Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Cheney Says Bush Tax Cuts Increased Deficit

Posted by   + Show Post

yup, that's right ... Dick Cheney was interviewed and admitted
Bush Tax Cuts caused JOB LOSS
Bush Tax Cuts caused Dow to DROP
Bush Tax Cuts caused HIGH Unemployment
Bush Tax Cuts cause HUGE Deficit through 2013

The next time you hear a Republican say ending the Bush Tax Cuts is a tax increase on "job creators"

... remind them Bush Tax Cuts created HUGE Deficit through 2013

... remind them Bush/Cheney first 32 months of Bush Tax Cuts 2.6 Million Jobs LOST

... remind them Bush Tax Cuts increased unemployment by 49%

... remind them ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Top 1% for one year could have paid for the war

... remind them in 2010 the Republicans held Middle Class Tax Cuts Hostage in exchange for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Top 1%
(Thus making the Bush Tax Cuts the GOP Tax Cuts)

... remind them of Dick Cheney's words: "Bush Tax Cuts were 25% of the Deficit in 2003"

... ... hmmm ... what percent of the deficit are those tax cuts today?

by on Apr. 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Replies (31-40):
lga1965
by on Apr. 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM

 

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. tax revenue - government income due to taxationtax revenue - government income due to taxation    
government income, government revenue - income available to the government
internal revenue - government revenue from domestic sources (excluding customs)
Tax income due to taxation is REVENUE ( Income) If we do not pay taxes, the government's revenue/income decreases. If there are massive tax cuts. the Government's income decreases dramatically and the national debt rises. Therefore, Bush's Tax Cuts were bad for the economy. Makes sense,doesn't it?
asfriend
by on Apr. 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting lga1965:

 

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. tax revenue - government income due to taxationtax revenue - government income due to taxation    
government income, government revenue - income available to the government
internal revenue - government revenue from domestic sources (excluding customs)
Tax income due to taxation is REVENUE ( Income) If we do not pay taxes, the government's revenue/income decreases. If there are massive tax cuts. the Government's income decreases dramatically and the national debt rises. Therefore, Bush's Tax Cuts were bad for the economy. Makes sense,doesn't it?

You seriously don't belong in this thread.

He reduced tax rates. The reduced rates spurred investment. More investment meant more income, to be taxed, which even at the lower rates meant more income to the treasury.  Lower tax rates bring more income to the treasury, Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton to some extent did it. Works everytime it is tried.

Bush didn't lower taxes he lower tax rates. - This is so easy to look up and verify that it's ridiculous.

lga1965
by on Apr. 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM

 Tax rates lowered is the same as lowering taxes--same thing. Both result in less revenue for the Government... and that causes higher debt. Why don't you understand that?

Telling me I don't belong here boosts your ego ....but it is harsh and ridiculous.

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. tax revenue - government income due to taxationtax revenue - government income due to taxation    
government income, government revenue - income available to the government
internal revenue - government revenue from domestic sources (excluding customs)
Tax income due to taxation is REVENUE ( Income) If we do not pay taxes, the government's revenue/income decreases. If there are massive tax cuts. the Government's income decreases dramatically and the national debt rises. Therefore, Bush's Tax Cuts were bad for the economy. Makes sense,doesn't it?

You seriously don't belong in this thread.

He reduced tax rates. The reduced rates spurred investment. More investment meant more income, to be taxed, which even at the lower rates meant more income to the treasury.  Lower tax rates bring more income to the treasury, Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton to some extent did it. Works everytime it is tried.

Bush didn't lower taxes he lower tax rates. - This is so easy to look up and verify that it's ridiculous.

 

asfriend
by on Apr. 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM
2 moms liked this

It is harsh, but you have earned it.

Why not just look up tax revenues  for the years prior to the bush tax cuts until now, see if revenues went up or not. If revenues didn't go up - come back and post no in this year they were this and .................

Simple to show that I am wrong.

Quoting lga1965:

 Tax rates lowered is the same as lowering taxes--same thing. Both result in less revenue for the Government... and that causes higher debt. Why don't you understand that?

Telling me I don't belong here boosts your ego ....but it is harsh and ridiculous.

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. tax revenue - government income due to taxationtax revenue - government income due to taxation    
government income, government revenue - income available to the government
internal revenue - government revenue from domestic sources (excluding customs)
Tax income due to taxation is REVENUE ( Income) If we do not pay taxes, the government's revenue/income decreases. If there are massive tax cuts. the Government's income decreases dramatically and the national debt rises. Therefore, Bush's Tax Cuts were bad for the economy. Makes sense,doesn't it?

You seriously don't belong in this thread.

He reduced tax rates. The reduced rates spurred investment. More investment meant more income, to be taxed, which even at the lower rates meant more income to the treasury.  Lower tax rates bring more income to the treasury, Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton to some extent did it. Works everytime it is tried.

Bush didn't lower taxes he lower tax rates. - This is so easy to look up and verify that it's ridiculous.

 


lga1965
by on Apr. 30, 2012 at 2:19 PM
1 mom liked this

 and you think you have the right to say that "I earned it" ? HA. Most of your replies here are designed to make you feel brilliant and put others down. If that's how you feel good, by tearing other people down, then maybe you don't belong here. We are not here to "Win" or prove people wrong. We are here to discuss. Discuss and provide links with information. My self-worth does not depend on you or anyone at CM. I'm okay without "winning" , get it?

Bye....

Quoting asfriend:

It is harsh, but you have earned it.

Why not just look up tax revenues  for the years prior to the bush tax cuts until now, see if revenues went up or not. If revenues didn't go up - come back and post no in this year they were this and .................

Simple to show that I am wrong.

Quoting lga1965:

 Tax rates lowered is the same as lowering taxes--same thing. Both result in less revenue for the Government... and that causes higher debt. Why don't you understand that?

Telling me I don't belong here boosts your ego ....but it is harsh and ridiculous.

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. tax revenue - government income due to taxationtax revenue - government income due to taxation    
government income, government revenue - income available to the government
internal revenue - government revenue from domestic sources (excluding customs)
Tax income due to taxation is REVENUE ( Income) If we do not pay taxes, the government's revenue/income decreases. If there are massive tax cuts. the Government's income decreases dramatically and the national debt rises. Therefore, Bush's Tax Cuts were bad for the economy. Makes sense,doesn't it?

You seriously don't belong in this thread.

He reduced tax rates.The reduced rates spurred investment. More investment meant more income, to be taxed, which even at the lower rates meant more income to the treasury.  Lower tax rates bring more income to the treasury, Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton to some extent did it. Works everytime it is tried.

Bush didn't lower taxes he lower tax rates. - This is so easy to look up and verify that it's ridiculous.

 

 

 

Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Apr. 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

When you go to war, you don't cut taxes . You have to pay for "extras" that didn't exist before the war

It's like buying a BMW, then quitting your 5 figure job to work at Wendy's because you would like free Frostys

It's stupid


Quoting 29again:

One more time, I am going to ask:

How does a tax cut increase the deficit, or cost money?  How does asking less taxes cost money?  How????  I've been waiting for over 2 years for an answer, and I have yet to receive one.  I'm sure that at least one you ladies are smart enough to explain this to me so that I can understand this. 

LMAO- EXACTLY!

Borrowing money to help cover costs (deficicts) AND increasing the debt in the process-

im23vaughn
by Bronze Member on Apr. 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM
2 moms liked this

I found this & thought it was very interesting. I haven't researched the numbers yet, but thought I would share it anyways.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/199120-why-did-tax-revenue-increase-after-bush-reagan-jfk-tax-cuts-2.html

Did you take out inflation from you analysis?

Inflation was very high in the early 1980s and made it seem like revenues were growing.

Lets take a look at Revenues after the Reagan tax cuts adjusted for inflation:

Year - Revenues 2005$
1981 1251 <- Tax cut
1982 1203
1983 1114
1984 1174
1985 1250

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

You see the same effect when you compare revenues to GDP:

Year - Revenues - % GDP
1981 599.3 19.2%
1982 617.8 19.0%
1983 600.6 17.0%
1984 666.5 17.0%
1985 734.1 17.4%
1986 769.2 17.2%
1987 854.4 18.0%
1988 909.3 17.8%

Source data: CBO.gov, BEA.gov

Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts are even more pronounced in their damage to revenues:

Year - Revenues 2005$
2000 2310
2001 2215
2002 2028
2003 1901
2004 1949
2005 2153

In real terms, revenues were down for 5 years with the Bush tax cuts.

And if you want the *real* effect on the Bush tax cuts, look at income tax revenues adjusted for inflation:

Year - Inc. tax revenues 2005$
2000 1133.1
2001 1096.9
2002 931.7
2003 843.5
2004 836.0
2005 927.2
2006 1011.0
2007 1095.4
2008 1056.1

After the Bush tax cuts, income tax revenues *never* even kept up with inflation, much less population and economic growth.

Here you can see the effect of the cuts in revenue relative to the economy:

Year - Revenues - % GDP
2000 2025.2 20.4%
2001 1991.2 19.4%
2002 1853.2 17.4%
2003 1782.3 16.0%
2004 1880.1 15.8%
2005 2153.9 17.0%
2006 2406.7 18.0%
2007 2567.7 18.2%
2008 2523.6 17.5%

So the answer to your question is that your assumption is wrong. Revenues didn't really increase except for inflation and GDP growth.

For fun, compare what happened with Reagan and Bush and with Clinton, who raised taxes in 1993:

Year - Rev 2005$
1992 1467
1993 1511
1994 1617
1995 1691
1996 1775
1997 1889
1998 2040
1999 2136
2000 2310

You don't see inflation adjusted revenues decreasing in any year, much less several. Rather you see strong increases every single year.

And look at them compared to GDP:

Year - Revenues - % GDP
1992 1091.3 17.2%
1993 1154.4 17.3%
1994 1258.6 17.8%
1995 1351.8 18.2%
1996 1453.1 18.5%
1997 1579.3 19.0%
1998 1721.8 19.6%
1999 1827.5 19.5%
2000 2025.2 20.4%

Notice how revenues after the Clinton tax increase grew compared to GDP, whereas with Reagan and Bush, it fell after the tax cuts.

Spending has an effect too, but your thread is a good illustration of why the deficits and debt exploded under Reagan and Bush, but Clinton left office with a surplus budget.

Your question didn't surprise this liberal mind at all, but merely shows you, like many who would ask this question or make this claim, don't understand the effect of inflation, population growth and economic growth on revenues. Either that, or they do understand it, and nefariously make these kind of claims to fool and deceive the ignorant.

So thank you for the opportunity to provide this education.

NancSBRN
by Bronze Member on Apr. 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM
1 mom liked this

Great post above.

I think most American familes know when we have to cut a budget we also have to cut spending the sad truth his when the Bush tax cuts happend we had two wars that where costing us more then we could afford and then had no way of paying for that added expesne.

And in the case of the logic of the one poster if everything that is good or goes wrong is because of the Previous President then I guess the mess we have now could all be blamed on Bush or so you said. 

I saw things beginning to go south in Bush's second term after he had used up the surplus and balanced budget the Clinton adminstration left us.  Do I blame everything on our previous President NO I think we have been on this slope for a long time as our Government has sold out more and more to big business and deregulations that has slowly unraveled for many decades not just in the last 12-20 years.


cjsbmom
by Bronze Member on Apr. 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM
1 mom liked this

I was going to make a similar crack about the new heart. You beat me to it. LOL

Quoting lga1965:

 WOW!!!  I agree! I have always thought that the tax cuts were a disaster. But now CHENEY is saying this?

 ::::thud::::::

I can't believe that he is actually telling the truth! This is the first time I have ever agreed with Cheney. Wow....

Maybe his new heart is so efficient that it is flooding his brain with richly oxygenated blood and allowing him to think clearly and honestly for the first time in years. But now he has to persuade other wealthy Republicans and stingy Conservatives that raising taxes will HELP America to lower the debt we are now seeing . It makes sense.


29again
by Gold Member on Apr. 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Still not an answer. Your example is nonsense.

How does a tax cut cost me money?  Oh, here, I have it figured out.  The government is assuming that all the money that I work for is theirs, and they plan a budget that already spends what I make.  So, when there is a tax cut, they have to get that money from someone else.  So, it really ISN'T my money, according to them.  They just kindly allow me to keep a little bit of it.  Which is why we need to institute the Fair Tax.  That way everyone pays.  Everyone. 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

When you go to war, you don't cut taxes . You have to pay for "extras" that didn't exist before the war

It's like buying a BMW, then quitting your 5 figure job to work at Wendy's because you would like free Frostys

It's stupid


Quoting 29again:

One more time, I am going to ask:

How does a tax cut increase the deficit, or cost money?  How does asking less taxes cost money?  How????  I've been waiting for over 2 years for an answer, and I have yet to receive one.  I'm sure that at least one you ladies are smart enough to explain this to me so that I can understand this. 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN