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

Revenues tanked when the dotcom bubble burst in our face followed by the entire country coming to halt after 9/11. Our biggest city paralyzed, airline industry grounded, people afraid to get out there. Don't you remember Bush begging people to go out and shop? The economy screeched to a halt.

 

The market began correcting in 2000, and in 2000 we continued to have record revenues.

Despite the "dot.com" market correction, GDP grew at a minimum 3.3% every year. How, in your opinion, does GDP growing a minimum 3.3% every year explain revenues tanking by hundreds of billions of dollars?

 

YOUR ORIGINAL POSIT WHICH YOU APPARENTLY FORGOT BUBBA


MisterMet
"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?"


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=396140&page=12&p=1064739847#post1064739847

You'd "think" with 52 straight months of job growth right wingers ALWAYS praise, the economy would've done SOMETHING?

Instead it was tepid AND fueled by Dubya's subprime bubble as he cheered on the Banksters. If it weren't for home equity loans during Duba's term the entire first seven years of Dubya was 1% growth per year, lol

US household debt doubled in Dubya's first 7 years. He had 4 million PRIVATE sector jobs in those 7 years. How many has Obama seen being created under him again???

 

I said in my first post to you that the tax cuts resulted in a temporary and minor revenue decrease followed by years of GDP growth over 6%.

 

BUT the GDP ONLY grew thanks to Dubya's credit bubble he pushed and fought ALL 50 states on. Tells you how this "free market" economy does without GOOD GOV'T POLICY directing it!!!

 

"followed by years of GDP growth over 6%. "


2007

James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.







Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blo.../10/17/the-economic-blue-screen-of-death.aspx

 

In 2005 there was almost $595 billion in mortgage extractions that went into some kind of consumer spending. Remember, according to the graph above, that translated into a 3% rise in GDP. In 2007, MEWs were down to $470 billion, for a boost of 2% to GDP.

The second quarter of 2008 saw an anemic $9.5 billion. At that run rate, we could see a drop-off of over 90% from 2005!


Without MEWs, the period from 2001-2007 would have seen GDP growth of less than 1%!


Mortgage Equity Withdrawals


DON'T THE CONS HATE THOSE PESKY LITTLE DETAILS THAT TEND TO POP THEIR PREMISES??


http://www.investorsinsight.com/blo.../10/17/the-economic-blue-screen-of-death.aspx

 

No, what you said was "Revenues dipped ever so slightly with dot.com burst"

What I proved was that revenues tanked an unprecendeted $250 billion over several years, over 4 percentage points relative to GDP.

Then you said "Revenues tanked when the dotcom bubble burst"

To which I responded: Despite the "dot.com" market correction, GDP grew at a minimum 3.3% every year. How, in your opinion, does GDP growing a minimum 3.3% every year explain revenues tanking by hundreds of billions of dollars?

The you could not explain or address this fact puts the "dot.com" explanation for revenues tanking when Bush cut taxes to bed.

 

The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.




Min wage:

"The thing that's really shocking is that the Republican response to the problem is to call for increased welfare spending. From a free-market perspective, businesses should compete without subsidies," Unz said. "If they can't compete, then maybe they should go out of business." Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire and registered Republican who once ran for California governor




Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"




Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide


Currently, the government effectively subsidizes employers who pay low wages.

 

The fact that there was a slowdown in 2001-03 (even with the housing bubble) might explain why the multi-hundred billion dollar surpluses the CBO had projected would not come to pass.

But it doesn't explain why revenues tanked hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

And they'd have more customers with money to spend.

Henry Ford gave his workers raises because he understood that a strong middle class would mean more buyers for his products.

Today's conservatives seem to only focus on keeping wages as low as possible so they can keep profits up. But it is ultimately a self-defeating proposition.

 

Yes but boy does it create about 50,000 families at the very top ($100+ millions wealth) VERY happy



The only people who can take exception to this argument are people who want to get super rich and don't care what happens to the nation as a whole.



The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains (1/10th of 1%)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

 

did you forget the democrats had a majority in the senate the first two years?.......Senate majority leader Tom Daschle ring any bells?,or were you still pooping green then?


There seems to be a LOT you don't know about,especially what the president is responsible for

 

Obama has added $7,000,000,000,000 to the debt. Next.

 

Obama has lowered the Abortion Rate to 800,000 a year, down 400,000 as women have decided to take the Welfare which now pays the single mother $45,000 yearly.


Average Welfare recipient gets $40,000+ per year
September 18, 2013 by Harold Bray
Earlier this year Pennsylvania state officials traveled to the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, in search of a solution to a dilemma that most states have.
The dilemma, they said, was they could not find a way to transition welfare recipients to work. The average welfare recipient gets (ooops, I almost wrote “earned&#8221 $45,000 per year in benefits, they said, and has low work skills and little job history.

http://halfwaytoconcord.com/average-welfare-recipient-gets-40000-per-year/

 

Don't we all wish the expense of Iraq was held steady and ISIS was not around now???

 

More Soro's funded noise.

 

Psst. Dude. You're way too rational for this board.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the GOP and the Democrats are just two different looking heads of the same beast. Do I know how to fix it? Nope. But it needs fixing.

 

It is called common knowledge. Most people view the government as wasteful. From your next statement you do too. Yes, the government is hugely wasteful and it isn't too much to ask for better.

And what about big corporations with lobbyists? They would surely see a big chunk of the tax money before the people would.

Thanks for admitting I am correct.

 

Weird, WHAT did the Dems who had a 1 set "majority" the first 2 years, stop on DUBYA'S/GOP "job creator" policies??? PLEASE be specific, with Blue dogs what "majority" could the Dems stop? Dubya's tax cut?

- - - Updated - - -

Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins


US debt

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75

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



Thanks To Dubya's /GOP "job creator" policies the effects of which he inherited. NEXT

 

congress has to pass a bill to cut taxes,child,not Bush.....Owebama didn't inheret Jack,either....he wasted the first two years of his presidency..

 

"pays the single mother $45,000 yearly."

Grow up Bubba

There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense


They add up benefits available through eight programs to a low-income woman with two children, and find total benefit values well in excess of full-time minimum wage work, or even, in some states, middle-skill work.

The study is called "The Welfare-Versus-Work Tradeoff," and it's meant to show why people don't get off welfare. And it's B.S., for three reasons.

1. Very few people actually qualify for all eight of the programs Cato looks at. Particularly, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (cash welfare) and housing assistance can provide some very expensive benefits. But fewer than two million households get TANF and only about four million get housing assistance. It is much more typical for a welfare beneficiary to be getting SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid (health insurance), but no assistance with housing or cash. So, the typical welfare benefit is much lower than Cato makes out, making staying on welfare less appealing.

2. Welfare benefits for single adults are much less generous than those for women with children.

3. Not all benefits are lost when a welfare recipient starts working. SNAP benefits phase out gradually with rising income. People who go back to work don't necessarily lose health benefits, either. Some get new health benefits through work. The children of low-income uninsured workers qualify for the Children's Health Insurance Program in most states. In some states, low-income working adults even qualify for Medicaid. So, going back to work doesn't mean nearly the loss of benefits that Cato implies.

That said, poverty traps are real. This is the phenomenon of people losing benefits as they earn more income of their own. It's a problem that welfare programs need to be designed around, and there are two ways of mitigating it.

One is to make benefits more generous by extending their phaseout ranges, so people don't lose as many benefits as they earn more income. That costs money. The other is to reduce benefits. That reduces the standard of living for the most vulnerable people in America.

It's easier to make an argument for the latter approach when you have an economy that creates broad prosperity and makes it easy for people to find living-wage jobs if they are willing to work.

We don't have that economy.

This is the problem that conservatives and libertarians refuse to grapple with: If you're unwilling to support policies that promote macroeconomic stability, such as counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies, you're only making a more generous welfare state more morally necessary.



http://www.businessinsider.com/does-welfare-really-pay-better-than-work-2013-8




The argument that government assistance and benefits are too generous and thus drive recipients out of work has been thoroughly debunked by experts, and Tanner's calculations have been the subject of scrutiny in the past. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlighted nearly two decades ago, Tanner is still basing his calculations on the assumption that recipients take full advantage of every single benefit program that is potentially available to them. From CBPP:

Cato's conclusions are striking. They also are inaccurate -- the Cato report is replete with analytic errors. For the nation in general and for California in particular, the report paints a misleading picture both of the amount of benefits most [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] families receive and of the supposed advantages from relying on welfare rather than working.

Both the 1995 and 2013 reports also fail to account for differing costs of living or the per capita income of the states surveyed.


If, in fact, welfare recipients would rather work than receive benefits, the logical first step toward reducing reliance on government assistance should be to stimulate robust public and private sector job growth. Instead, Tanner and his right-wing allies argue that the only way to reduce reliance on government assistance is to cut programs and force people onto an ailing job market to survive.

Both Tanner and Cavuto agree that raising wages would be a bad anti-poverty policy and would increase unemployment. This conclusion, of course, flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary and simply furthers the conservative attacks against living wages.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/19/right-wing-media-have-no-clue-how-anti-poverty/195480

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, ISIS wouldn't be there IF Dubya hadn't CHOSEN to invade on false premises!

- - - Updated - - -

Noted

 

One party WILL spend but get enough revenues to fund it. The other party ALSO will spend AND gut revenues in the process. BOTH are the same?



The Two Santa Claus Theory

The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector." Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."



The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democratic party which promises programs to help people who are disadvantaged. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republican party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but rather offering the option of cutting taxes.



This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski#The_Two_Santa_Claus_Theory

- - - Updated - - -

Opinion NOT based in reality. Got it

 

No,child,facts....he wasted it on the nightmare of ACA,saying 'you can read it,after you pass it'