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

You should seek help. FYI, we have a two party system.....

- - - Updated - - -

If we cut spending it would have the same effect.

 

What an amazing post. Increase spending WHILE DECREASING INCOME have no connection to the deficit? Is that the current hallucination? How quaint.

 

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’


Here is just some of the rhetoric employed by Republicans in 1993 to fearmonger about Clinton’s tax increases (there’s more below the fold):

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), May 24, 1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), July 13, 1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs. And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), May, 27, 1993: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H2949)

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.




Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), March 17, 1993: These new taxes will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit. Economists across the ideological spectrum are convinced that the Clinton tax increases will lead to widespread job loss. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1355)

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), March 18, 1993: The budget proposal offered by the Democrats is a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster…It proposes to increase taxes at a time when we have a fragile economy–higher taxes will only stifle job creation and economic growth.(Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1454)

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), August 2, 1993: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country. (CNN)

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), August 4, 1993: However Clinton wants to spin his tax plan, the bottom line is this: It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over 1 million jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H5745)


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/

 

If you ask REALLY nicely, I'll try to find and repost the letters I wrote on the economic meltdown.

STILL no takers?

 

Any evidence that Franklin quote was inaccurate?

 

ONCE MORE BUBBA

"Typical conservative/GOPer NEVER taking responsibility for THEIR failed policy!"

 

Property


CHAPTER 16 | Document 12

Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris
25 Dec. 1783Writings 9:138


All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html

 

We already cut spending.

Last year proportional to GDP we spent less than every year Reagan and Bush1 were president.

 

It was taken out of context. But since you are a fan of Benji's he also owned slaves.....I guess you support that too.

- - - Updated - - -

Left wing propaganda proves nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

No we didn't. The government needs a major overhaul before even considering raising taxes. If someone has a problem wasting money the answer is not giving them more.

 

Have studied it extensively, I'd like to see your thoughts. Thanks.

 

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." Thomas Jefferson



Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html

 

The fact that we had better overall economic performance after the Clinton tax increase that after the Reagan and (especially) Bush tax cuts isn't a matter of dispute.

Typical conservative justification for running up more debt.

 

There really was no pay cut. Revenues dipped ever so slightly with dotcom burst and 9/11 but then took off nicely. The problem was that outlays took off faster. As I said, spending, not tax cuts, cause deficits.

 

I wrote a lot over the years, but I'll look for them. Frankly, economic theory is usually as exciting as a three-alarm funeral, so a lot of the research was boring, but rewarding. I learned a lot. I'll start looking this afternoon.

 

Revenues rose during the Bush administration. Why are you talking about decreasing income? How on Earth did you think my post said increasing spending while decreasing revenue have no connection to deficits?

 

Cherry picking.

 

"Revenues dipped ever so slightly with dotcom burst and 9/11 but then took off nicely."


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

F/Y

2000 20% of GDP
2001 (Clinton's last) 18.8% of GDP
2002 17%
2003 15.7%
2004 15.6%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

REALLY? NICELY????

Yes when Dubya ramped up his Bankster ponzi scheme, they took off again, BACK to the 17% range UNTIL HIS PONZI SCHEME HE CHEERED ON (NO REAL GROWTH) POPPED!!!

 

No it isn't. The reason most people oppose tax increases is the irresponsibility of the government. I would agree with you on many points if not for the fact that our government is so wasteful.

No I am not a conservative either. The reason I do not like the idea of a completely free market is that people tend to get greedy and would destroy the environment and exploit others if they could profit from it.

You see my beliefs are rooted in reality not the abstract. While you and your adversaries argue absolute opposites there are things about both opposing philosophies that are major flaws. Do you not see that?

 

2000 2,025.2 19.7%
2001 1,991.2 18.7%
2002 1,853.2 16.9%
2003 1,782.3 15.5%

A $250 billion dollar drop, over 4 percentage points compared to GDP, unprecedented since WWII, can only be "dipped ever so slightly" only to a rank partisan.

As I said, when you have bills to pay, and decide to incur new ones, intentionally cutting your income is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. because it causes deficits.

 

2001 was Clinton's last but also affected by the Bush tax cuts passed that year, which were made partially retrocative with his "tax rebate" that year.

 

ONLY in conservatives "minds" did they increase


Economists measure it via GDP, to take up for inflation, population growth and increases in GDP....

ALL nations do that


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."




Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled, "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.




http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html

 

I wasn't aware you have been designated to speak for "most people". My guess is that most people oppose tax increases because they don't want to pay taxes.

If we maintain tax cuts until all Govt spending is "not wasteful" in your view the Govt will be bankrupt before that time.

 

Year - Revenues - % GDP
2000 2,025.2 19.7%
2001 1,991.2 18.7%
2002 1,853.2 16.9%
2003 1,782.3 15.5%
2004 1,880.1 15.3%
2005 2,153.9 16.4%
2006 2,406.7 17.4%
2007 2,567.7 17.7%
2008 2,523.6 17.1%

Revenues tanked by hundreds of billions with the Bush tax cuts. While they rose after they stopped cutting taxes, they never caught up proportionately.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh heh. So where is the context you talked about earlier?

 

Instead, we had 23 million new jobs created, the lowest poverty levels on record, the longest economic boom since WWII, near record low unemployment, rising real incomes for *all* classes of Americans, tripling of the stock markets (even with the 2000 correction), and the best period of average GDP growth since the 1960s.

Oh yeah, and a then record deficit (proportionally bigger than the one we had last year) wiped out and replaced with a (unfortunately short lived) surplus, that most people a few short years earlier would never have believed could happen.

Which leads one to ask: Could conservatives be more wrong?