Bush tax cuts in effect for over 10 years, what's the result?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
From 2004, doper:


The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick and thin.


In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes.


When the economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated by tax cuts.


Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget.


This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the Bush Administration’s tax cuts.


It assesses their costs, benefits to different income groups, and economic effects to date, as well as down the road. It both synthesizes previous findings about the individual tax measures and includes new findings about their combined effects, using new distributional analyses by the UrbanI nstitute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and fresh cost estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The early returns on the effects of the tax cuts have not been good.
  • The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
  • The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
  • The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
If the Administration’s latest tax proposals — which would make permanent most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and establish new tax cuts on top of that — are enacted, the long-term results are likely to be even more troubling.


Over the next 10 years, total tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3.3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone. (These calculations include the effects of the higher interest payments caused by the tax cuts.)


The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for responding to potential future crises — from security matters to natural or environmental disasters — the particulars of which are unknown today.


Pressure to reduce these deficits will mount. Because the tax cuts are so tilted toward the highest-income households — and become even more so over time, as some of the upper-income tax cuts phase-in — the burden of financing these lopsided tax cuts ultimately is likely to be borne disproportionately by households who gain only modestly from the tax cuts.


This will be the case unless offsetting spending cuts or tax increases are enacted that reduce benefits or raise taxes primarily on high-income households. As a result, over the long term most Americans may well be net losers from the tax cuts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811
 
If Obama somehow made dope legal tomorrow you'd suck his dick, doper. Don't deny it.


Now, back to facts, supported by evidence. This article from 2004 show that the Bush tax cuts were a failure from the start:


The three rounds of tax-cut legislation (in 2001, 2002, and 2003) account for a substantial share of the nation’s current deficit.
  • The tax cuts would reduce revenues by $276 billion in 2004, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. Further, the interest costs associated with the enacted tax cuts would equal $20 billion, using Congressional Budget Office assumptions. The total cost would therefore be $297 billion, or 2.6 percent of the economy (or GDP).
  • Using these estimates, the cost of the tax cuts account for more than half of the 2004 deficit, which CBO estimates to be $477 billion or 4.2 percent of GDP. Based on these estimates, the deficit would have been 1.6 percent of GDP without the tax cuts.
  • These calculations, however, do not take into account the economic effects of the tax cuts. Most economic analyses suggest that the tax cuts have had some positive effect on the economy in the short run — at issue is the extent of this positive effect given their cost. These positive effects would make the short-run revenue losses associated with tax cuts somewhat smaller, and estimates of the deficit without the tax cuts somewhat higher. Nevertheless, even using the Administration’s assumptions about the economic effects of its tax cuts, the tax cuts would still account for 45 percent of the 2004 deficit.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811


Things have only gotten worse, and now the conservatards want to cut more taxes? They must be smoking the same shit Dude/Topspin is.
 
Bush tax cuts in effect for over 10 years, what's the result?


The answer is....

6 years of a stable, growing economy with unemployment averaging about 5.3 % 2001-2007

Then in Jan., 2007, Congress was taken over by Democrats and a Democrat president was elected in year 2008.....

Little known factoid for pinheads......"There are factors that effect the economy other than the tax tables...."
 
bravo said:
Bush tax cuts in effect for over 10 years, what's the result?


The answer is....

6 years of a stable, growing economy with unemployment averaging about 5.3 % 2001-2007



Then in Jan., 2007, Congress was taken over by Democrats and a Democrat president was elected in year 2008.....

Little known factoid for pinheads......"There are factors that effect the economy other than the tax tables...."
Click to expand...

Little known factoid for Bravo, The economy was trashed when the dems took over.
 
rulings%2Ftom-false.gif


​
The Bush tax cuts "created about 8 million jobs over the first 10 years that they were in existence. We've lost about 5 million of those jobs during this recession." - John Boehner, Tuesday, May 10th, 2011



​
George W. Bush produced smaller job gains than most recent administrations regardless of which employment measure is used.




Employment under Bush grew by 4.5 percent using CES and 7 percent using CPS, whereas employment grew by double digits under presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and also under the combined eight-year administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who finished Nixon's term after he resigned, and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.


Only under Eisenhower was job growth more sluggish than it was under George W. Bush.
 
Starting in the late 1970s, the middle class began to weaken.



Although productivity continued to grow and the economy continued to expand, wages began flattening in the 1970s because new technologies — container ships, satellite communications, eventually computers and the Internet — started to undermine any American job that could be automated or done more cheaply abroad.



The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.



When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt.



From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.



Eventually, of course, the bubble burst. That ended the middle class’s remarkable ability to keep spending in the face of near stagnant wages.


Starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government deregulated and privatized.


It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families.


It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.)


It allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.


More generally, it stood by as big American companies became global companies with no more loyalty to the United States than a GPS satellite.


Meanwhile, the top income tax rate was halved to 35 percent and many of the nation’s richest were allowed to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax.


Inheritance taxes that affected only the topmost 1.5 percent of earners were sliced.


Yet at the same time sales and payroll taxes — both taking a bigger chunk out of modest paychecks — were increased.


Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses.





http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
 
Return of Dune said:
Everything you write is classic Orwellian doublespeak, including me getting pwned, especialy by you.
Click to expand...
Are you really gonna stick to your ignorant statement, "The economy was trashed when the dems took over"?...( I realize you mean, before the Dems took over....I won't ridicule beyond whats reasonable)

I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a lie....http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geogra...recession.html

Sorry pinhead, you've been pwned by the facts .....
 
bravo said:
Are you really gonna stick to your ignorant statement, "The economy was trashed when the dems took over"?...( I realize you mean, before the Dems took over....I won't ridicule beyond whats reasonable)

I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a lie....http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geogra...recession.html

Sorry pinhead, you've been pwned by the facts .....
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your link said or how it could have proved something I know to be true from having existed during that time, aware, unlike you apparently.
 
Return of Dune said:
I have no idea what your link said or how it could have proved something I know to be true from having existed during that time, aware, unlike you apparently.
Click to expand...


Then its time you look at the link and have a grownup explain it to you.....you'll see that the US economy certainly didn't go south before the Democrats took

complete control Congress....2/3 of the power in Washington, DC....as you claim....


What you 'know' to be true is only the bullshit you get from the likes of Olbermann, Maddow, the Ed Show, Bill Mahar, Chris Matthews, etc..... In other words, its left wing propaganda and spin.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top