E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSExactly 10 years ago today, George W. Bush signed the first of his large tax cuts into law, which President Obama temporarily extended last December.
And get this: In those 10 years -- under two different presidents and after more tax cuts -- the U.S. economy has lost a net of 1.1 million jobs.
Of course, much has taken place in those 10 years. The recession of 2001. The 9/11 attacks. The 2008 financial collapse. And the global economic downturn that followed.
But those 1.1 million jobs lost -- compared with more than 20 million jobs added during higher tax rates in the 1990s -- make the argument that lower taxes aren't always a guarantee for economic growth and job expansion.
The reason from the left: The Bush tax cuts were heavily tilted toward the wealthy, who are less inclined to spend their excess money. What's more, they reduced the amount of revenue flowing into the Treasury Department's coffers.
"The Bush tax cuts are a major driver of our current deficit -- and have been and will continue to be," argues Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, has a different take on the Bush tax cuts.
Edwards says the 2001 cuts (which included lower individual tax rates) turned out to be less effective than the later ones enacted in 2003 (on dividends and capital gains). "Bush's cuts were half and half in my view."
He also contends that it's too simplistic to extrapolate from the last 10 years that tax cuts -- in general -- don't work. "So much goes on in the economy," Edwards said, referring to external events, trade policies, and spending. "Clinton's higher tax rate doesn't prove any kind of relationship."
The current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls are continuing to bet on lower taxes. In his speech at the University of Chicago today, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed decreasing individual income-tax rates to just two levels: 10% and 25%; 35% is the current top level. And he also called for a lower corporate-tax rate.
"Growing at 5% a year -- rather than at the current level of 1.8% -- would net us millions of new jobs," Pawlenty said. "How do we do it? In short, we create more economic growth by creating more economic freedom."
Leave a Comment:
I can sum up this disaster in two words: EPIC FAIL!
How many times do we have to suffer through the social experiment known as 'trickle down' economics, before we FINALLY learn our lesson?
Tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 YEARS and, it's still not enough to satisfy these modern day robber barons!!!
Where is the shared sacrifice?
So true Feisty.
The only people living in austerity are the middle and lower income folks!
The upper 2 percent share in the prosperty and the middle and lower income share in the sacrifice!
Oh noooooo Feisty. We are going to go all Obama on you.
If they had not done this, things would have been so much worse.
Go ahead refute that one.
Hurts don't it? Yeah it does.
Or how about this one: without these cuts we would have lost 1 BILLION jobs, the real estate market would have collapsed, and we would have had to take away YOUR birthday in '04 and '05.
But riddle me this: if "they" are robber barons, what are the fine politicians who have spent money like it is water? What shall we name them old gal?
Wait I know - robber barons.
See we are in total agreement. Fantastic!
WTF?? No mention of the rise in GDP for the 5 years following the tax cuts? No mention of the millions of jobs gained after the 2001 recession? No mention of the change of congress after 2006 to the democrats? Again I say WTF is Mark Murray trying to pull? The above ramblings of a leftist DO NOT spell out anything... he's feeding the liberal sheep. What say you Mark Murray!
Took the words right out of my mouth Fiesty. A total failure on both fiscal grounds and on economic grounds. As for those talking points that BrianB is rambling about, would you like to compare the US economy and the job creation for the 5 years after the tax cuts with the 5 years preceding the tax cuts? Didn't think so.
Damn straight Feisty!! I hope this puts the last nail in the coffin of that vampire forever.
Liberals may argue that tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy don't work, but that is inaccurate.
The truth of it is: TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY DO WORK,...........BUT FOR THE WEALTHY!!!
All economic metrics for income growth point conclusively that rich people have made out like a raped ape in the last 30 years while the working class have languished to be kind.
Really? Better rethink that crap you're spouting there Brian!
Now please pay extra close attention to the BIG FAT FALSE rating it received!
But hey, it's not like we expect you right wing nitwits to tell the truth for once!
Thanks for the atta-girl Al & Greg!
Much appreciated! ;o)
agreed, right on!!! ah the power to deceive.
You are welcome Feisty, and thank you for doing the homework on the post above! That one is going to leave a mark!
Here is what Republican tax policy has done to America.
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-and-health-cost-versus-income-2011-3
EDUCATE YOURSELF RIGHTIES!!! Instead of bringing knives to a word fight why don't you try bringing facts? Really. You'll shock the hell out of us if you do.
Talk about obfuscation! We ALL know the bleeding was significant in 2008. Job losses were occuring left and right by then. What happened to cause it? Huh? Well, a lot of things. But what major occurance happened at the end of 2005? Anyone care to speculate? I'll save you the trouble. A new Congress was elected. It was the hayday of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Things went downhill in a hurry after that election. I guess changing to a democrat controlled congress had no part in the shift in the economy. Well, all you genius liberals... since 2006, what significant solutions have come out of the democrats other than expand government and spend TRILLIONS?
Do you think the democrats had a clue? Do you really feel the democrats held the best interest of the American public, or was it their special interests that benefited the most? You liberals can try to turn this around by quoting other LIBERAL sources but that doesn't change the reality that our government and people have been royally screwed by democrats in control.
I want to know the bragging points from the liberals on what positive actions the democrats have taken over the last 5 years to improve our economy, boost the property values of the American's who own homes, increase jobs and add value to the American way of life. I'm waiting for the answer. The train has left the station on blaming Bush... It left 4 years ago.
Here's a fact. from 2006 to 2010, when the dems were in contol of both houses of congress, budget deficits were a combined total of 1.9 trillion dollars.
If you give a democrat more money, they are just going to waste it. It won't go to reducing the deficit.
The tax policies you say are so bad are the same ones that Obama flip flopped on and extended for two years.
Brian - are you EVER going to post a link to back up your bull@!$%#?
Or are you going to continue on weaving your right wing fairy tales?
Like the old saying goes... opinions are like... well you know - we all have one!
Walk the walk man or STFU! Trust me - you are NOT helping your cause! ;o)
June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
February 2010: 129,246,000 people employed
Decrease during the roughly two-year period: 8,750,000 people
Carrot top in drag - You tout these numbers as if there is no meaning behind them. You throw them out there to prove your point but the message is obscure. These numbers do NOT spell out what happened at all. It sure is funny your liberal source used the bench mark year of 2008 to try to pin it on Bush. Why didn't they use the numbers from each 2 year election to election - I can tell you... it's because it would spell out a totally different picture. While the republicans were in charge of Congress up until 2006, things were pretty good economically. After that, all hell broke loose and the free fall started. The economic collapse took hold in 2007. The liberal spin machine is cranking it out and it smells like puke to me.
You can try to fool some of the people with your bias, but you can't hide the fact that the democrats did NOTHING to make improvements... all they can do is point fingers and blame everyone but themselves.
Carrot top in drag says: Brian - are you EVER going to post a link to back up your bull@!$%#?
Or are you going to continue on weaving your right wing fairy tales?
Like the old saying goes... opinions are like... well you know - we all have one!
Walk the walk man or STFU! Trust me - you are NOT helping your cause! ;o)
What am I supposed to do Carrot top in drag? STFU? Make me! For once, I want to see a liberal use all their power to make me shut up. Prove to everyone here that you do have an inside connection with FR. I'll be the sacrifice. My posts do NOT violate the rules. You just don't like what I have to say.
Your links are worthless anyway. I don't buy anything you post. I don't believe any link you come up with. Liberals always use the same old broken lies, they spin the dates, the times, the amounts to favor them. Problem with that... it amounts to lying.
Brian,
The large deficit spending under Bush with a Dem Congress was all due to the excess spending during Bush’s first 4 years. Tax cuts were helpful for the recession in 2001 but once we were out of the economic downturn the taxes should have been reinstated.
You talk about President Obama’s debt increase of nearly 4 trillion dollars yet when you look at where the debt came from it points back to Bush – Tax cuts $2.5 trillion, wars $1 trillion and Medicare Advantage plus Part D another $1 trillion. Fact is without all that Bush spending our current President would not have increased the long-term National Debt.
Carrot top in drag... we all assume you are a woman.... but, is Mark Murray's hair red? Is he a bit fiesty? I'm wondering if you aren't he in drag. It could be very possible because YOU are just about always the first one to post. Even before the story gets released. I give my theory about an 85% chance of being true.
Anyway, to continue on with tearing your post apart, you said:
June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
Increase during that six-and-a-half-year period: 5,949,000 people
Where is Obama's increase? What has he done to even reverse the trend? Do I need to provide a link to ask this question? I don't live by teleprompters and what other media outlets have to say, like you do. How else would you get the false information to write your articles?
Brian,
During the 8 years under President Bush there were a net +3 million jobs created. Bush didn’t leave office until Jan 2009 not 2008. Obama didn’t take over until Jan 2009 not 2008.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
You can always tell a liberal from the way they say that a tax cut caused a debt. They have no concept that all money belongs to the citizens and not the government. So actually a tax cut, or having Americans keep more of what they have earned, can never cause a defict only spending can. And the dems have done a great job of doing that.
Thanks for writing a post with substance, Mark!
For those of you who are visual learners here's a handy chart that illustrates Bush's contribution to our federal deficit:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
Dennis - I know Bush added to the deficit, thereby increasing the debt. It's not done retroactively though so don't say that Obama is paying for Bush because that simply isn't the truth.
I have an argument. My argument is with any lib that boasts Obama is doing a good job. The economy speaks for itself and it is horrible. The job market speaks for itself and it plain stinks. My argument is, what have the democrats, particularly Obama, done to slow down the effects of the bad economy? The debt has grown exponentially, unemployment is getting closer to double digits, people are losing their homes left and right and those that can keep them have suffered billions of dollars of lost equity.
There is NOTHING coming from the democrats to correct this course (and yes, there are solutions and answers to fix the problem). How can liberals say that Obama is doing a good job and everything he can, when there's about 5 or 6 dozen things he can do that will make a positive impact. He's had over 2 years to do it and all he's done is make things worse. It can't be that liberals place party loyalty over good sense, can it?
NY Guy,
When you cut taxes that are needed to maintain a balanced budget without cutting an equal amount of spending or some other plan to generate revenues the result will be a deficit.
NY Guy, Let me guess, you also believe teachers, firefighters and other public workers should just donate their time to keep Americans educated and safe. I bet you think mail is delivered by folks who would walk around the neighborhood anyway, and this gives them something to do. Or, maybe, you think clean water and food, nuclear power regulation, and care for the elderly and disabled are all things we could do without. Maybe you'd like to try out living in a country that doesn't collect taxes very efficiently. I hear Greece is nice.
all of this talk about Bush 10 years ago is pretty weak when the current situation we are in lies solely in Obama's lap!
feisty's wig is getting so heavy it has damaged her common sense! Our problems have been increased by this current administation. I voted for Obama too (ouch), but atleast I can recognize he doesn't have a clue how to fix the budget, deficit, or why I can't hire more employees....
Get a budget approved, create jobs, (not more gov't jobs). lower the deficit, raise taxes appropriately, reduce big government, eliminate collective barganining for federal employees and teachers.... or atleast let the good ones thrive and eliminate the tenured inadequate teachers.... there's lots of things that need to be done yet the liberals want to dwell in the past.... our current problems were created by a severe housing crisis and the ineffective 'stimulous' bills that not only failed to stimulate, but put us in a situation where WE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO PAY THE INTEREST ON OUR DEBT!
Move on and fix the problem..... the only roadblock facing us are liberals that are either dependent on gov't handouts or won't admit the current administration is not up to the task! This is an administration in which the President and most of his advisors never held a real job! Shouldn't we expect something more?
Bryan,
It carries forward when there are no cuts in spending to pay for the programs. Medicare Advantage is still costing us money of about $100 billion a year and there are not enough revenue to pay for it – never has.
Our President when he created the ACA found the funding unlike Bush with Medicare Advantage. You can argue if the ACA numbers for funding are accurate but at least it was planned to be paid for.
Neither war has ever been funded. There were no offsets in spending or other sources to cover the cost, like a war tax or something, yet they continue to add to the deficit and debt.
Some costs are retroactive because of lack of funding and planning.
Get a budget approved, create jobs, lower the deficit, raise taxes appropriately, reduce big government, eliminate collective barganining for federal employees and teachers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miked, I actually agree with your first 5 points, but you are misinformed on the last. Federal employees do not have collective bargaining rights.
Amy,
Teachers, firefighters and other public workers are not federal employees. They are hired by the local municipalities and paid for with property tax dollars, sales tax dollars and other forms of bonding, etc. The federal government shouldn't be involved with any of the local employees that provide local services.
They can close down the post office for all I care. Clean water and food... local issues. Nukes should be run by private enterprises with government oversight. Care for the elderly and disabled are social programs that are stretched to the limit because the government programs we have now are overburdened and antiquated.
So, Amy, I don't see how much of what you have made comparisons to have anything to do with the federal government. SSI is a separate tax and so is medicare.
BrianB at this exact point in Reagan's first term, unemployment was at 10.8% Reagan inherited an economy with 7.6%unemployment. President Obama inherited an unemployment of 7.8%, plus two wars, a global financial collapse, and later a tsunami/nuclear melt down crisis in one of our major trade partners, Japan.
A little historical perspective is helpful. We survived the Reagan recession, and we will survive the Bush one. It helps we have a young, smart, calm President this time around.
BrianB
Oh, oh, state taxes OK, federal taxes no?
You are so impractical, have you ever looked at a local or state budget? I don't see room in Michigan's budget for building the drones we send to Pakistan. Could New York State pay for bombing Libya if they raised the tax on junk food? Poor Palin had to hit up the Feds for the Wasilla Sports Arena and I hear Joplin will need some federal help re-building it's infrastructure.
A great country ain't cheap.
Amy- Greece has a spending problem. As does the US. I don't recall saying that we don't need taxes collected, but enough is enough.
And let's keep blaming Bush I mean why not? He's only been out of office since 2009. Obama has only had 2 1/2 years to "fix" everything Bush supposedly ruined. but I guess he's been too busy flip floping on issues like the debt limit, Guantanimo, Health care mandates...
NY Guy,
In 1984 when running for reelection Ronald Reagan was still blaming Carter – get used to it.
Bush will still be blamed 30 years from now.
Amy -
Things were totally different during Reagans administration. At the time the economy was in major turmoil. Interest rates were off the charts, unemployment was huge but there was a sense of hope, created by Reagan. Remember the "Shining City on the Hill" metaphor Reagan used? Reagan believed in this country. His landslide victory in 84 proved that people believed in what he had to say.
What do we have today? We have a divided country. 1/2 of society can't stand Obama. Obama does not believe in America and that's why they can't stand him. Now, the other half is blaming Bush for everything under the sun but completely deny that Obama and the democrats have anything to do with the problems we face.
We have Obama that does NOT know how to fix the problem, shows a true disdain for the Constitution, prefers Hugo Chavez over Netinyahu, gives billions to Columbia and Argentina for their drilling and refinery efforts (creating thousands of jobs for them) but can't come up with one reason why we shouldn't be drilling for oil here in America, or building a refinery here. He refuses to push through any effort at tapping into US resources. Liberals call him calm, sane and rational. I see him as an ideologue that refuses to help our country.
You guys keep making excuses for him. Tell me one thing he's done to improve things. Tell me one shred of hope he's brought to this nation. At least show me where he's done something to change the course of economic failure we are facing. I see him as pushing the throttle down to full speed as we are heading towards the falls. Hell, the democrats wouldn't budge on reducing spending when the republicans brought forth their plan. As it was, they settled on approximately $24 billion worth of cuts. That's $24 billion out of a $1.2 TRILLION deficit. Do the math, it's a mere .0002 multiple of the deficit. What are the democrats thinking about? How are they showing fiscal restraint? From what I understand, Obama didn't even want to cut that much. How ARE the democrats helping? It's very simple... they aren't!
1- Bush Inherits recession from Clinton( not good)
2- Bush Runs Up Big Deficit and Debt (not Good)
3-Obama extends Bush Tax cuts( not good and let's us down)
4- Obama Runs up BIGGER Deficit and Debt...much bigger (not good, but yet some are fooled by how we would be even worse off)
Alright can we move on QUIT TALKING ABOUT Bush. FR likes to get everyone fired up and trying to take some pressure off moron Weiner.
Hillary 2012
EGTRRA passed in 2001.
January 2001 - October 2007: 4.8 million jobs created (Bureau of Labor Statistics). This indicates nearly 7 years of prosperity, despite 911, wars and natural disasters.
November 2007: Democrats take control of Congress. Net jobs created drops to 2,866,000 for the period 2001-2008. This indicates 2 million jobs lost after Dem's take control.
GDP Growth: 2001: 1.1%; 2002 1.8%; 2003 2.5%, 2004 3.6%; 2005 3.1%; 2006 2.7%; 2007 2.1% Democrats take control of Congress: GDP growth in 2008: 0.4%
Unemployment: 2001-2007: 4.75%, 5.78% 5.99%, 5.08%, 4.63%, 4.61%. Democrats take control of Congress and unemployment jumps to 6.3%. By the end of 2010, unemployment somewhere around 9.7%.
Anyone noticing a trend here?
EGTRRA tax cuts extended December 2010. In the 5 months since the cuts were extended 800,000 jobs were created. 800,000 jobs = 40% of the total jobs created in 2 years, 5 months Jan 2009 through May 2011.
Tax cuts, a business friendly environment and lack of uncertainty = jobs.
"And get this: In those 10 years -- under two different presidents and after more tax cuts -- the U.S. economy has lost a net of 1.1 million jobs."
Somewhat misleading - here are the jobs figures for 2001, 2008 and 2010
2001 = 136,933,000 people employed.
2008 = 145,362,000 people employed (Bush's last year - a gain of 8,429,000 jobs).
2010 = 139,064,000 people employed (Obama's first 2 years - a loss of 6,298,000 jobs).
The source for these figures is the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics;
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
If you break it down into even smaller figures go back 6 quarters before the 2003 cuts. Enough to stay away from lower recession/dot com bust/9/11 numbers of 2001 and there were 267k jobs lost. The 6 quarters after the cuts there were 307k jobs gained. The seven quarters after that there were 5 million jobs gained. Three years directly following the tax cuts 5.3 million jobs created. Article was very misleading about affects.
Those nasty capital gains taxes that were lowered to 15% ..... Total revenues from capital gains more than doubled in just 3 years. CBO estimated they would increase 36% in that time frame.
For people that want to raise taxes, Revenues do not correlate to tax rate changes hardly at all. Up or down. Revenues correlate to GDP. Revenues are usually within 1point of 18% of GDP for the last 60 years that i looked up.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio Yes there were jobs created under President Bush, but over one million of these jobs were public sector jobs. These are the jobs now being cut as states and local governments cut spending to balance their budgets. So far this year, 400,000 public sector jobs have been cut with a projected 100,000 more to come. The federal government hasn't really even started their spending cuts yet. I do believe that we were warned that all these spending cuts would be harmful to the labor market.
Wrong again! lol
I would listen to what you have to say if only you had a shred of credibility. You toss out your OPINIONS as though they are FACTS!
That is what I find distasteful...
But you ARE fun to play with... lol
When President Reagan took over the White House, the country was already coming out of the recession it was in, the GDP was rising and unemployment was falling. The person most responsible for this was Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker who kept interest rates high and a tight rein on the money supply. President Reagan pushed through a tax cut in his first year in office and the economic recovery was almost short circuited. As a result, within 10 months of his tax cut, President Reagan pushed through a tax increase and raised taxes, in one form or another, every year for the rest of his presidency.
When President G. W. Bush took office, the tech bubble had already popped and we were already starting to recover from the resulting recession. GDP was already growing and the unemployment rate was already dropping. President Bush pushed through a tax cut in his first year (sound familiar?) that was on it's way to short circuiting the economy. Then 9/11 happened and pushed the economy into free fall. Then we invaded Afghanistan and the GDP started to grow a bit. Then we invaded Iraq and the GDP really started growing (nothing like a good war to spur economic growth). Many regulations were also reversed by the Republican controlled House, Senate and White House which resulted in a GDP that now had more 'paper growth' from financial transaction rather than growth based on 'things' in the mix.
Low deficits during the Bush administration? Only if you don't put the cost of two wars on the books. Regulations that keep Wall Street from acting like a casino using other peoples money to gamble? No problem, when things go bad, the government will bail them out. Besides, the regulatory agencies have had their budgets cut and can not effectively police the bad actors in the financial industry. We saw what that got us.
Congress 'taken over by the Democrats' in 2006 caused the recession? That is just plain stupidity making that connection. President Bush vetoed everything the Democrats tried to do. He vetoed every bill designed to head off the economic collapse that was coming. 'Red Herring' the 'Democrats took over the Congress and caused the economic collapse' be thy name. It is a bogus 'cause and effect' argument that is not supported by the facts.
Just because Bush is no longer President, he still gets the blame for the things he caused. Not blaming bush is like blaming the next guy to walk into a bank after a bank robbery for the robbery because the actual bank robber is gone.
Did you notice that when a Republican can't defend a Republican President, they go after the Congress. The PRESIDENT submits a budget, so no amount of constant blabbering will take away that fact. bush's budgets were Bush's.
However, something in the prior budget (or off budget), like the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, Medicare D prescription benefits, debt service, etc., etc., are there for the years they continue. You can say they effect the next administration, provided they continue to exist.
BTW, I went home last night and calculated the tax I would have paid under the new Pawlenty tax proposal. Can you guess what happens to a middle class taxpayer? Yes, I would pay about $260 more under Pawlenty's plan. On a joint return I had $107,000 in taxable income after about $35,000 in itemized deductions and (3) exemptions. And the larger taxes only get worse for those between $100K to about $200 (and of course for those between $68k and $100k just get a little screwed).
Who makes out better you ask? It's those between $16,751 and $68,000 (a small savings) and those above that $200,000 (huge savings). They will be paying less tax, just what I predicted any Republican plan would do. A joint return with $300K taxable income would pay $9,281 LESS. A joint return with $400,000 taxable income would pay $17,808 LESS.
We know who Republicans want to help and it ain't the middle class.
If Ronald Reagan's presidency was supposed to be the golden age of conservative politics... why don't we go back to that time and pay the same tax rates we paid under Reagan? The economy is bigger, we should certainly be able to afford it. Unless of course you would prefer to live in a country that doesn't fund anything but military and CIA, has pitiful public education, no infrastructure spending, crumbling hospitals because nobody is willing to pay a single penny in taxes to support all the things they want the government to give them.... hmmm... Everyone arguing for smaller taxes and a smaller federal government with no government spending except on military and CIA seem to want to live in Pakistan.
BrianB,
You sound like a broken record. You say the Democrats are doing nothing to correct Bush's destruction. It will take several years to fix this country. The affect of Bush will continue on for quite some time.
What is it the Republicans are doing? Exactly what is it? They have done nothing that I can see except demand more Bush tax cuts and refusal to pay what the middle class is saddled with in fair tax.
The Republicans only come up with ways to make the middle class pay more and more. Please tell us in detail exactly what it is your Republican people are doing to fix the economy. And try to be truthful about it.
The Bush tax cuts coupled with the "trickle down economics" theory, gave rise to the greatest shift in wealth in this countries history. Between 1981 and 2007, over 80% of this country's wealth was transferred to 2% of Americans who now control it. It is the largest single reason for the spiraling deficit. If the trickle down theory had worked, both Reagan and Bush would be considered geniuses. Unfortunately, it was and continues to be a disaster.
Groucho,
I think the suffering wrought by the economic policies of the last 30 years will be trans-generational.
Remember right-wing ding-a-lings,....repubs are going to suffer for this too.
On the money Groucho. Trickled-On, er excuse me, Trickle-Down has proven beyond any doubt to anyone with a brain that it just does not work. Someday, hopefully, we'll give Demand-Side economics a try.
Tax rates changes hardly move revenue at all. The reason for our debt is we took in 2.2 Trillion and spent 3.7 Trillion. Been doing that for years under Bush and Obama. We spend waaaaay more than we take in is why we are broke.
30 year revenue average is 18.3% of GDP. Bush spent 20% of GDP and BO is spending almost 25% of GDP........ why we are broke.
BigATC
We're not taking in enough money. How much would a 2% increases in taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans take in? How much would an addition 2% corporate tax take in with a minimum tax that ALL corporations must pay. Now extrapolate that over just the last 10 years and wanna be we add enough to balance our annual budget easily.
Trickle down never has and never will work.
People seem to keep supporting the guys that try to enforce it now and then though unfortunately.
Bottom line, plain and simple. The Bush tax cuts did not work, and they are currently not working after the mistake of extending them under the pressure of the Republicans holding the middle class hostage.
The Bush tax cuts only make the rich richer and the middle class (who is paying for them) poorer. Nothing to argue here.
Here is another example of 1st Read carrying the waterbucket for the GOP. This story was availble all across the WORLD in USA Today, however the FineFine WaterBoys & Girls of 1st Read, chose to treat this as a Friday evening news Dump.
Oh well, Carnival Barkers, just another day at the Office, huh?
Why Not state Truth such as, President Obama is trying to recover Jobs Lost, before he can Ever begin to find new Jobs!
This statement smells of Weiners crotch shots:
1.1 Million Jobs Lost over 2 Administrations!
Got anything better than this Mark Murray or you still Imitating Chucky T.
How in the heck do you know what Weiner's crotch smells like.
If we keep cutting taxes, then we are also cutting revenue. How in the heck are we going to pay off the debt that way? I am for a flat tax but you have to close the loopholes. Maybe we can quit giving out refunds. I don't think any American companies plan to bring back jobs to the states. I don't have a solution but what is being offered by the rep/tpers only seems to help the ones who don't need help. I think that we need to limit terms. Maybe just one longer term than they have now. No more career politicians. This way maybe they can do their jobs instead of worrying about getting reelected.
Mom taxes don't relate to revenue collected by the feds. It stays roughly the same at under 19% of GDP.
Capital gains taxes are easy to track so here are the last few:
1987 they were raised from 20 to 28%. Revenues collected the year before the increase were 8% made up of capital gains. Year after the tax increase it dropped to 3%. Next year below 2%.
'97 they were lowered back to 20% and they projected lower income. Instead it rose.
2003 lowered from 20 to 15%. Again income was projected lower. However, reciepts were higher the year after the lowering of the rate and more than doubled in three years.
Its a behavior thing, raise rates and people tend to shelter more. Lower rates and it increases economic activity. Amazingly with all the tinkering they did with rates over the last 60 years the revenues rarely moved more than a point away from 19% of GDP. So if we spend more than that we are toast. Current spending level is almost 25% of GDP.
BigATC, you are obviously not an economist nor have you done much research on economic cause and effect. I am also not an economist but I have done extensive reading on the subject. I have not confined myself to liberal economists, either. Your 'cause and effect' arguments have no basis in fact. They sound good but do not hold up under close scrutiny. In fact, they are right wing, trickle down our leg, Chicago School of Economics talking points that have been disproven over, and over, again, and again.
The history of the failure of the Chicago School free market economics goes all of the way back to the 70's and the South American dictatorships sponsored by the US CIA and big business. I know, someone is bound to call me a communist for that last statement but only because they are totally unaware of historical fact. It is a fact that the US CIA and several large US corporations helped overthrow democratically elected governments, installed repressive dictatorships and ruined thriving and growing economies just to impose Chicago School economic theory. Call me what you will, I do not care as I do not let other people's inadequacies burden me.
The Reagan road map, Tickle Down, USA!
Brianb-999431
Amy said: If cutting taxes leads to economic growth, how do the Republicans explain ten years of Bush's tax cuts resulting in a shrinking middle class, sky high deficits and stagnant growth?
Amy, if you recall, after 911 Bush had to do something to straighten out the economy. Do you remember the first day the markets opened after the towers fell? The Dow fell 611 points that day. It was the economic situation that caused him to lower taxes. If you will further recall, lowering taxes did have a positive impact on the economy. The GDP for the following 5 years grew by leaps and bounds. In 2006, the democrats won the house and that's when the economy took a nose dive.
From the very beginning, democrats had a vendetta against republicans because the democrats blamed the republicans for dragging Clinton through the trials. The close election in 2000 created anger in the democrats. Where do you think the tag "selected, not elected" came from? It was the built up anger and frustration from the democrats and that anger has never subsided.
Now, revisionist democrats are calling the entire 8 years of Bush's presidency an economic bust when that simply isn't true. The economy ended in a recession because of the housing bubble. Who created that? It wasn't Bush but he gets the blame for it. For Bush's first 6 years the economy was robust. It was the last 2 years after the house went to the democrats.
It amazes me that democrats will NOT take any blame for the economy when they are the largest cause of it. I do blame Bush for not vetoing things he should have, but the flip side of that would have been total stagnation... either way the country lost.
Brianb - Hope you don't mind.
I vaguely remember what that was... hmmm.... let me think... let me think...can someone help me out here? OH WAIT!
Now I remember, he told us all to go SHOPPING!
Speaking of the market - bin Laden's ultimate goal was to bring down the US economy, and thanks to the Cowboy in Chief, I'd say he declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Yeah Feisty,....I seem to remember he told that one mother who was working 3 jobs that she was "uniquely American" too.
As if slaving away at 3 friggin' jobs to feed your kids is something we should all aspire to.
What a drooling moron!
WHO I would NEVER want to have a beer with! You on the other hand... ;o)
Well...if she was working 3 jobs back in 2001 (after Bush only been in office 9 months), how do you put the blame on Bush for that one? Wouldn't that fall under Clinton's watch?
JK, its amazing to all of us how quickly Bush Jr. screwed things up. He possesses an unlimited amount of incompetent disregard of the reasonable.
"He possesses an unlimited amount of incompetent disregard of the reasonable."
That is a very polite way of describing what I call damn stupid. You have good manners Indy.
Indy,
It's even more amazing how people like you still believe in your warped sense of reality... Truely shocking!
Feisty:
Yeah - because the consumer makes up something like 80% of the economy and he wanted to instill confidence in the citizens. At the time, after 911, most of us were afraid the malls were going to be bombed.
President Obama told us all to go out and buy electric cars. That's not the same thing though, huh?
I cannot believe thetotas got a PASS on this crap:
"...Amy, if you recall, after 911 Bush had to do something to straighten out the economy. Do you remember the first day the markets opened after the towers fell? The Dow fell 611 points that day. It was the economic situation that caused him to lower taxes. If you will further recall, lowering taxes did have a positive impact on the economy. The GDP for the following 5 years grew by leaps and bounds. In 2006, the democrats won the house and that's when the economy took a nose dive..."
9/11/01 is AFTER 6/7/11
She JUST SAID that Bush HAD to LOWER taxes to help recover from 9/11. OMG, she can't possibly be this gullible? Can she?
Good Grief. Foot soldiers shouldn't try to explain economics,...just sayin'. PS. When you don't balance your budget and pass supplementals,...eventually that 'credit card' maxes out. The Bush Admin rigged the books. AND told us to go shopping and to not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. Shock and Awe; but it was unrelated to bombing Iraq,...it was a reaction to hide the deficit/debt proverbial 'pickle'.
"She JUST SAID that Bush HAD to LOWER taxes to help recover from 9/11"
We let it pass because we ALL know W lowered taxes to allow him and his wealthy friends and supporters to take the nation's wealth for themselves, no matter how long & loud the wingnuts continue to spout their spin, rationalizations, and excuses that it was something different.
PULLEESE! They keep the same talking points. I think. because they believe we bought into such rhetoric before [e.g. Hoover, Reagan & W] so if they continue to say it enough over and over, we will go for it again.
But sometimes I wonder which is more assinine: them continuing the same lame sales pitch, or we, the people who listen then buy into it. Need to tell them, "Not This Time!"
Want a strong economy? We need a lot of consumer spending. Rich people and corporations are hording their money, not using it to create jobs. So what do we do? Tax the rich to provide social services to the working class and massive tax rebates to those making less than 150,000. More spending = more demand. More demand = more jobs.
We ONLY expand an economy by having demand, and people can't spend what they don't have! It's time to redistribute this nation's wealth away from the rich to the millions who DO make or break this economy.
We ONLY expand an economy by having demand
-------------------------------------------------------
K Winters, truer words were never written. Any chance of drafting you to run for office?
Naw, not only am I a socialist who thinks that well-regulated capitalism with a progressive tax system and generous public service sector necessary to ensure economic liberty, I'm an atheist. I'll head back to Europe this autumn, this time to Germany where the government gets actively involved and is the undisputed growth engine of that region. But thanks for the compliment ;-)
So explain this to me...if your logic is that more spending=more demand, how come with all the spending that Obama did with the stimulus package, we did not see more demand?
Spent in the wrong places JK. TARP, stimulus, bailouts under Bush and Obama went to the top where it basically stayed. We needed a middle class bailout, but once again Supply-Side won the day, to the detriment of us all.
Trickle down economics: If we just keep stuffing money in their pockets surely someday their pocket will tear open and some will fall out.
Well...at least you included your "savior" Obama in your criticisms... There is hope for you yet...
Why wouldn't I include Obama? I'm not a dem. No politician is sacred in my eyes.
I see your tax raises,.....and raise you a repatriation of jobs back from overseas.
Do I have to move to Bangalore to get a job?
Trust me when I say this - NO ONE missed your racist ass!
This oligarchy is going to have to realize that by continuing to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the few that capitalism is going to collapse inwards on itself like a souflee. If you destroy unions and good paying jobs, if all the wealth of the working classes is sucked up by pharmaceudical companies and for-profit insurance companies, who the hell is going to buy the iPhones? Or the new cars? Or the plasma tv?
The rich are pursing individual rationality (expand MY wealth) to the point of collective IRRATIONALITY - killing the sheep instead of shearing them.
They are going to have to realise that if they want to make more money in future, they need to give up money now in order to increase consumer demand - and demand ONLY comes with DISPOSIBLE income!
RVZ555:
Why do you hate freedom, and why do you think that America deserved Pearl Harbor? America did not deserve to be attacked and have all of those people killed!!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
K Winters, I've also wondered about this insistence on maximizing immediate profits at the expense of long-range expansion and planning. Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? Its almost like they expect the world to end soon. I hope they don't know something we don't, but you're right, there is no rationality to it whatsoever.
That's OK peaches,...we believe you,...now settle down,....take some more lithium.
There goes RVZ555 displaying his erudition again!
Ummmm,... RVK,......Bangalore is in India, which is dominantly a Hindu country.
Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts.......
@Kwinters I understand there is an opening for a national economic advisor, please sir, apply for the job.
xxx
I betcha RVK writes it down whenever he talks to "a black person".
Darn. I meant "RVZ" and not "RVK"
BTW:
I looooove tag teaming with you Feisty!
And I so LOOOVE having you as my wing man goose! lol
OOOOps. What was that orange thing? A Cheetoh?
Roger that Maverick!
You went to charm school didn't you RVZ, that's why you been gone few days.
Forrest,
Don't interrupt RVZ when he is reminiscing about his romantic interludes with the football team.
Hey Feisty. I think it's trying to communicate..........
BTW: What's "spermatazoa"?
The brand name of RVZ's energy drink.
Forrest: Energy drink?
BWAHAHAHA !!!!!!
Holy mackerel Feisty! I'd better leave the country before RVZ555 uses "CAPS LOCK" on me!!
*Shudders*
That's how you can tell he's stroking himself! lol
When he isn't calling people nazi's & n****rs - he's got one hand firmly planted on his battle of the bulge! LMFAO!
the USA brought 9/11 ... on herself
------------------------------------
Hey RVZ555, you do realize that Ron Paul has made this very claim. You know, a republican candidate for President.
RVZ, what about my statement concerning Ron Paul? Any thoughts? Or insults?
RVZ you are the guy who said you celebrated the anniversary of the National Guard firing on and killing college kids at Kent state, so you got no room to talk. Get dressed for your civil war re-enactment, or your paint ball militia or whatever it is you do, and remember RVZ when you smile the whole world smiles with you.
Did he? What a patriot. He thinks the U.S. brought Pearl Harbor and 911 on itself too. Said we have ourselves to blame. I was not aware that Ron Paul said it too. That must have been where RVZ got it from.
Careful though Forrest,....he'll use caps lock and bold type on ya'!
I think you got ol' RVZ running under the porch Indy Lib.
Must be difficult for RVZ555 to do without an opposable thumb! (Look it up RVZ,....we'll wait).
Wow. This guy has conversations with himself. I think you were right about the med cart thing Feisty!
RVZ,....you got a husband?
I can hardly wait until the repubs try to pull the:
routine again in 2012. Cause that's working so well for us.
I wonder how long America is going to play Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy when they tee up the old "Rich Guy Tax Cut" football for the voters again?
They try that crap one more time I think Americans will storm every repub headquarters across the nation and go nuts.
Well I have read the post here and have a few questions?
1. The tax rates have not changed in the last 10 years, where the hell are the jobs. It seems that more people were employed under the higher rates. Am I wrong?
2. If tax raises are off the table then why is medicare not off the table. How does one party get to have absolutes and the other party not?
3. How can both parties claim that everything is on the table but then say well something are not and expect me to believe them?
4. Why would you be for firing government workers when your trying to fight unemployment. Doesnt that just create more?
5. Are both parties trying to get the american people to accept jobs and wages of a third world country?
6. Unions are a collection of people fighting against a minority of people to get better wages and benifits why would we discourage that in a democracy?
I voted for a republican gov. this year and to me it seems he is making unemployment worse not better. He also seem to be blaming the unemployed for being unemployed which to me seems crazy? I mean he is firing teachers and trashmen. Are they really the problem?
Excellent questions all Independant!!!
It's like when they blame the failure of the auto companies on the UAW assembly line workers.
Pardon me, but they only bolt the final parts together.
Who designs the cars, releases designs, engineers the models, tests vehicles, markets, etc...?
If total (blue and white collar) employee compensation is only 10% of auto company expenses why do the UAW line workers get 100% of the blame?
Does anyone believe a line worker actually makes $70 / hour? I am a white collar, salary UAW employee, and I can tell you I don't make anywhere NEAR that much and neither do my fellow UAW employees at Chrysler.
Rush Limbaugh is a lying ass.
Well what do you think the foreign car makers would pay their people if they didn't have socialized medicine, hmmmmmm?
Thought so. Go apologize to the Japs for Pearl Harbor again you schmuck!!
independent thinker's, I'm glad that a lot of people are see the problems that this country is facing. Cuts wont change anything if the right thing isn't being cut. The GOP has asked for a ten percent cut in federal workers. Of course they want to cut Education, EPA, ETC... Why dont they cut the defense contractors out. This is a federal money going to a private enterprise to keep employees working on federal positions. Federal contractors come in the door making more than their federal employees most of the time. This cost adds to the debt. How come the government doesn't buy prescrition drugs in bulk to lower cost? There are easier ways out of the debt than cutting services. Change the way the government does business. Invention not intervention!
The Bush tax cuts --- one of the worst bills signed by the worst president of all times.
So true charlie, the 13 quarters after the 2003 cuts added 5.3 million jobs. We can't have that.
BigATC... if you'll take a look the entire Bush tax cut job growth was in housing... and of course the GOP is complaining about the current housing mess. If not for the housing sector growth during those years... Bush would have been toast.... but that doesn't fit the GOP spin!
ALL of Bush's tax cuts were heavily tilted towards the wealthy. I notice that MSNBC doesnt make that statement as a fact; rather, they attribute it to "the left". Sometimes I think that First Read doesnt do any research before they post their columns.
These tax cuts are indeed a major driver of the deficits, and the gop KNEW it would be. It was all part of the plan to drive this country's finances into crisis. NOW we can see why. Ryan's plan basically eliminate Medicare by privatizing it. It wont be long before some other republican files a plan to privatize SS. And that is the whole point!!
The GOP DELIBERATELY created this debt and deficit crisis for the sole purpose of privatizing the social programs. In doing so, they've deliberately endangered the national security of the United States! They've endangered the future financial stability of our country! That, my friends, is the height of treachery. The gop is a clear and present danger to the United States. My hope is that voter realize this before the next election or else we could end up a 3rd rate country!
The Bush taxcuts gave the American workingclass a "Happymeal" once a week while giving those making millions a new corvette once a week. It is beyond ignorance for anyone from either party to support them
HAPPY MEAL??? LOLOL I LOVE it!! LMAO
It doesn't take a genius to look at the numbers and see that the Bush taxcuts did not help the American public, and simply adding the total over 10 years will give you well over 1/2 of our current debt and nearly 3/4ths of the present deficit.
Lose em and let's get the USA back on firm financial footing, There simply are not enough WIC babies to steal the milk from their mouths to cover up this stupidity
Bo, in 1981, the national debt was less than $1T; by the end of buish's last budget, it was $11.9T. So the GOP has run up just about 3/4s of our national debt and NOW they're bitching about spending?? HYPOCRITS! And they created this debt crisis ON PURPOSE so they could privatize the entitlements! Unfortunately, it's going to take a very long time and many DEM administrations and DEM dominated Congresses to fix this mess...... IF it can be fixed! The gop moves have been treachery of the highest order!!! I consider them a clear and present danger to the United States!
It defies intelligence that the Republicans never get it that trickle down economics doesn't work and harms everyone but the wealthiest. This has been proven for decades since the inception of Reaganomics. The GOP is determined to eliminate the middle class and make us a third word nation of only the very rich and the very poor. If you're anywhere in the middle you're screwed. They don't listen to the American people or do the will of the people. They only pander to the few they owe for providing their election funds.
stop blaming theh poor and middle class and put the blame where it belongs; on OBAMA!
1o years of HELL! 10 years of lying and cheating! 10 years of economic policy which will destroy the middle class and the america we all love
bush was president for 8 years; you know all the good ones