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

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)


Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits


Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook


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

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






How the Deficit Got This Big

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.


Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


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."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


Your 'guys' are mostly responsible for the debt and past spending. And now your 'guy's don't want to pay for it. Typical.


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-30/markets/31259597_1_gdp-capital-gains-rates-taxes


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonard...l-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rvative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/



SAME STUDY

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...r-to-growth-in-income-inequality-study-finds/






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

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





PRODUCTIVITY AND AVERAGE REAL EARNINGS GRAPH






- - - Updated - - -

 

Charts: 6 Big Economic Myths, Debunked


Myth #1: The stimulus failed.


Myth #2: The deficit is our biggest problem right now.

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.

No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.





Myth #4: Regulatory uncertainty is clogging the economy.


Myth #6: If you unshackle the rich, they'll rev up the economy.

Think of this as the supermyth—the one underlying so many other fallacies. But here's a pesky fact neither corporate America nor the GOP establishment is trumpeting: After-tax corporate profits are currently at an all-time high. The problem businesses face isn't lack of cash but rather a lack of confidence that consumer demand will pick up in the future. So they're not expanding or hiring at the rate they should be.






http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/charts-economic-myths-jobs-deficit-taxes




Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

- - - Updated - - -

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.




Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And when he said "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

And when he said "if this is a war – I wouldn’t call it a war, I’d call it a struggle – but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. We’ve got K-Street, we’ve got lobbyists, we’ve got money on our side".

Warren Buffet is very smart and observant.

 

dad


Bush Bush Bush------------------The great saviour Obama has been "incharge" for 6 years now, and there are still 46 MILLION people on food stamps.

 

1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”


http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/06...ralism-will-lead-to-violent-class-revolution/



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.



Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.



http://www.kellysite.net/Zerosum.html

 

Yes, when the GOPers dig a hole they dig wide AND deep right?


Weird Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies they lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (even stopping Dec 2007, it was a paltry 4 million) YET OBAMA HAS SEEN 11+ MILLION SINCE "JOB KILLER" OBAMACVRES PASSED FEB 2010 (net of 7+ million) AND it's Obama who is the failure? lol

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001


BUT ARE YOU SAYING THOSE "JOB CREATORS" AREN'T PAYING THEIR WORKERS ENOUGH TO SURVIVE WITHOUT GOV'T ASSISTANCE? WHY MUST WE CONTINUE WITH THE LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX "BURDEN" ON THEM SINCE THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION?

 

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Budget Director. He publicly stated that "trickle-down" economics was a myth. He was punished because he was brave enough to point out that "the emperor had no clothes."

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich


The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay its bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. ""And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the f*cking growth?"





http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

 

Only a progressive would think that government taking money out of the economy is a good thing. Evidently you have not heard of the equity bubble that burst.

 

Look at these so called conservative guru's, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ( the three wise monkeys) you name it, everyone of them dropped out of college, too dumb possibly, but more likely too close minded to accept any other opinion or theory!!!

Many people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!


Republicans have hordes of people more than willing to vote against their own best interest in the deluded belief that if they support the 1%ers they will magically become one of them some day in the not so distant future!!


The GOP Greed Over People Party could care less about America. They care about one thing: GREED. Did I mention they care about GREED. Such low character liars, manipulators, ideologically right wing and ignorant people




We have a political party and *news* channel that caters to people who live in Black-n-White World. Even though nearly all societies have some socialist aspects to them, Faux "News" and Republicans like to spotlight individual things and label them and anyone who supports them as "socialist."

Most of Faux viewers are non-1%er retirees, which means they are lapping up most of the socialism the US offers its citizens: social security and Medicare.

 

Nothing like a stupid broad brush eh? For a progressive, 'voting against their best interests' means voting for fiscal sanity and less government dependence.

 

Which equity bubble? The one Dubya was head cheerleader for with the PRIVATE BANKSTERS as he gutted regulators, like Ronnie did with the S&L crisis???


Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137789065/why-prosecutors-dont-go-after-wall-street

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/25/business/fi-mortgagefraud25

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


MORE ON DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION HERE


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

 

LOL, yeah, Bush was responsible for what democrats and republicans did before. Your bias is not only visible, it shines like the sun.

 

how do you take money out of the economy?

Oh I know you mean like corporations and the wealthy stashing their earnings in overseas bank accounts in Switzerland and the grand caymans?

 

Fiscal sanity? lol. WHY THEY HELL DO THEY VOTE FOR GOPers then? Grow up


Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

http://ezinearticles.com/?Red-State...-But-Likely-Too-Uninformed-to-Know&id=5392460



Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ates-are-scandinavia-red-states-are-guatemala

 

And he has been hindered/blocked every step of the way by guess which partisan group of ideological nincompoops? HINT: The party affiliation starts with "R."

Having screwed things us and hindered fixing them, the repubs are up to their usual stunt of telling lies about history and their own role in it.

 

"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




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."



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 MORE HERE BUBBA, AS YOU KNOW


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

 

The two are not connected and you know it. I could explain the economics involved but, if you believe what you posted, it would be a waste of my time.

 

Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

You're making the same mistake I've made - assuming repubs are interested in (or can even recognize) the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Still running from your record, I see.

 

They wouldn't if the US bloated government were not so greedy.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I know people like you live by false memes. Can't help that.

 

The Republican licans economic argument are ones based solely on racism. They don't want blacks too get food stamps, or Mexicans to get unemployment insurance. I guarantee you if we made a law saying only white people could get government benefits they'd be all for it.

Alexandra pelosi did a great documentary where in scene sshe asked a toothless hillbilly looking Guy who lived a broken down fklthy shack what his opinions were about food stamps he said he thinks we should cut them

When asked but your on food stamps? his response was "yeah but I deserve them"

 

Oh, that's right, the housing market crash didn't affect the nation, only tax cuts did.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean progressive truths, which are fantasies. Still running from what democrats and republicans did to help the housing crash along I see but only think Bush is responsible.

 

wanna try answering my question instead of changing the subject

 

LOL

 

that's right, the housing market crash didn't affect the nation, only tax cuts did. You said that. I didn't.

You mean progressive truths, which are fantasies. Another, traditional and lame cop-out. Thinking(?) that something isn't true because you like neither the person saying it is not a fantasy. It's an indication that somewhere there are resistors where there should be transistors.

 

"Oh, that's right, the housing market crash didn't affect the nation, only tax cuts did."

BOTH DID, AND BOTH CAN BE LAID AT DUBYA'S FEET


http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/facts-on-dubyas-great-recession.362889/