• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

I guess what bothers me more in Georgia is a group legally, and in constant contact with the Ga Sec. of State, went around and got 85,000 citizens of Georgia to register. These people all believe they've done what's necessary to vote in a few days. But for some reason, as of last writing, 50,000 of those registrations haven't been processed. And no one worried about election integrity seems to care. That's 50,000 people unable to vote, potentially, and a yawn, but right wingers can't do too much to solve the problem of a handful of impersonation fraud cases. Something seems off, and it looks to me like the problem might be the 50,000 registrations were gathered by a liberal leaning group targeting poor people and minorities...

And, sure, we could reform the registration process - I'd prefer a national system, constantly updated, that automatically registers every citizen when they turn 18 and then uses IRS or USPS or other data to reassign them to the correct voting district when they move. It's the dumbest election system anyone could imagine. But that's not really the point - we have what we have.



6% of 13 million is 780,000 illegal voters, and yet we've had GOP officials in many states and U.S. Attorneys under Bush desperately trying to find any evidence that voting by illegals is a big problem and they've failed. There have been almost no prosecutions of this kind of illegal activity. So you'll have to understand why I find those numbers impossible to believe. And if they're true, the "solution" to this problem that's been implemented - Photo ID - will only stop around 25% of this fraud.



I just don't see any evidence that there is a big problem with registered voters. There really IS a big incentive for republicans to find and remove illegals from the rolls of registered voters. I guess I can't think of a reason why people with massive incentives to do so have failed every time, except that there aren't many 'illegals' registered to vote.

I think something needs to be done if we are to have fair elections. The question is what? Is there a happy medium that might not please either side but yet correct most of the problems? Solve the problem or problems we have? It like the illegal immigration problem in total. One side loves the cheap labor but hates the idea that these illegal aliens might someday become citizens and vote. The other side loves the idea these illegal aliens might become citizens someday and vote while they hate the cheap labor aspect. Both sides love using the illegal alien problem as a campaign issue and see it beneficial to them that it never gets solved as it fires up their respective bases.

As for your solution on registration, section 4 of Article I leave the time, places and manner of elections to the states. Hence 50 different election laws with each states election laws written to benefit which ever party is in power. It is like gerrymandering, one party will holler about Texas gerrymandering but will in turn gerrymander the heck out of New York. The other party will holler about gerrymandering in Illinois but gerrymander the heck out of North Carolina. Neither party wants to outlaw gerrymandering only because if they are in power, they can use it for an election advantage.

I think in short, the fear of something, in this case voter fraud is worth more than solving the issue. But neither side would be willing to give up an advantage if they perceive they have one to solve any issue.
 
That is a lie, The Bush tax cuts weren't fully implemented until July 2003 and the Treasury shows you are absolutely wrong. You also ignore the Clinton recession as well as 911. The cry after 9/11 was that 'we will never forget" You have forgotten. The Bush tax cuts didn't cost the Treasury a dime and led to job creation and more govt. revenue. Like all liberals you assume economic activity would have been the same without those cuts. That is what liberals always do, ignore activity and human behavior.?

No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...

Bush Tax Cuts.jpg

...which, BTW, was the forecast of the revenue cuts by the Heritage Foundation. Of course, you are once again exhibiting your selective memory because you are forgetting that actual design of the tax plan was to reduce the surplus....

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

From that aforementioned Heritage Report (because I know you won't look)

"...It initially estimated that the Bush plan would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.313 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2010. Extending the time frame of that analysis to the current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast period--FY 2002 to FY 2011--increases the reduction in tax revenue to $1.554 trillion...."

If you remember, that little plan by the Heritage Foundation was to not only eliminate the surplus, but it would, and I quote from within "....Effectively pay off the federal debt. The Bush plan would decrease federal debt to the lowest possible level at which it could be redeemed--$818 billion in FY 2011 (see Chart 4).25 From FY 2001 to FY 2011, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 30.5 percent to just 4.7 percent under the plan..." Of course, we all know the debt actually climbed to $10T under Bush, making this the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of the world (though to Hertiage's credit, they did not factor in the expense of an elective war and two elective occupations)..... but the Heritage Foundation was spot on their prediction of how much the tax plan would cost the treasury.

Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything positive for our economy. Feel free to post a credible economic study supporting your position. In the interim, here is a bunch that do not...

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2011/07/26/7170139-charts-seriously-its-the-bush-tax-cuts?lite
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2004/09/19useconomics-gale
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-bush-tax-cuts-reduce-federal-tax-revenue/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/25/the_12_trillion_misunderstanding_114896.html

Happy reading!
 
Last edited:
No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...

Obviously the "tax cuts pay for themselves" crowd has no interest in objective evidence, so I'm afraid it won't help much. Fact is the tax cuts were intended to reduce revenues, and did.

But what amazes me is how long it took for revenues to reach pre-cut levels even in the midst of the largest debt bubble in 80 years. The "growth" was nothing but a massive bubble that soon popped and dumped us into the Great Recession, millions of lost jobs, etc. and we still couldn't run a balanced budget at the peak of that bubble. So the structural deficit - some sustainable level of revenues versus expenses - was massive - $hundreds of billions - even at the peak, when actual deficits depressed by the bubble economy were reasonable.
 
I guess what bothers me more in Georgia is a group legally, and in constant contact with the Ga Sec. of State, went around and got 85,000 citizens of Georgia to register. These people all believe they've done what's necessary to vote in a few days. But for some reason, as of last writing, 50,000 of those registrations haven't been processed. And no one worried about election integrity seems to care. That's 50,000 people unable to vote, potentially, and a yawn, but right wingers can't do too much to solve the problem of a handful of impersonation fraud cases. Something seems off, and it looks to me like the problem might be the 50,000 registrations were gathered by a liberal leaning group targeting poor people and minorities...

And, sure, we could reform the registration process - I'd prefer a national system, constantly updated, that automatically registers every citizen when they turn 18 and then uses IRS or USPS or other data to reassign them to the correct voting district when they move. It's the dumbest election system anyone could imagine. But that's not really the point - we have what we have.



6% of 13 million is 780,000 illegal voters, and yet we've had GOP officials in many states and U.S. Attorneys under Bush desperately trying to find any evidence that voting by illegals is a big problem and they've failed. There have been almost no prosecutions of this kind of illegal activity. So you'll have to understand why I find those numbers impossible to believe. And if they're true, the "solution" to this problem that's been implemented - Photo ID - will only stop around 25% of this fraud.



I just don't see any evidence that there is a big problem with registered voters. There really IS a big incentive for republicans to find and remove illegals from the rolls of registered voters. I guess I can't think of a reason why people with massive incentives to do so have failed every time, except that there aren't many 'illegals' registered to vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/28/voter_id_myth_crashes_124470.html
 
No, the lie is the "reality" in which you live.... you have seen this chart before and you will see it again. The Bush cuts were substantially implemented in 2001, and impacted tax immediately. The 9/11 recession was pretty much a non-event, as year to year GDP growth was hardly impeded (see chart below). Only tax receipts fell because of the tax (see chart below), taking 6 years to achieve pre-tax cut revenues. They cost the treasury 1.3T over 10 years (see chart below)...

View attachment 67175198

...which, BTW, was the forecast of the revenue cuts by the Heritage Foundation. Of course, you are once again exhibiting your selective memory because you are forgetting that actual design of the tax plan was to reduce the surplus....

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

From that aforementioned Heritage Report (because I know you won't look)

"...It initially estimated that the Bush plan would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.313 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2010. Extending the time frame of that analysis to the current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast period--FY 2002 to FY 2011--increases the reduction in tax revenue to $1.554 trillion...."

If you remember, that little plan by the Heritage Foundation was to not only eliminate the surplus, but it would, and I quote from within "....Effectively pay off the federal debt. The Bush plan would decrease federal debt to the lowest possible level at which it could be redeemed--$818 billion in FY 2011 (see Chart 4).25 From FY 2001 to FY 2011, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 30.5 percent to just 4.7 percent under the plan..." Of course, we all know the debt actually climbed to $10T under Bush, making this the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of the world (though to Hertiage's credit, they did not factor in the expense of an elective war and two elective occupations)..... but the Heritage Foundation was spot on their prediction of how much the tax plan would cost the treasury.

Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything positive for our economy. Feel free to post a credible economic study supporting your position. In the interim, here is a bunch that do not...

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/
Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
Charts: Seriously, it's the Bush tax cuts | MSNBC
The Cost of Tax Cuts | Brookings Institution
Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Reduce Federal Tax Revenue ?
The $12 Trillion Misunderstanding | RealClearPolitics

Happy reading!

You can try to re-write history until hell freezes over but the reality is the rebate was given in 2001 and the tax cuts fully implemented in 2003. That is reality

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You people just don't get it and I am tired of fighting for even you to keep more of your own money. You don't want that tax cut, send it back and stop whining about paying for others keeping more of what they earn

Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall. I certainly understand how people like you always spend more money in the economy when you are paying more to the Federal govt. and have less in your paychecks. Brilliant economic policy on your part

From the Treasury Department Data

Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: October 30, 2014 - Next Release Date November 25, 2014

Line * 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1 Current receipts 3118.2 2967 3042.8 3265.1 3663.5 4001.8 4202.4 4041.8
2 Current tax receipts 2163.7 2001.8 2049.6 2211.9 2551.1 2812.9 2958.4 2777
3 Personal current taxes 1234.8 1050.3 1000.9 1046 1208.5 1352.1 1487.9 1435.2


40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.
 
Last edited:
Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall.

Not quite - tax cuts do stimulate economic activity, but other factors are far more important. In the Bush years, obviously the low interest rates of the Fed, and the debt and housing bubble affected economic "growth" far more than the tax cuts. We had a gigantic, unsustainable bubble, and it burst, as it must, causing the largest recession since the Great Depression. Taxes didn't cause the bubble or the burst.

40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.

You're not interested in any real analysis, so I won't bother, but I did read something in those links that is well said, by a conservative.

There’s nothing wrong per se with tax cuts that reduce tax revenue. Quite honestly, less money in the hands of the Federal Government is generally a good thing. However, a policy of tax cuts that result in lower tax revenue combined with massive increases in entitlement and other forms of spending is economic stupidity. Until Republicans recognize that, they’re not really much better than the Democrats on this issue.

That's really the whole point. We can argue about whether tax cuts are good or bad, but if we want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. Not a hard concept, so I'm not sure why we can't both agree on this. We won't agree on the level of spending and therefore of taxes, but it's shocking, really, that we disagree about whether politicians can have their cake and eat it too, and increase spending like we did during the Bush era AND cut taxes.

You can oppose spending every day and twice on Sunday, but the fact is we Bush increased spending on Med. Part D, and the wars, and the related WOT, and on domestic non-defense programs AND cut taxes. Blame it all on democrats if you want. Doesn't matter. Spending more for whatever reason requires higher taxes or higher deficits.
 
You can try to re-write history until hell freezes over but the reality is the rebate was given in 2001 and the tax cuts fully implemented in 2003. That is reality

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You people just don't get it and I am tired of fighting for even you to keep more of your own money. You don't want that tax cut, send it back and stop whining about paying for others keeping more of what they earn

Economic activity doesn't seem to be a factor in the liberal world and what partisans who want bigger govt. always do is take the economic activity as if it would continue without the tax cuts and multiply that by the same rates as before thus the so called shortfall. I certainly understand how people like you always spend more money in the economy when you are paying more to the Federal govt. and have less in your paychecks. Brilliant economic policy on your part


[/B]
40% increase in tax revenue after the July 2003 tax cuts and in a severe recession year.

You really don't know when to quit do you? I don't know what makes me think of Miranda rights in this instance... probably the "...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

While I appreciate supporting facts, I really appreciated your post of the Wiki article on the Bush tax cuts which you presented as evidence supporting your case (Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It, along with the link to the 2001 tax act does far more to support my case then yours (if fact, I am not certain how it supports any of your case except to point out that the Bush tax cuts were FULLY implemented in 2003, as opposed to my statement that they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001.... guess what? We are both right ... see below)

Let me post the guts of your Wiki article (that you presented as evidence)... so you can see the repeated acknowledgments that the cuts took between $1.3T and $1.8T from the US coffers:


Debate over effect of cuts From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

There was and is considerable controversy over who benefited from the tax cuts and whether or not they have been effective in spurring sufficient growth. Supporters of the proposal and proponents of lower taxes say that the tax cuts increased the pace of economic recovery and job creation. Further, proponents of the cuts asserted that lowering taxes on all citizens, including the rich, would benefit all and would actually increase receipts from the wealthiest Americans as their tax rates would decline without resort to tax shelters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less;[3] while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5]

Statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[6] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[7][8][9][10] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[11] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their year 2000 dollar peak until 2006, though reasons for regaining previous levels are not given (see chart at right).[12]
The U.S. federal effective corporate tax rate, 1947-2011

Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[13] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[14] and the Tax Policy Center[15] have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."[16]

Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[17][18][19][20][21] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[22] Supporters argued that the tax brackets were still more progressive than the brackets from 1986 until 1992, with higher marginal rates on the upper class, and lower marginal rates on the middle class than established by either the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.[23]
U.S. Federal budget deficit as % GDP assuming continuation of certain policies 2011-2021

Economist Simon Johnson wrote in 2010: "The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue—at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies—and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare. Other parts of government spending can be frozen or even slashed, but it just won’t make that much difference. That means older Americans are going to get squeezed, while our ability to defend ourselves goes into decline. Just because there’s a bipartisan consensus on an idea, such as tax cuts, doesn’t mean it makes sense. Today’s tax cutters have set us up for tomorrow’s fiscal crisis and real damage to U.S. national security."[24]

A Washington Post article takes a different view, saying that data showed the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.[25]

The New York Times stated in an editorial that the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest

Don't you just love it when people hang themselves? It makes your job so much easier...

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
JasperL;1063926556]Not quite - tax cuts do stimulate economic activity, but other factors are far more important. In the Bush years, obviously the low interest rates of the Fed, and the debt and housing bubble affected economic "growth" far more than the tax cuts. We had a gigantic, unsustainable bubble, and it burst, as it must, causing the largest recession since the Great Depression. Taxes didn't cause the bubble or the burst.

Spoken like a true big govt. liberal. Do you have any idea what the four components of GDP are. Tell me how taxes aren't important considering those components and how they contribute to GDP? QE has led to the lowest interest rates in history during the Obama term and yet economic growth is basically stagnant. People are hording money, businesses are buying back stock, 20 million Americans are unemployed/under employed/discouraged. You don't seem to understand how our economy works and you continue to ignore that liberals project that economic growth will remain the same even without the tax cuts but you cannot explain what you do when you have more money in your paycheck which is what happened during the Reagan and Bush term



You're not interested in any real analysis, so I won't bother, but I did read something in those links that is well said, by a conservative.

I am interested in results, not liberal speculation and brainwashing. You don't want more money in your paycheck, tough, Reagan and Bush gave it to you, send it back



That's really the whole point. We can argue about whether tax cuts are good or bad, but if we want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. Not a hard concept, so I'm not sure why we can't both agree on this. We won't agree on the level of spending and therefore of taxes, but it's shocking, really, that we disagree about whether politicians can have their cake and eat it too, and increase spending like we did during the Bush era AND cut taxes.

Why would you want to send more money to the Govt. if it won't cut spending? The two are not the same, let people keep more of what they earn and they need less of that so called Govt. help. We currently have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. Take SS and Medicare OFF BUDGET NOW and then fund about a 1.5 trillion dollar govt. and watch the economic growth. You seem to want to fund the govt. based upon what they spend not what they should spend. I prefer people keeping more of their own money and starving the govt.

You can oppose spending every day and twice on Sunday, but the fact is we Bush increased spending on Med. Part D, and the wars, and the related WOT, and on domestic non-defense programs AND cut taxes. Blame it all on democrats if you want. Doesn't matter. Spending more for whatever reason requires higher taxes or higher deficits.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, Bush increased spending but never had a trillion dollar deficit and never had Debt exceeding 100% of GDP. Medicare Part D ended up costing half of what the Democrats wanted. We can argue whether or not it was successful but the reality is it did reduces Medicare expenses. Defense is the responsibility of the Federal govt. and Obama increased defense spending. Supplementals are part of the yearly deficits. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt, the war in Iraq was winding down, and yet has added over 7 trillion to the debt If you truly care about the debt then you should focus on what Obama has done, and not what Bush did because Bush added 4.9 trillion in 8 years, Obama over 7 trillion in 6. Doesn't appear you have a problem with that 7 trillion dollars
 
You really don't know when to quit do you? I don't know what makes me think of Miranda rights in this instance... probably the "...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

While I appreciate supporting facts, I really appreciated your post of the Wiki article on the Bush tax cuts which you presented as evidence supporting your case (Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It, along with the link to the 2001 tax act does far more to support my case then yours (if fact, I am not certain how it supports any of your case except to point out that the Bush tax cuts were FULLY implemented in 2003, as opposed to my statement that they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001.... guess what? We are both right ... see below)

Let me post the guts of your Wiki article (that you presented as evidence)... so you can see the repeated acknowledgments that the cuts took between $1.3T and $1.8T from the US coffers:


Debate over effect of cuts From Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was and is considerable controversy over who benefited from the tax cuts and whether or not they have been effective in spurring sufficient growth. Supporters of the proposal and proponents of lower taxes say that the tax cuts increased the pace of economic recovery and job creation. Further, proponents of the cuts asserted that lowering taxes on all citizens, including the rich, would benefit all and would actually increase receipts from the wealthiest Americans as their tax rates would decline without resort to tax shelters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less;[3] while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5]

Statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[6] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[7][8][9][10] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[11] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their year 2000 dollar peak until 2006, though reasons for regaining previous levels are not given (see chart at right).[12]
The U.S. federal effective corporate tax rate, 1947-2011

Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[13] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[14] and the Tax Policy Center[15] have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."[16]

Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[17][18][19][20][21] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[22] Supporters argued that the tax brackets were still more progressive than the brackets from 1986 until 1992, with higher marginal rates on the upper class, and lower marginal rates on the middle class than established by either the Tax Reform Act of 1986 or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.[23]
U.S. Federal budget deficit as % GDP assuming continuation of certain policies 2011-2021

Economist Simon Johnson wrote in 2010: "The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue—at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies—and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare. Other parts of government spending can be frozen or even slashed, but it just won’t make that much difference. That means older Americans are going to get squeezed, while our ability to defend ourselves goes into decline. Just because there’s a bipartisan consensus on an idea, such as tax cuts, doesn’t mean it makes sense. Today’s tax cutters have set us up for tomorrow’s fiscal crisis and real damage to U.S. national security."[24]

A Washington Post article takes a different view, saying that data showed the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.[25]

The New York Times stated in an editorial that the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest

Don't you just love it when people hang themselves? It makes your job so much easier...

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The point of the Wiki argument was to prove to you that Tax cuts were not fully implemented until July 2003, not 2001 and that is reality. The rest of the Wiki article is simply speculation and projections. CBO has never been accurate and uses Congressional information to make their projections. No one can prove that the economic activity would have been the same without the tax cuts yet that is what you and others do. Please tell me how tax cuts that grew revenue 40% after the tax cuts could have added 1.6 trillion to the debt. What data are they using??

Please stop with the BS and send your extra money back to the govt. not selling here at all

You don't seem to have any idea how accurate CBO is in their projections and where they get their assumptions. Find out and get back to me.
 
First of all I realize that this thread is about the TX voter ID law and I keep getting off track by others wanting to debate taxes and the benefits/costs to the economy/govt. Would be happy to participate in another thread on this issue, just let me know where and when. Please however post the data that supports a contention that tax cuts cost the treasury revenue and where that data came from. Thanks in advance.
 
Spoken like a true big govt. liberal. Do you have any idea what the four components of GDP are. Tell me how taxes aren't important considering those components and how they contribute to GDP?

Yes, there are 3 ways to calculate GDP. I assume you are referring to the expenditure approach - C + I + G + (Ex - Im). If you cut taxes, it's a shift from G to C, and vice versa. The argument is shifting spending from G to taxpayers creates enough additional growth that tax cuts self finance, but you can't find an economist anywhere who will go on record saying that unless he's paid to say it (i.e. is a hack). Not one economist who served in any administration ever, Reagan, Bush, and Bush II included, claims the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. Everyone that I've seen is on record saying the notion is absurd, and those men SUPPORTED THE TAX CUTS and want smaller government.

QE has led to the lowest interest rates in history during the Obama term and yet economic growth is basically stagnant. People are hording money, businesses are buying back stock, 20 million Americans are unemployed/under employed/discouraged. You don't seem to understand how our economy works and you continue to ignore that liberals project that economic growth will remain the same even without the tax cuts but you cannot explain what you do when you have more money in your paycheck which is what happened during the Reagan and Bush term

We're in the aftermath of the biggest debt bubble since the Great Depression. I'm not sure what your point is besides that.

Why would you want to send more money to the Govt. if it won't cut spending? The two are not the same, let people keep more of what they earn and they need less of that so called Govt. help. We currently have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. Take SS and Medicare OFF BUDGET NOW and then fund about a 1.5 trillion dollar govt. and watch the economic growth. You seem to want to fund the govt. based upon what they spend not what they should spend. I prefer people keeping more of their own money and starving the govt.

All I can say is if conservatives want to eliminate SS and Medicare, do it, and then we'll talk about tax cuts. It's easy to SAY you want to cut spending, but somehow, GOPers get their tax cuts and the spending cuts don't happen... That's the entire point. If the GOP takes the Senate this year, and the WH in 2016, and proceeds to cut the government in half, good for them - now tax cuts make sense. Just don't ask me to believe in a free lunch, or magic self financing tax cuts. That's not a position of serious people.

Yes, Bush increased spending but never had a trillion dollar deficit and never had Debt exceeding 100% of GDP. Medicare Part D ended up costing half of what the Democrats wanted. We can argue whether or not it was successful but the reality is it did reduces Medicare expenses. Defense is the responsibility of the Federal govt. and Obama increased defense spending. Supplementals are part of the yearly deficits. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt, the war in Iraq was winding down, and yet has added over 7 trillion to the debt If you truly care about the debt then you should focus on what Obama has done, and not what Bush did because Bush added 4.9 trillion in 8 years, Obama over 7 trillion in 6. Doesn't appear you have a problem with that 7 trillion dollars

Sure, I have a problem and the deficit is coming down and we'll need higher taxes eventually for all kinds of reasons - entitlements, and more. That's especially true if we continue our role as world police man and continue our indefinite interference in the ME and elsewhere.
 
Gerrmandering has been going on for decades, were you this upset when it worked to the Democrat advantage?? Gerrymandering is just another way of saying that people are robots and vote for the party vs the individual. Some may do but IMO most do not. You definitely have a left wing bias and the question is why? Name for me any liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, do what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and went away? Just one!!
No, there are as many right wing robots who would vote for their party if Beelzebub were running as there are left wingers who would vote for their party if Mephistopheles were running. That's why gerrymandering works.
 
No, there are as many right wing robots who would vote for their party if Beelzebub were running as there are left wingers who would vote for their party if Mephistopheles were running. That's why gerrymandering works.

One of the problems is the number of dead left wing voters who could have an influence on the election. Any election is difficult to call given the voter fraud going on in the country. Truth Serum: Is there voter fraud in America? | On Air Videos | Fox News
 
Yes, there are 3 ways to calculate GDP. I assume you are referring to the expenditure approach - C + I + G + (Ex - Im). If you cut taxes, it's a shift from G to C, and vice versa. The argument is shifting spending from G to taxpayers creates enough additional growth that tax cuts self finance, but you can't find an economist anywhere who will go on record saying that unless he's paid to say it (i.e. is a hack). Not one economist who served in any administration ever, Reagan, Bush, and Bush II included, claims the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. Everyone that I've seen is on record saying the notion is absurd, and those men SUPPORTED THE TAX CUTS and want smaller government.



We're in the aftermath of the biggest debt bubble since the Great Depression. I'm not sure what your point is besides that.



All I can say is if conservatives want to eliminate SS and Medicare, do it, and then we'll talk about tax cuts. It's easy to SAY you want to cut spending, but somehow, GOPers get their tax cuts and the spending cuts don't happen... That's the entire point. If the GOP takes the Senate this year, and the WH in 2016, and proceeds to cut the government in half, good for them - now tax cuts make sense. Just don't ask me to believe in a free lunch, or magic self financing tax cuts. That's not a position of serious people.



Sure, I have a problem and the deficit is coming down and we'll need higher taxes eventually for all kinds of reasons - entitlements, and more. That's especially true if we continue our role as world police man and continue our indefinite interference in the ME and elsewhere.

Didn't think you had a clue and this post shows it. Consumer spending is the largest component of GDP by far consisting of over 60% of GDP which is why consumers having more money in their pockets drives economic activity, creates demand, and it is demand that leads to employment. 17 million jobs were created by the Reagan economy. Can you prove that those jobs would have been created with the three years of tax cuts, by the way you never did acknowledge that Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and those tax cuts were for ALL income earners.

My point has always been is that liberalism believes govt is the answer and that philosophy led to the election of the most incompetent person ever to hold the office and that has led to the worst recovery in history of this country. Apparently he understands our economy just about as well as you

I love how liberals like you tout a declining deficit yet the deficit is still setting records. When you run trillion dollar deficits four years in a row don't you think that deficits should be coming down? What exactly did Obama do to lower the deficits? Did he cut spending? Did he put more people to work? Did he implement a pro growth economic policy? Or did the sequester bring down the deficit?

AS for higher taxes why don' you and the rest of the big govt. liberals pony up more of your own money sending in a bigger contribution that required to fund that govt. you want? Myself I prefer to keep more of what I earn and not send it to the Govt. to waste on social programs you and others seem to want.
 
I seriously doubt that is true, but, by all means, let's institute voter ID for eligible voters and put this one to bed for good.
Seriously doubt that what is true? There were a lot of charges laid in that video.
 
Seriously doubt that what is true? There were a lot of charges laid in that video.

Seriously doubt that there is enough voter fraud to make a difference, as there is little evidence to support the idea that there is. What was in the video was a litany of examples and generalizations made from those examples.

Nevertheless, even if there is just a perception of voter fraud, then by all means let's initiate voter ID. The few who don't have ID and who vote would benefit, and the perception would at least be more difficult to promote.
 
Seriously doubt that what is true? There were a lot of charges laid in that video.

Sure, there is "voter fraud" but what some of have been saying is the 'solutions' to 'voter fraud' (mainly photo ID) wouldn't address even one of those charges. They were isolated incidents of corrupt people, entirely as far as I can tell initiated by elected or appointed officials, doing corrupt things. That will never go away. What the right wing does is conflate them all together into one big basket of "voter fraud" then propose a solution that at best attacks the tiniest sliver of cases, but justified by any kind of election irregularity or crime. That segment was a perfect example of that.
 
Seriously doubt that there is enough voter fraud to make a difference, as there is little evidence to support the idea that there is. What was in the video was a litany of examples and generalizations made from those examples.

Nevertheless, even if there is just a perception of voter fraud, then by all means let's initiate voter ID. The few who don't have ID and who vote would benefit, and the perception would at least be more difficult to promote.
It seems that voter ID would be just a start, but a good start.
 
Sure, there is "voter fraud" but what some of have been saying is the 'solutions' to 'voter fraud' (mainly photo ID) wouldn't address even one of those charges. They were isolated incidents of corrupt people, entirely as far as I can tell initiated by elected or appointed officials, doing corrupt things. That will never go away. What the right wing does is conflate them all together into one big basket of "voter fraud" then propose a solution that at best attacks the tiniest sliver of cases, but justified by any kind of election irregularity or crime. That segment was a perfect example of that.
Actually you don't know that there is a 'tiny sliver of cases'. We only know about the times people were caught, and ofcourse any challenger will not have the cooporation of the winners.

Surely a country as technologically advanced as the United States can come up with a better system than what there is now. Even the Iraqis, with no previous experience in elections, came up with a better idea than what's happening in the US today.

Perhaps purple ink on the index finger is the answer.
 
The point of the Wiki argument was to prove to you that Tax cuts were not fully implemented until July 2003, not 2001 and that is reality. The rest of the Wiki article is simply speculation and projections. CBO has never been accurate and uses Congressional information to make their projections. No one can prove that the economic activity would have been the same without the tax cuts yet that is what you and others do. Please tell me how tax cuts that grew revenue 40% after the tax cuts could have added 1.6 trillion to the debt. What data are they using??

Please stop with the BS and send your extra money back to the govt. not selling here at all



You don't seem to have any idea how accurate CBO is in their projections and where they get their assumptions. Find out and get back to me.

You introduced the wiki article as competent, evidential matter. It either is or it isn't. Once introduced, every thing else in that document is fair game in debate and evidence for whatever position in supports. It just so happens to substantially supports the assertions I was making: the Bush Tax cuts cost the federal coffers between $1.2 and $1.8T in revenue over 10 years. The Wiki article has numerous cites and links to this.... including, of course, the Heritage Foundation, which forecast that. If this had been a real debate, that move would have cost you the verdict.

While the Bush tax cuts were not FULLY implemented until 2003, they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001, including the lowering of the lowest rate (which everyone pays) from 15 to 10%; implementation of tax rebates for everyone; beginning of a step down in all rates and expansion of the child tax credit. The 2001 tax cut had substantial impact on the coffers, as evidenced by the fact that income tax revenues fell by 20% from 2000 to 2003.

BTW.... I have no idea where you come up with this 40% number.... Individual income tax numbers fell just under 20% from $1.0B to $800M in 2003. They then returned to pre-tax cut levels 6 years later in 2006 and then climbed to $1.15B in 2007. In essence, these taxes went up 15% in 7 years..... Meanwhile, GDP grew (each and every year, BTW) from $9.8T to $13.8T, nearly 40%. The chart below shows that tax revenues fell even when GDP rose. Why? Tax cuts....

Bush Tax Cuts.jpg


Again, I have produced a ton of evidence supporting my position, you have produced nothing (although you have entered some facts that you lack command in the understand of).... again, you continue to say the tax cuts grew revenue, but ALL of the evidence that far states they had NOTHING to do with revenue growth. Again, there is NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything (except cost the government money). Feel free to produce some evidence (other than the same old tired impressions.... impressions are often wrong and almost always partially wrong)

You are fundamentally arguing your impressions against overwhelming facts, studies and expert opinions that refute your impressions, yet you refuse to consider or learn. Call us when you can back up your statements.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy;1063936096]You introduced the wiki article as competent, evidential matter. It either is or it isn't. Once introduced, every thing else in that document is fair game in debate and evidence for whatever position in supports. It just so happens to substantially supports the assertions I was making: the Bush Tax cuts cost the federal coffers between $1.2 and $1.8T in revenue over 10 years. The Wiki article has numerous cites and links to this.... including, of course, the Heritage Foundation, which forecast that. If this had been a real debate, that move would have cost you the verdict.

The purpose of posting the Wiki article was to give you the dates of the Bush tax cuts. You made the claim that they were in 2001 and that was part of them but not the complete package. That is the issue thus tax revenue did not fall as you indicated for 6 years following full implementation of the Bush tax cuts.

Your position posts op ed pieces. I gave you the Treasury data and even your chart shows tax revenue going up from 2004-2007. Do you even know how to read the numbers? Do you realize that Bush inherited a recession in March 2001 or do you blame Bush for that recession without even having an economic plan implemented?

I am waiting for you to provide the actual data and how it was calculated to show that the Bush tax cuts cost the Govt. money? You cannot take the economic activity that occurred after the tax cuts and assume they would have happened without those tax cuts but that is what liberals do, project when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Overwhelming studies never offer the data used to calculate the projections, why is that?
While the Bush tax cuts were not FULLY implemented until 2003, they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001, including the lowering of the lowest rate (which everyone pays) from 15 to 10%; implementation of tax rebates for everyone; beginning of a step down in all rates and expansion of the child tax credit. The 2001 tax cut had substantial impact on the coffers, as evidenced by the fact that income tax revenues fell by 20% from 2000 to 2003.

BTW.... I have no idea where you come up with this 40% number.... Individual income tax numbers fell just under 20% from $1.0B to $800M in 2003. They then returned to pre-tax cut levels 6 years later in 2006 and then climbed to $1.15B in 2007. In essence, these taxes went up 15% in 7 years..... Meanwhile, GDP grew (each and every year, BTW) from $9.8T to $13.8T, nearly 40%. The chart below shows that tax revenues fell even when GDP rose. Why? Tax cuts....

View attachment 67175346


Again, I have produced a ton of evidence supporting my position, you have produced nothing (although you have entered some facts that you lack command in the understand of).... again, you continue to say the tax cuts grew revenue, but ALL of the evidence that far states they had NOTHING to do with revenue growth. Again, there is NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything (except cost the government money). Feel free to produce some evidence (other than the same old tired impressions.... impressions are often wrong and almost always partially wrong)

You are fundamentally arguing your impressions against overwhelming facts, studies and expert opinions that refute your impressions, yet you refuse to consider or learn. Call us when you can back up your statements.

The purpose of posting the Wiki article was to give you the dates of the Bush tax cuts. You made the claim that they were in 2001 and that was part of them but not the complete package. That is the issue thus tax revenue did not fall as you indicated for 6 years following full implementation of the Bush tax cuts.

Your position posts op ed pieces. I gave you the Treasury data and even your chart shows tax revenue going up from 2004-2007. Do you even know how to read the numbers? Do you realize that Bush inherited a recession in March 2001 or do you blame Bush for that recession without even having an economic plan implemented?

I am waiting for you to provide the actual data and how it was calculated to show that the Bush tax cuts cost the Govt. money? You cannot take the economic activity that occurred after the tax cuts and assume they would have happened without those tax cuts but that is what liberals do, project when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Overwhelming studies never offer the data used to calculate the projections, why is that?
 
Back
Top Bottom