BUSH TAX CUTS REDUCED TOTAL INCOME BY $2.7 TRILLION

[Bravo Zulu]

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
David Cay Johnston | Sep. 24, 2010 08:02 PM EDT

The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hughee99]

2. If I'm not mistaken, the argument will be that

it would have been much worse without the tax cuts.

[geckosfeet]

3. On the one hand we empirical data, on the other we have a hypothesis.

Which is more reliable?

If we can truly attribute the failed economy to poor economic policy (and I do not see why we shouldn't), then we have to believe our lying eyes.

Eh?

[hughee99]

4. So if I understand you correctly,

you are suggesting there is significant data to prove that the tanking of the economy is the result of *'s tax cuts. Further, you're suggesting that the idea that it "could have been worse" can be dismissed because it is only a hypothesis. Do I understand you correctly?

[geckosfeet]

6. Partly. I look around and see an economy in shambles after 8 years of

repubicon rule - a period where tax cuts and unregulated spending were the order of the day. This is the 'empirical' data.

The repubicon hypothesis (if you want to elevate the rhetoric to the level of hypothesis) that it would have been worse if democrats had had their way is political hyperbole.

On edit - of course, Regan and Clinton deregulation laid some groundwork for an economic 'perfect storm' to come together under repubicon rule.

[hughee99]

7. I ask about this because the economy went downhill

before the tax cuts even went into effect. While they certainly didn't help things, I don't think it's accurate to attribute the shitty economy to them, either.

As far as the argument that things could have been worse, isn't that the argument people are using now to defend Obama's handling of the current economic crisis?

[geckosfeet]

9. If we start looking mid Clinton administration, I think it is fair to make

the observation that profligate spending and tax breaks to corporations and the rich enacted by the bush administration contributed to a rapidly declining economy that the Obama administration became responsible for trying to turn around.

As far as it could have been worse being the/a defense of the Obama administration - I am not sure what you mean. This again is the hypothetical canard. Of course it could have been worse. I could also have been better if the bush clan hadn't fucked things up so badly.

However, playing along, It could have been worse if - banks weren't bailed out (keeping a few jobs but preserving the savings/investments of millions of Americans). GM was not bailed out (preserving a few jobs) and stimulus spending was not enacted (preserving/creating jobs and economic activity) etc. etc.

On edit: and if we look back at post WWII tax policy, we see that the declining economy tracks declining tax rates.

[hughee99]

10. For the current defense, many people are looking at current economic conditions

and the fact that we haven't seen a dramatic improvement yet, and suggested that while Obama's policies have not yet shown a significant improvement in the overall economy, they have prevented things from getting worse (ie "worse than they could have been" had nothing been done).

Also, causation is not correlation, and simply because two things happened at the same time does not mean one caused the other. I can certainly see how *'s tax cuts didn't help things any, but I'm unclear on how exactly *'s tax cuts resulted in people making 2.7 Trillion dollars less than they would have otherwise.

It would seem that there are many periods since WWII with lower tax rates and a good performing economy. The top marginal tax rate in the 70's was 70%, and in the 80's it was 50% or under.

[geckosfeet]

11. ... and since raygun tax rates have been under 40%. And those great economies

correlate with high tax rates.

I would say putting the brakes on a car headed off a cliff is good first step. But how fast of a recovery would be fast enough for you? One year? Two years? Three of four? It is not going to happen overnight. As a culture are too invested in instant gratification - wrapping up the episode in an hour mentality. It took eight years to fuck it up. What makes you think it won't take eight to recover? Obama's policies have helped. Dramatic improvement? You won't see anything with the repubicons acting as anchors against every single policy proposal that congress makes.

And I believe the phrase is 'correlation does not imply causation'. Just because two things correlate in time as you say, does not imply that one caused the other. But clearly, anyone can see the effect of reducing federal taxes. Increased state and property taxes. Fewer federal services and safety nets. Fear mongering around social security and medicare and health care. Increased national debt and austerity. Decimation of the middle class. Where do you think this is going? Are you still waiting for all those jobs that were supposed to be created by cutting taxes?

You might want to read this: Republican Economics as Social Darwinism.

So. Where do you stand on shutting down the bush legacy tax cuts for the richest 2%?

[hughee99]

12. I am all for doing away with the tax cuts for the richest 2%

I'm just don't think THAT was the problem. Had the * tax cuts never existed, the economy would still have been just as F'd up, foreclosures would have still happened, banks would have still folded, and people would still have had a significant loss of income.

[geckosfeet]

13. True. But money for unemployment insurance, jobs programs, and infrustructure

would more available to use for stimulus and to help those in need (not financial institutions).

[hughee99]

14. You're 100% right, but given that * was running the show for 8 years

even if that money was available (had there been no tax cuts), it wouldn't have gone to any of those worthwhile things.

[clarence swinney]

18. 2%

How can anyone justify it.

In 1011 the few will get 31 Billion more.

They(2,800,000) now own about 50% of our Total Financial Wealth and 30% of Total Income

120,000,000 own 7% of that wealth

The 2,800,000(2%)
From 1980 to 2009 top 1% Income increased 281% and Middle class got 25% Increase.
From 2001 to 2009 that Rich Rich Rich 1% got two thirds of all Income Growth
90% got 10%. Praise Allah

WSA owns us. Stop them from getting that 7%.

They did not create JOBS. Under Bush 31,000 net new Jobs. Lowest since Hoover.
Clinton 237,000

They got Ultra Rich Gambling. Not adding Value to our Standard Of Living
Infrastructure--Education-Health care-Affordable Housing-Internal Security
Secure Jobs-Secure Retirement-Secure Health Care--

Work for the Masses not the Few.

Jesus Christ would denounce our nation today.
olduglymeanhonest

[clarence swinney]

16. clinton to bush to obama who fumbled

Clinton left Bush Heaven On Earth
Bush left Obama Hell on Earth
Clinton left Bush an 1800B Budget and four balanced budgets
Bush Left Obama a 3600 Budget
Clinton left Bush a 5700B of Debt
Bush left Obama 11,600B of Debt
Clinton left Bush a 237,00 net new jobs created per month
Bush left Obama a 31,000 lowest since Hoover.
Clinton left Bush Peace on Earth
Bush left Obama Hell on Earth Two disastrous wars
Clinton left Bush a President most highly rated of any peacetime President in Asia, Africa, Europe.
Bush left Obama the most hated President in history
Bush left Obama an Housing Tsunami and Financial Volcano
Bush left Obama, in 2008, an 8500B Bailout commitment
Bush left Obama his Takeover of Fannie/Freddie, AIG, and first bailout of Chrysler

How can any honest informed person vote to re-continue such horrid actions and results?
 
clarence swinney
political historian
lifeaholics of america
author-Lifeaholic--Life story of workaholic failure to lifeaholic success
University President-"Every college student should have this book"
olduglymeanhonest

[Hannah Bell]

5. +100. and net job loss, not gain.

[TomCADem]

8. Well, They Certainly Helped The Rich - Obama Spoke Out Against Them Again Today

In his weekly address.

[clarence swinney]

15. Wall Street Of America Party

Formerly Republican Country Club Party
Wealth-Income Redistribution
1980-2009
20 years- WSA Presidents
18 years--WSA Senate
12 years--WSA House
6 years---WSA Total Control

1980--1% owned 20% Total Financial Wealth
1989--1% Owned 36% Total Financial Wealth
1980-2009--1% had 281% Increase In Income
1980-2009-Middle Class had 25% Increase in Income
2008--1% owned 43% total Financial Wealth--1,400,000 people
2008--80% owned 7% Total Financial Wealth 120,000,000 people

2010
Wall Street Of America formerly USA
OWNS--
ALL-Major Corporations
ALL-Major Banks
ALL-Major Media
All Members of Congress
ALL Members of White House

100% Ownership of you and I

War is profitable

clarenceswinney
olduglymeanhonest

[clarence swinney]

17. 2.7T confuses me

I am guessing. He meant lost revenue?

I have been trying to learn how much Revenue was lost from Reagan 750B and Bush 1700B Tax Cuts, primarily, for the rich.
Hard to decipher.

Reagan borrowed 1700B(1000 to 2700) due to lack of revenue.
Of course his 80%(600 to 1080) increase in spending played a part.

Bush borrowed 6000B(5700 to 11.700) due to lack of revenue.
His 100%(1800 to 3600) increase in spending helped.

Usually, you think such activities would build jobs.
Bush created 31,000 Net New Jobs. Lowest since Hoover.
Clinton got 237.000.

What happened?

1999 Law and 2000 Law--let gamblers role
Stock market was replaced by Derivatives Casino.
Rich rushed to get in on Gambling Frenzy yielding big profits in short period of time.
Just like Housing Frenzy.

Before they invested in stocks that helped expand business and create jobs.

Velocity of Money went South.
Money was used for-- one on one-- gambling. I bet red you bet black.
No asset involved. No Velocity of money.
Billions were made but-billions were lost
Cover bets with AIG. Small premium to cover loss.
AIG was taking $4000 bets with $100 in pocket. True. Simple example but true.
Ross of Oil Rich Family in Texas said he got a one billion check from AIG
He bet on Housing Crash. His 1B out of Bush (2008) 180B Bailout.

Ask Warren Buffett the Magic Man.
He said "Derivatives are the Weapon of Mass Destruction"
Correct. He got into it. His Berkshire profits?? Loss for 5 straight quarters.
Many Hedge Fund Casinos went poof. Some made hundreds of billions. Roll dem dice.

WSA owns us.