How The Bush Tax Cuts Blew Up The Deficit And Debt

Here is a short video showing the impact of recent political decisions on the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.

I'm sure this will be a magnet to those still caught up in the "left vs. right" or "republican vs. democrat" charade, when the only divide that truly is at play (in a major way, and on a global scale) is the "very wealthy vs. the rest".

Enjoy... it is only 1:06, but if you need a summary, in essence it proves that the Reaganomic trickle down theory has always seemed to have a clog somewhere along the line causing exactly the opposite effect than that which was sold to the public.

For some reason, tax-payer money has made it's way into the pockets of those corporations and individuals already in the upper echelons of the tax brackets, with the lower echelon minions being stuck with the bill.



I understand this is a fiercely ideological debate, and that anything closely resembling a "socialist" connotation has been demonized by certain politicians and media outlets, but the truth of the matter is, your tax dollars are being handed over to somebody, the only difference is who you would want that to be.

Do you believe that it is in your best interest to give billions of dollars to McDonnell Douglas and Goldman Sachs executives, or for schools with teachers and hospitals with universal healthcare?

the Billmeister

The wealthy need to start PAYING their FAIR SHARE in this country, and we the PEONS need a GOSH-DARN break ALREADY!!!!

In addition, ANY FURTHER CUTS made to any Americans, needs to be directed towards the PLUSH COZY-LIVING POLITICIANS who are living it UP with benefits and luxuries at OUR EXPENSE.

We need to CUT THEM. NO MORE CUTTING US!!!!!!!!!!

Ridiculous already.

My entire working life,I was never hired to work for a poor man !!....But I have seen some fairly wealthy people hire poor folk...This mindset that is portrayed here is akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg to me.

reply to post by pplrnuts


(Shaking my head....) The wealthy ARE paying their fair share. For fine wine.

gawker.com...

I stopped 7 seconds into the video. The National Debt did not go down a single year Clinton was in office and the supposed surplus was just accountant number juggling. I'm sure you'll have plenty of attaboy's from your fellow libs though. The below link is probably about as biased as your video.
Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Originally posted by daddyroo45
My entire working life,I was never hired to work for a poor man !!....But I have seen some fairly wealthy people hire poor folk...This mindset that is portrayed here is akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg to me.

However, what the data shows is that this conservative argument has proven to be inaccurate, as the unemployment rate has also skyrocketed right along the lines of debt vs. GDP.

Those benefiting from the tax breaks have either hoarded their money (often invested in foreign markets) or used it to export manufacturing overseas. The benefit to the U.S. economy, as can be clearly seen today, is disastrous.

the Billmeister

"Raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary"…

… George Prescott Bush (Republican)

“It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invested this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy...”…

… George H.W. Bush (Republican)

That was at a time when deficits were viewed as something more destructive for the nation’s overall health than taxes… but that changed.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter"…

… Dick Cheney (Republican)

Do tax cuts pay for themselves?

"They do not"…

… Alan Greenspan

Debt and deficits are far worse for a nation’s economy than any taxes could be. Both parties used to believe that unfortunately Democrats believe we can tax our way out of debt and Republicans believe we can cut our way out of debt. Neither side will agree with the other so neither serious cuts nor tax increases will pass so there will not be any real attempt at getting the debt under control. At least not until both sides work together.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I stopped 7 seconds into the video. The National Debt did not go down a single year Clinton was in office and the supposed surplus was just accountant number juggling. I'm sure you'll have plenty of attaboy's from your fellow libs though. The below link is probably about as biased as your video.
Myth of the Clinton Surplus

No doubt, but by how much did it increase in comparison to the years where the "trickle-down" tax mechanism was in force?

Once again, I suspect you have fallen too deeply for the "liberal vs. conservative" charade, and are not seeing the real class divide that drives many politicians in their decision making.

Then again, perhaps you are a billionaire, in which case I totally understand your viewpoint.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister

Saw the video.
Pretty colours.

Why wasn't spending mentioned?

Seems to me, a part of anyones "defict" would have to include spending.

Progressive propoganda. Sell a lie with enough little truths. . . . . .

reply to post by beezzer


Beez.


Attacking Libya costs a LOT of money.

As you stated, there will be a left/right division. However, the evidence of how Bush ran up the deficit is irrefutable. They all want to blame the current administration for the poor economy. The facts show that it wouldn't matter who was elected....the economy was already in the toilet waiting to get flushed. I'm am neither a republican, or a democrat, so please, don't call me one. It is hard to disprove the state in which Bush left the economy.

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beez.


Attacking Libya costs a LOT of money.

Agreed. Raising the budgets of the FDA, EPA and others by 30% in his (Obama) first year cost alot as well.

Spending.
Keynesian Economics.
Buying your way out of debt.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Saw the video.
Pretty colours.

Why wasn't spending mentioned?

Seems to me, a part of anyones "defict" would have to include spending.

Progressive propoganda. Sell a lie with enough little truths. . . . . .

You're correct that the only spending mentioned was of the TARP (and the other "recovery") programs along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, most definitely an incomplete picture.

Let's face it, both sides will use some amount of propaganda to promote their idea... we know this, and can therefore adjust our opinions and viewpoints accordingly.

The main point is that giving away tax-payer money (i.e. yours and mine) to the upper echelon tax-bracket does not help the economy, whereas leaving more to the people in the lower brackets does stimulate the economy as they will be spending it on food and manufactured goods (i.e. the real economy).

The other option is to eliminate taxes altogether, such as people like Ron Paul suggest... fine in theory, but it only works if everybody also shares his very Christian ideology (and for real, not just in words and church attendance) that you are morally responsible for helping out your neighbor in need.

I have been self-employed since my college days (and yes, my income is inversely related to my time spent here on ATS!), but I much rather see my tax dollars going to projects that will benefit the society and stimulate the economy, as opposed to giving it to those who already have plenty. Especially since all the available data shows that the "trickle down" mechanism never manages to actually trickle anything down!

(and yes, I pay my fair share... well I think it's more than my fair share, but so does everybody else right?)

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Misoir
"Raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary"…

… George Prescott Bush (Republican)

“It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invested this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy...”…

… George H.W. Bush (Republican)

That was at a time when deficits were viewed as something more destructive for the nation’s overall health than taxes… but that changed.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter"…

… Dick Cheney (Republican)

Do tax cuts pay for themselves?

"They do not"…

… Alan Greenspan

Debt and deficits are far worse for a nation’s economy than any taxes could be. Both parties used to believe that unfortunately Democrats believe we can tax our way out of debt and Republicans believe we can cut our way out of debt. Neither side will agree with the other so neither serious cuts nor tax increases will pass so there will not be any real attempt at getting the debt under control. At least not until both sides work together.

Both sides ARE working together! Don't you get it? Strangely enough, no matter who is in charge, the FED gets richer, everyone else gets screwed! THIS IS THE PLAN! Even most people who think they are rich are getting screwed!

Aaack! When will the sheeple get over this Left/Right charade? There is no difference!

The real divide is THE SUPER RICH VS EVERYONE ELSE!

Let me simplify it for you guys. Imagine we had a barbecue, with 100 guests, and 100 cheeseburgers.

One guy takes 50 cheeseburgers for himself. He can't even eat them, he just doesn't want anyone else to have them. He gets the next ten guys to enforce for him, so they each get three cheeseburgers. Of the 89 people left, the nine who speak out, each get two cheeseburgers, so they turn around and tell everyone else it's the democrats or republicans fault.

The other eighty people, all get to split ONE CHEESEBURGER. Somehow they accept this, instead of saying, "Hey, there's eighty of us and only twenty of them....Let's kill em all and everybody gets a cheeseburger!"

reply to post by Billmeister


This would be a classic example of how we are failing in regardes to taxes. I support a flat tax.

If we all paid let's say, 15% of our income in federal tax, then everybody would be able to manage their finances. To include the government.

No loopholes, No tax breaks, just 15%. Straight up. No and, if's or buts.

Originally posted by Billmeister
You're correct that the only spending mentioned was of the TARP (and the other "recovery") programs along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, most definitely an incomplete picture.

Let's face it, both sides will use some amount of propaganda to promote their idea... we know this, and can therefore adjust our opinions and viewpoints accordingly.

The main point is that giving away tax-payer money (i.e. yours and mine) to the upper echelon tax-bracket does not help the economy, whereas leaving more to the people in the lower brackets does stimulate the economy as they will be spending it on food and manufactured goods (i.e. the real economy).

I don't consider TARP as much spending as a worthless bailout. Spending for wasteful programs, Dept of Ed. for one, and entitlment programs for otherwise healthy people is the problem.

Adjust for a bias? Sure. Just don't promote one side.
ie; "giving away tax-payer money to the upper echelon tax-bracket. They get the breaks because they do the hiring. It would help the economy if the government stayed AWAY from the economy and allowed companies to hire without the fear of higher taxes and higher costs.
Leaving more to the lower tax bracket folks?
When companies get taxed more they defray those "costs" down tthe goods and services that the little people buy. So "sticking it to the man" only screws us.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Saw the video.
Pretty colours.

Why wasn't spending mentioned?

Seems to me, a part of anyones "defict" would have to include spending.

Progressive propoganda. Sell a lie with enough little truths. . . . . .

Oh c'mon it's simple economics straight up. And yes spending (of course) plays a part...who would deny that? Infact I remember our last president spending a S-load.

Thinkprogress or not, the facts are there and unbiased and thats all you should care about as an American.

Trickledown has never worked.

reply to post by CaptChaos


Here is a different view:Let's put tax cuts in terms that everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:



* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that's what they decided to do.



The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.



"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."



So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.



So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?



The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.



And so:



* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (29% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.



"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $9!"



"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got nine times more than me!"



"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"



"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"



The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.



The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!



And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Billmeister
You're correct that the only spending mentioned was of the TARP (and the other "recovery") programs along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, most definitely an incomplete picture.

Let's face it, both sides will use some amount of propaganda to promote their idea... we know this, and can therefore adjust our opinions and viewpoints accordingly.

The main point is that giving away tax-payer money (i.e. yours and mine) to the upper echelon tax-bracket does not help the economy, whereas leaving more to the people in the lower brackets does stimulate the economy as they will be spending it on food and manufactured goods (i.e. the real economy).

I don't consider TARP as much spending as a worthless bailout. Spending for wasteful programs, Dept of Ed. for one, and entitlment programs for otherwise healthy people is the problem.

Adjust for a bias? Sure. Just don't promote one side.
ie; "giving away tax-payer money to the upper echelon tax-bracket. They get the breaks because they do the hiring. It would help the economy if the government stayed AWAY from the economy and allowed companies to hire without the fear of higher taxes and higher costs.
Leaving more to the lower tax bracket folks?
When companies get taxed more they defray those "costs" down tthe goods and services that the little people buy. So "sticking it to the man" only screws us.

That isn't true. We should be giving tax benefits where it is deserved. Example would be for hiring actually US Employees and keeping your business here.

Closing loopholes would be a great start.

There is no Sticking it to the man. Trickledown has never worked.

Another example. If you give one rich guy 1000 bucks and 10 poor people 100, which is better for the economy.

Not only is it common sense, but it is also economic fact.

This isn't a partisan issue.

It is obviously partisan.
The one guy who gets1000 can hire the others.
Just "giving" away money does NOT promote a work ethic or build an economy. All it doesis create a dependent class that waits for another "100" bucks.

Trickledown worked so well, that the govenment stepped in to get MORE money. Government creates a need for more government.

Stop the propoganda and *ahem* deny ignorance.