.4 -143.9 -6.5%
2004 2,141.6 58.2 2.8%
2005 2,371.0 229.4 10.7%
2006 2,561.6 190.6 8.0%
2007 2,662.8 101.2 4.0%
2008 2,528.8 -134.0 -5.0%
2009 2,105.0 -423.8 -16.8%

Notice that even FY 2008, which began 10-1-2007, is smaller than the base year, FY 2000.
2000-12 -435.7 -17%

Source: OMB Table Hist01z3

Now if you want to control for a growing population the decline in revenues per capita is much steeper.

Where in the world did you get the idea that revenues rose?

And incomes, adjusted for population growth and inflation were down $6.6 Trillion (or $48,010 per taxpayer) during the 12 years the GWBush tax cuts were in full effect. Incomes were up from 2000 in only two years and combined by less than the smallest decline.

 

Unless you think the Treasury numbers are faked.

 

"I showed that WAPO isn't right wing. I showed that the author isn't right wing. What, besides the fact that the author disagrees with dad2three, do you have to go on to show that the author is right wing? Because so far that's the only basis you have."



HOW? by OPINION? lol You mean Wa Po supporting Obama means they are liberal? Seiously? Ever hear of fallacies? You have MANY going on here. You "believe" Kessler over NON PARTISAN CBO OR CRS??? LOL



" no, you were wrong earlier - not even the Bush administration said that lowering taxes would increase end revenue. But there's an obvious problem there - the link provided by VOX is a dead link, so you've essentially provided just that: a dead link. Look for yourself."

NEVER HEARD OF GOOGLE HUH?






In other words, under the optimistic dynamic-scoring scenario that the Administration presents, the tax cuts still would cost about 1.27 percent of GDP annually, or more than 90 percent of the conventional estimate of the tax cuts’ cost.


Jane Gravelle, Congressional Research Service, “Comments on the Treasury Dynamic Analysis of Extending the Tax Cuts,” July 27, 2006

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/crs_on_dynamic_extension.pdf



Finding #1: At best, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible effect on the economy.

The featured estimate in the Treasury study is that making the tax cuts permanent would add 0.7 percent to the size of the economy over the long run, under the unrealistic assumption that the tax cuts are paid for by deep and unspecified reductions in government programs that start in 2017. The report does not specify what “long run” means, but if the higher growth rates were spread over 20 years,[3] an ultimate increase of 0.7 percent in the size of the economy would mean an increase of just four one-hundredths of one percent in the average annual growth rate. For example, instead of average annual growth of 3.0 percent, the economy would have an average annual growth rate of 3.04 percent. As shown in Figure 1, this difference is so small as to be barely perceptible.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=547





"but when I cite nonpartisan sources you feel comfortable dismissing those moderate sources as "right wingers"? "


SERIOUSLY? IS THAT WHAT I DID? OR DID I SAY WHETHER RIGHT WING (I THINK HE WAS), MODERATE OR LIBERAL, HE WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. According to CBO/CRS, NON PARTISAN SOURCES!!!



"GOP caused meltdown? Right, that's neither here nor there, nor have you provided any basis for that assertion whatsoever. "




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."





"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."


https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them




Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2003)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments, PER YEAR (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/394878-facts-dubyas-great-recession.html



Yes, I guess you can't quite grasp policy like tax cuts will not LOGICALLY be undone DURING the worst economic downturn since the first GOP great depression, AND the Dems DIDN'T have a 60 vote super majority for most of 2009, WHILE the economy was tanking 9%+!


Sure wish I could find some honest Goldwater type conservatives!!!

 

Does the amount that I sweat have anything to do with the value of my labor?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=396419&p=1064745023#post1064745023

 

No, dude. Dad's posts are pretty much the opposite of ad hominem. He backs up what he says with reams of references and links and answered you and your cohorts at every turn. While you and yours answer him with insults and subject-changing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

But don't you remember, Dubya kept the cost of his wars off-budget.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45476435/BBC-News-The-Cost-of-the-Iraq-War-Off-Budget#scribd

Then he misappropriated some of the funds meant for his wars.

http://truth-out.org/archive/compon...nt-report-slams-emergency-war-funding-request

Truth out, indeed.

 

They conveniently forget (or don't know?!) that the previous president's budget ends in September of the first year of the new prez, effectively putting that first year on the last prez. That's what "inheriting" means, cons.