WHO GETS The Bush Tax Cuts?

Even if your facts are true, and I'm not in the slightest assuming they are, you are being obtuse about it. As has been said, the average person in the bottom 20% didn't pay any federal taxes at all. For the next 20%, you are completely out of touch to downplay almost $500 tax relief.

Why? Have you ever tried to make sure you have an extra $500 laying around in April, when you only make about $30k? I have. Usually, that $500 might as well have been $5000.

Second, you pretend that $4000+ saved by the top 1% amounts to a damned thing. You constantly refer to the smallest slice of wealthiest people, never realizing that they are a REALLY SMALL SLICE. The total amount of government revenue lost by the government because of that $500 or so saved by the bottom 40% DWARFS the amount the government makes off that 4k from the 1% fatcats.

So, the Dems you so love are coming in with no intention of cutting anything, and with a lot of pork lined up for the pals back home. Who do they want to screw, do you think, 1% of the population? Hell no, there's no money in that. They'll want my $500, and they'll get it.

BakerStreet

I did not say the tax cuts for the low to average income taxpayer were not important to them. They have helped keep spending by these groups up. The issue is that the VAST majority of the Tax Cuts will go to the top 20% who average over $200,000 per year. That is the group that DOES NOT NEED the added money from tax cuts and where that vast majority of the lost tax revenue goes. That is also the group that will not alter their spending to any significant extent by resending their tax cuts.

That is why the Democrats should make the Tax Cuts for the 80% Permanent and END the tax cuts for the top 20% and apply the tax revenue from ending the tax cuts to the top 20% to balance the budget!
The data is as accurate as the Congressional Budget Office.

The data is as accurate as the Congressional Budget Office.

Which, if memory serves me correctly, I believe you have used them as a source before, and stated they were credible.

"That is the group that DOES NOT NEED the added money from tax cuts and where that vast majority of the lost tax revenue goes."

No, but you need it, and I need it. I need their wealth to be in the bank when I need a loan. I need their wealth invested in industries that offer employment for people like me. I need them buying lots of expensive property that generates local tax income to pay for the services I use.

You pretend they put it in a mattress and sleep on it. It's an ignorant and inexcusable perspective. You take that money, and dump it in the government who uses it to further penalize ME, not the wealthy. Beware Democrats Bearing Gifts

This sounds very familiar.  I believe I have heard this somewhere here before.

Col, you really need to stop telling everyone who needs what in this country.  All you talk about is they "don't need" a tax cut without anything to back it up. I see it didn't take long for the raise taxes crowd to swing into gear.

I need their wealth invested in industries that offer employment for people like me.

That's something I've wondered.

We get things going so that companies have more money, to expand and creat jobs...so we think. What is to ensure that they will do that, and not line their pockets?

"We get things going so that companies have more money, to expand and creat jobs...so we think. What is to ensure that they will do that, and not line their pockets?"

Again, you assume they keep the money in their "pockets". They don't. Greed is universal. No one is satisfied with what they have.

So, they invest the money. They expand their businesses. They put it in the bank to draw interest. They buy things made by me and you. Regardless that money is in the economy working for me and you.

The Col prefers to rob the economy of capital.

Again, you assume they keep the money in their "pockets". They don't. Greed is universal. No one is satisfied with what they have. So, they invest the money. They expand their businesses. They put it in the bank to draw interest. They buy things made by me and you. Regardless that money is in the economy working for me and you.

Sorry, I should've noted that it was a figure of speech.

Okay, gotcha.

As to the wealthy using the money from the Bush Tax Cuts to create new business and thus Jobs, first, companies are moving good paying jobs to other countries and creating jobs that pay far less in the U.S. If you believe by allowing the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts that will some how help the majority in America you are in dream land. Much of that tax cut to the top 20-% will just make the top 20% wealthier with NO benefit to anyone but themselves. The tax rates after rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will be the same rates that existed in the 1990’s which for the most part was the BEST economic period in a long time. Thus the OLD tax rates on the wealthy were NOT TOO HIGH!

The most important reason to rescind the tax cuts to the top 20% is to use that tax revenue to lower the deficit. That will do more then anything to help the economy of this country. The debt is a disaster that will take the money from the federal budget needed for Social Security and Medicare. If we do not reduce the interest by lowering the national debt, we will see some major tax increases to pay the Baby Boomer Social Security and Medicare benefits.

I believe the data used in this study to be accurate and trust the data from CBO.

"Jobs, first, companies are moving good paying jobs to other countries and creating jobs that pay far less in the U.S.

So we'd better raise wages and taxes here so they'll be less tempted to move to places with lower wages and less punitive taxes. Hrm, yep, that's a perspective.

"If you believe by allowing the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts that will some how help the majority in America you are in dream land. Much of that tax cut to the top 20-% will just make the top 20% wealthier with NO benefit to anyone but themselves. "

Ah, so they light their cigars with it? Could you try to make your catchphrases a little more empty? I bet you can't.

"The tax rates after rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will be the same rates that existed in the 1990’s which for the most part was the BEST economic period in a long time."

And the decline and fall of the 90's boom shows just how sustainable such an economy is when leeches are standing by to drain off the excess. The moment we have any sort of prosperity the greedy "fairness" cretins decide to throw on the brakes.

Can't have people getting too wealthy and creating all these jobs. No, can't have that. Better continually raise interest rates and start talking about 'responsibility' so people will be too frightened to venture their capital. Don't laud the boom and then vilify the people who created it.

"The most important reason to rescind the tax cuts to the top 20% is to use that tax revenue to lower the deficit. "

Yes, the way to deal with your spending out pacing your income is to demand that your neighbors pay for your malfeasance. Heck, while you're at it why not expand all those failed socialist programs at the same time so you can make matters worse.

To balance the budget will require BOTH more tax revenue and spending cuts. You will not balance the budget with JUST spending cuts given the demands for security and national defense. The imbalance to too big to resolve without BOTH spending Cuts and added tax revenue!

Many of The Bolger’s on JoeUser are just like Bush, you want to fight a war and provide for homeland defense and cut taxes. NEVER in our history have we fought a major war without increasing taxes to pay the added cost of the war prior to GWB. As Bush 41 said - Voodoo economics. I wonder where Bush learned his fiscal and economic management. I doubt that is what Harvard Grad School taught!

Oct. Budget Deficit Higher Than Last Yr.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer)
From Associated Press
November 13, 2006 2:52 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The federal government started out its new budget year with a slightly higher deficit than last year as revenues and spending for October both set records.

The Treasury Department reported that the deficit for October totaled $49.3 billion, up 4.3 percent from the $47.3 billion imbalance recorded a year ago.

The budget deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, dropped to a four-year low of $248.2 billion. However, the deficit for the current 2007 budget year is expected to resume rising.

For October, the $49.3 billion deficit was below the all-time October high of $70 billion set in 2003. The government has run a deficit every year in October going back to 1954.

Revenues for October were up 12.2 percent from last year to a record $167.7 billion, surpassing the old October record of $157 billion set in 2001.

Spending for October was up 10.3 percent from a year ago to a record for October of $217 billion.

Congress returned for a lame-duck session Monday faced with the need to pass a stopgap funding measure since lawmakers adjourned for the campaign having passed only two of the 13 appropriations bills needed to fund the government in the new budget year.

Democrats, who will control the House and Senate next year based on last week's election results, would like to complete the rest of the spending bills this year, rather than having them on their early agenda in 2007.

President Bush said his first-term tax cuts, by helping to get the country out of the 2001 recession, had played a major role in the 2006 improvement of the deficit.

But critics contend that the added economic stimulus made up only a small part of the revenues lost by the tax cuts. The new Congress will face the question of whether to extend Bush's tax cuts, which currently are scheduled to end in 2010.

The Bush administration is estimating that the deficit for the current budget year will total $339.2 billion, a sharp 36.7 percent increase from 2006. However, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a smaller increase which will push this year's deficit to $286 billion.

Bush has presided over the three largest deficits in U.S. history in dollar terms including the all-time high of $413 billion in 2004.

---

"President Bush said his first-term tax cuts, by helping to get the country out of the 2001 recession, had played a major role in the 2006 improvement of the deficit."

It's interesting that almost everyone admits that the Clinton era ended in a recession but you, Col. Yet you spend all your time touting how much better the world was under your ideal. In reality, your ideal gutted one of the most prosperous periods in recent economic history.

This guy shows his stupidity in the first 11 line:

Oct. Budget Deficit Higher Than Last Yr. By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer) From Associated Press November 13, 2006 2:52 PM EST WASHINGTON - The federal government started out its new budget year with a slightly higher deficit than last year as revenues and spending for October both set records. The Treasury Department reported that the deficit for October totaled $49.3 billion, up 4.3 percent from the $47.3 billion imbalance recorded a year ago. The budget deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, dropped to a four-year low of $248.2 billion. However, the deficit for the current 2007 budget year is expected to resume rising.

How can you start out with a higher deficit and turn around and say it's "expected" to rise? If it hasn't risen yet then how can you start out with a higher one? In other words, they "don't" know whether it's going to go up or not.

BakerStreet

Bush has taken the national debt from 5.7 Trillion to 8.7 Trillion and well on its way to 10 Trillion. The debt for 2006 is 450 Billion not subtracting the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. That means we spent 1/2 Trillion more then we taxed. The AP report I posted said that 2007 is expected to show a HIGHER deficit then the $450 Billion in 2006. The interest on the debt was $406 Billion last year heading to $500 Billion per year. How in the Hell can anyone call that kind of fiscal policy sane? When Bush leaves office we will have 4 Trillion more on the National debt and be Hundreds of billions out of balance. Every year the tax cuts to the wealthy increase adding to the budget problems. What happened to a BALANCED BUDGET?

Why do you keep changing the subject?

You say that everything was peachy back when we were taxing the wealthy, then you post material that cites the "recession of 2001". You claim the wealth of the rich doesn't benefit anyone but themselves, but ignore arguments to the contrary. You whine, whine, whine about "Bush's" deficit, when you know full well that the majority of the spending comes from a corrupt congress.

Well, congratulations, you've invited even bigger spenders in. Now you claim you only want to tax the rich to pay for it. None of your arguments add up. We have a lot more debt, a lot more expenditures, but somehow we're only going to tax as much as Clinton did.

You're perspective is dishonest, and it represents dishonest people. You are the shill of people who sell off our government to lobbyists and stuff their freezer with cash. They steal, and you demand we send them more. Tell you what, you want to pay for it, YOU send more.

Stop trying to draft other people's money for your war.

As I've challenged before, did YOU refuse to accept the rebate from the tax cuts? Do YOU refuse to collect your pension or any other benefits in order to do your part?

Until YOU are willing to give up your part of the federal pie, you can shut your hypocritical piehole!!!

Bakerstreet

At the end of the Clinton Administration, the national debt was 5.7Trillion and we had a balanced annual budget. Bush turned the 5.7 Trillion to 8.7 Trillion debt and turned a BALANCED annual budget to a DEFICIT of almost 1/2 Trillion per year.

We need to choose what we want to spend, which is some areas may be more (i.e. border security) and then have a tax structure that EQUALS the amount we have agreed to SPEND! What Bush and the GOP have done is SPEND with NO REGUARD as to WHERE the added money is to come from to pay for the increased spending.

Bakerstreet

The vast majority of the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts went to the middle income taxpayer who spent the added money and thus helped the economy. I want to make those tax cuts permanent to help BOTH the economy and the people WHO NEED the help.
The tax cuts that were phased in starting in 2002 went to the wealthy. Those do not have the same impact on spending and we simply can not afford the lost revenue given our increased spending!

The problem is, Col, you aren't in charge. I'm not sure things would be so bad if you were. The people who are in charge aren't republicans or democrats, they are politicians, liars, cheats, thieves. They won't be satisfied with the top 1% or even the top 20%.

"The tax cuts that were phased in starting in 2002 went to the wealthy. Those do not have the same impact on spending and we simply can not afford the lost revenue given our increased spending!"

Again, you persist with the idea that the rich sleep in mattresses stuffed with cash. Every spare dollar "held" by the wealthy is either in the bank, invested, spent in the economy, going to local economies in the form of property tax, etc. Given the choice, I believe money better serves the economy when it is IN the economy, not trapped in your socialist mess.

Bakerstreet

I understand that the wealthier a person is the less of each added dollar they get will be spent. That is called the Marginal Propensity to Consume in economic terms. Thus tax cuts to the lower income groups will result in a MUCH higher % of that added money to be returned to the economy as increased spending which creates demand and which is responsible for about 70% of economic growth per economists. When wealthy people receive added money from things like a tax cut they will invest it in either existing business or create new business which does help the economy but not to the same extend as increased and sustained DEMAND. You are telling me about the old supply side theory which Reagan used in 1981 and was to balance the federal budget because by the sustained economic growth that his tax cuts were to create. We did see SOME growth from his tax cuts and we did from the Bush tax cuts but not enough to balance the budget. Reagan added $3 Trillion to the debt in 8 years and Bush has added $3 Trillion to the debt in only 6 years using the very same economic plan-- Voodoo economics according to Bush 41.

You NEVER answer the question, if we agree to spend X in any given year we must have taxes equal to X.

You NEVER acknowledge that in the past WARS have been paid for by increased taxes not by lowering taxes putting the cost of the war into the National debt.

You NEVER acknowledge that the increased debt is driving UP the annual interest taxpayers must pay and that increased interest will NEVER end until we stop adding to the debt and REPAY what we have amassed to date.

"Thus tax cuts to the lower income groups will result in a MUCH higher % of that added money to be returned to the economy as increased spending which creates demand and which is responsible for about 70% of economic growth per economists."

Nope. Most of that money will be spent at low-end retail, on products normally not made in the US. It shoots out of their community like prunes through a goose and ends up either back in the government pocket through corporate taxes, or right back into the same business to sell the same stuff to the same person.

That's better than just giving it to the government, sure, but it isn't creating new wealth other than the fraction of a percent profit the cut-rate retailer makes on each purchase. This has created a lot of jobs as they build new wal-marts, but the problems inherent to the system also rear their heads.

"When wealthy people receive added money from things like a tax cut they will invest it in either existing business or create new business which does help the economy but not to the same extend as increased and sustained DEMAND."

Again, wrong. You yourself have a problem with our money going overseas, but you'd rather poor people spend their money on Chinese goods at Wal Mart than wealthy people investing in American businesses? Or buying expensive property that generates tax revenue here?

This populist thing doesn't ring true, col. You're talking in circles again. In the end you are just trying to excuse punishing us for the government spending more than it can afford. You're an advocate for thieves.

"You NEVER acknowledge that the increased debt is driving UP the annual interest taxpayers must pay and that increased interest will NEVER end until we stop adding to the debt and REPAY what we have amassed to date."

I acknowledge it almost every time. I think about 1/3 to 1/2 of the federal budget should simply disappear. Let the states deal with it where people can get at their representatives.

You never acknowledge the fact that you promote putting the people into federal office that are the most notorious over spenders and over taxers historically. You cry about deficits and then tell us to vote for people who stuff their freezer full of money. Come on.

Bakerstreet

You have not looked at what makes up the federal budget. Most of the budget can not be cut as you suggest. Things LIKE the $406 Billion we pay in interest on the national debt that Reagan and Bush 43 gave us. National Defense, Homeland Security, health expense, Veterans cost (which will be going up due to the Iraq war) and pensions make up the vast majority of the budget. These can not be cut for they are OBLIGATIONS we as a country have taken on. You are also wrong about the economic impact on low income tax cuts. These people spend most of their money on Housing, health care, insurance and food which are still produced in America. Clothing is most likely the one item most low and middle income Americans buy in quantity that are today produced in China because of our trade policies.

When we have balanced the Federal Budget and paid down the debt I will be happy to support tax cuts to the wealthy if we have a SURPLUS.