How The Bush Tax Cuts Blew Up The Deficit And Debt

reply to post by micmerci


Wonderful story, but it is just that...a story.

Even companies that utilize tax loops and move to other countries are generally doing it for a global footprint. they would still need to operate an American based company to "reap" the rewards.

Since our country is largely the most able, them leaving is highly unlikely.

Also where one company leaves 5 more that offer the services will pop up in its place. Thats how Capitalism works.

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Deny ignorance?

Companies and the rich have had the lowest taxes since the 50's and their stocks are doing well and their CEOs are being paid even more than they did since the economic down-turn....yet our unexployment stays at an all time high?

Sounds like you are denying ignorance.

Sorry you like the GOP ( I get that....I don't mind them either) but economic facts are facts.

You can't change it.

reply to post by mudbeed


All the taxation methodologies are just that...textbook stories. None of them take into account the crooks at every class level that will bilk the system. It just becomes a matter of the lesser of all evils. And IMO in my 50 years on the planet, the little guy has always been doing better when the big guy was as well.

reply to post by mudbeed

I see so much of this meme of how tax cuts are evil. Sorry, ain't buying it. Having more of MY money is good. Having government take more is bad.

I can't make it any simpler.

Really.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by mudbeed

 

All the taxation methodologies are just that...textbook stories. None of them take into account the crooks at every class level that will bilk the system. It just becomes a matter of the lesser of all evils. And IMO in my 50 years on the planet, the little guy has always been doing better when the big guy was as well.

Yeah because the Clinton era was soooo much about the Big Guy doing well...and guess what?.... It was.

Cause when the small guys do well they invest and buy things.

Everyone wins.

Right now only one group is doing well.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mudbeed

 

I see so much of this meme of how tax cuts are evil. Sorry, ain't buying it. Having more of MY money is good. Having government take more is bad.

I can't make it any simpler.

Really.

Cry about it then.

If you are rich I feel zero sympathy. My rich uncle is begging the feds to take more because he knows how it works. He is a stock broker after all.

reply to post by mudbeed

As I thought. Progressive.

Enjoy Obama scooter, it's not going to last.

reply to post by mudbeed


However, if we rank the Presidents by economic performance over the fiscal budgets plus the 1-year lag, we obtain the following.

Ranked by FY + 1 Yr Lag
1 JFK/LBJ (5.7)
2 Reagan 1 (5.0)
3 Ike 2 (4.5)
4 Nixon/Ford (4.2)
5 Clinton 1 (3.7)
6 Truman (3.3)
7 Nixon, Reagan 2 (3.2)
9 W. Bush 1 (2.9)
10 LBJ (2.8)
11 Ike 1 (2.7)
12 Clinton 2 (2.6)
13 H. W. Bush, (2.5)
14 W. Bush 2* (1.5)
15 Carter (0.6)

By this method, three of the top four spots go to Republicans and the bottom six slots are evenly split between the parties.

The method of matching up the data is obviously important. Between these latter two methods, President Truman, for example, drops from first place to sixth and President Carter drops from being tied for 8th place to being dead last among the 15. On the other hand, Eisenhower’s second term rises from dead last to third place!

The Lag

I’m inclined to buy the lag effect. Whether it is exactly one year post-fiscal budget, I do not know. Maybe it’s two years, who knows? But it makes total sense that measurable economic outputs would lag the policy inputs by some amount; that’s how complex systems work. It’s even how simple systems work. Try steering a boat, for example. The boat does not turn the instant you turn the wheel. I’ve steered a large Navy ship, and it takes some experience for the helmsman to learn the lag between turning the helm and the actual ship turning. They don’t call it the “ship of state” for nothing.

I’m sure Democrats would accuse me of fishing for Republican sweet spots in the data for using the lag method. But at least this accounting is consistent: each President is measured exactly the same way. And a lag makes sense, even if we do not know the exact amount of lag. It makes little sense that a President can influence an economy, apparently with his psychic powers, before he even gets a budget approved.

I finaly understand why progressives hate tax cuts.,

Because, in order to benefit, you have to be paying taxes to begin with. The majority of the progressive movement doesn't.

The progressives want something for nothing. If they can't have it then those that do benefit must be punished. It's the whole class-warfare thing.

We're onto you.

It's the unmotivated and bozos and clowns and welfare queens and so on that want to freeload off of the rich because they feel they're entitled to it. People should get what they deserve, though. If the country can't float that's because the government is spending too much. The appropriate response isn't to tax the rich more, it's to cut spending until the people know how to balance a budget and the dropouts and deadbeats actually get jobs to support themselves.

You know where the housing problme started? With congress imposing their BS on lenders.

The wars were inevitable and started long before Bush came into office. In fact, if democrats had come into office they would have continued the efforts of Clinton and Gore to oust Saddam because he was an immediate security threat. People who blame the wars on Bush don't know their history and should open up a few books and archives for a lesson.

And then there was 9/11... Remember reading about all of the papers that were lost? 9/11 spurred a rush of spending to secure our homeland and that can't be helped.

The tax cuts kept the country above water level, but only barely. And the benefits of it we're only starting to see. In fact, it was known many years ago that we'd not see gains for a while. It's typical of tax lovers to cast doom and gloom on everything and not give it a chance because of their foolish beliefs. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Politics is full of this and even republicans do it. They all do it. It's a confirmation bias like a girl in a skirt.

And oil. Oil prices going up. Had a domino effect on the economy.

That's hte reality it's just that nobody likes to admit it because the truth hurts.

So if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Blaming the rich is a straw man.

I predict Obama 2.0 and this nation falling on its face until its learn these important lessons.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Amen!! The current administration is spending like a drunken sailor. Please nobody tell them what comes after trillion!!

"Sticking it to the rich" sounds SO good, doesn't it? It's "fair". They have "more" than we do.

I saw an analysis that showed that if we taxed "the rich" at 100% of their earnings....100%.....EVERYTHING THEY EARNED....we still would NOT be able to keep up with current levels of spending.

Now, how many of you would keep being productive if 100% of your earnings were taken from you?

You can NOT grow the economy from the bottom up. How many poor people are creating jobs?

I think we should restructure the WHOLE system. I am no more for GIVING breaks to the rich as I am for TAKING everything from them.

If you have not read up on the Fair Tax, you really should. It's what America needs. Simplify the system, and make it more fair.

Of course, that only addresses the income side of the problem. If we don't address SPENDING, we will never be able to solve the whole problem. I'd like to go back to the idea of the federal government envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mudbeed

 

As I thought. Progressive.

Enjoy Obama scooter, it's not going to last.

I do generally vote dem, yes....but I would vote either way.

I don't like big gov, but I do like a stable economy. I also dislike being lied to.

Originally posted by beezzer
I finaly understand why progressives hate tax cuts.,

Because, in order to benefit, you have to be paying taxes to begin with. The majority of the progressive movement doesn't.

The progressives want something for nothing. If they can't have it then those that do benefit must be punished. It's the whole class-warfare thing.

We're onto you.

Pfft thats garbage. I pay tons in taxes.

EDIT: I never asked for tax cuts. I ask that we reduce our spending and close tax loops and have companies (like the oil industry) pay a little more.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
"Sticking it to the rich" sounds SO good, doesn't it? It's "fair". They have "more" than we do.

I saw an analysis that showed that if we taxed "the rich" at 100% of their earnings....100%.....EVERYTHING THEY EARNED....we still would NOT be able to keep up with current levels of spending.

Now, how many of you would keep being productive if 100% of your earnings were taken from you?

You can NOT grow the economy from the bottom up. How many poor people are creating jobs?

I think we should restructure the WHOLE system. I am no more for GIVING breaks to the rich as I am for TAKING everything from them.

If you have not read up on the Fair Tax, you really should. It's what America needs. Simplify the system, and make it more fair.

Of course, that only addresses the income side of the problem. If we don't address SPENDING, we will never be able to solve the whole problem. I'd like to go back to the idea of the federal government envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

I agree with you on the spending. I would like to see this fake war on terror ended. That would be a great start to reduce spending. Also ending medicare part D.

reply to post by mudbeed

If we reduce spending, NO-ONE would have to pay more.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
"Sticking it to the rich" sounds SO good, doesn't it? It's "fair". They have "more" than we do.

I saw an analysis that showed that if we taxed "the rich" at 100% of their earnings....100%.....EVERYTHING THEY EARNED....we still would NOT be able to keep up with current levels of spending.

Now, how many of you would keep being productive if 100% of your earnings were taken from you?

You can NOT grow the economy from the bottom up. How many poor people are creating jobs?

I think we should restructure the WHOLE system. I am no more for GIVING breaks to the rich as I am for TAKING everything from them.

If you have not read up on the Fair Tax, you really should. It's what America needs. Simplify the system, and make it more fair.

Of course, that only addresses the income side of the problem. If we don't address SPENDING, we will never be able to solve the whole problem. I'd like to go back to the idea of the federal government envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Amen. But there's a problem, people don't want fair. They want special treatment.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mudbeed

 

If we reduce spending, NO-ONE would have to pay more.

A lot of our spending on black-ops, Military etc our congress hands down signs it right off.

Spending is an issue on both sides.

And yes, perhaps you are right about that, but I don't see that happening.

The two single biggest shames here:

1. that US Citizens being allowed to keep more of their own money is seen as a "mistake".

2. that 100% of the blame is not put on spending, primarily in military endeavors, and imprisonment.

Is there really anyone left out there who believes that the US stands for anything even remotely related to "freedom"? No, i don't hate my country. I hate its government. And I am starting to dislike the stupidity that is rampant among the populace.

reply to post by jonnywhite



People don't want fair, you are right. Special treatment is a way to gain favor, but what people want most is stability and safety. To get stability and safety we are willing to trade our deeds, our wealth, and our souls.

I don't think mankind can truly ever be free. We are, by nature, too meek and willing to yield to a force that offers nothing more than a carrot and a stick.