Let the Bush Tax Cuts Expire - A Chart for Deficit Hawks (Representatives, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies.
Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
"According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.""
And they got their data from those lefties at the CBO.
Please try debunking the data.
Nah, the Heritage Foundation did a much better job than I could. Your lefty wingnuts don't believe in dynamic scoring as if tax policy has no influence on behavior. LOL.
This is from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies.
Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
Here is a shocker- our debt problem is due to SPENDING, not revenues. You can see from the link that government revenues have increased progressively over time. The problem? Government spending has far outpaced revenues, despite increased revenues. Give the feds more revenue and they will just blow it, as they have in the past.
The left can never utter these terrible words from thier lips - CUT SPENDING.
The Bush tax "cuts" were financed with borrowed money (read: deficit spending). I have seen estimates of a total cost of two to three trillion dollars by the time the money is repaid.
Looks to me more like a huge Bush vote-buying scheme, paid for by the same people he bribed.
Here is a shocker- our debt problem is due to SPENDING, not revenues. You can see from the link that government revenues have increased progressively over time. The problem? Government spending has far outpaced revenues, despite increased revenues. Give the feds more revenue and they will just blow it, as they have in the past.
The left can never utter these terrible words from thier lips - CUT SPENDING.
I would agree with you on two accounts.
1- Liberals do not like lip service.
2- I can see a lot of garbage out.
If you want to talk about spending, and deficit, make sure you show both in your chart (and account it as a percentage of GDP). For example:
I don't know about you but I see a pronounced separation of Federal government spending and revenue starting sometime around 1970 and continuing through 1998, and before taking a nose dive right around the first Bush tax cuts.
Now, you seem to disagree the premise of massive deficits due to wars and tax policies during Bush Jr era. Could you just explain elements that led to amassing of over $5T in deficit during the eight years. What were we spending so massively on that we weren't in 1990s?
We cannot tax our way to a balanced budget. The problem is government overspending, plain and simple. We can, however, tax our way to a permanent economic depression.
If the Federal government took 100% of every man, woman and child's income, they STILL would spend it all, borrow twice as much more, and then start looking at how they could steal our retirement savings and other assets. Giving them more tax dollars is like giving an alcoholic more hard liquor, in the hopes they will be satisfied.
And the OP is incorrect in saying that "Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years." A corrected version would be that "The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and additional government spending in excess of revenues, explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years."
A tax cut is not the same thing as the government spending money, and it does not "cost" the government money whenever a tax rate is not at the historical maximum. If a mugger holds me up, takes the $50 I have in my pocketbook, but throws two quarters and a dime back in my face, I have not "cost" the mugger 60 cents.
Progressives/Liberals seem to think that every penny Americans earn belongs to the federal government, but it helps to remember that our Founding Fathers believed, and based the entire Country, on the opposite idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
