So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Conservative said:

Hope I am around when you come to the realization that you don't know it all.

Click to expand...

You won't be. Thankfully your generation is dying off soon so we can make the world a better place. The slave owners of the 19th century have died off. The Jim Crow boys of the 20th century have died off (Rob Byrd finally kicked the bucket). And your generation is next pops.

Johnny DooWop said:

Abe Lincoln, JFK and our Founding Fathers come to mind.

Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, you are right, Abe Lincoln who went to war to save the union never did anything proactive. Our Founders never did anything proactive except found a nation. JFK cut taxes and was a economic conservative but that was about all he did and I was a young JFK supporter.

Johnny DooWop said:

You won't be. Thankfully your generation is dying off soon so we can make the world a better place. The slave owners of the 19th century have died off. The Jim Crow boys of the 20th century have died off (Rob Byrd finally kicked the bucket). And your generation is next pops.

Click to expand...

LOL, aw, that liberal compassion, got to love it!

Johnny DooWop said:

This is from a textbook that is being used in several criminal justice programs around the U.S.

"Record shows that the use of military force is rarely successful at stopping terrorism over time, since it tends to drive existing groups even further underground, can lock a government into an unproductive tit-for-tat escalation with terrorist , and can increase international alienation against the United States. Dramatic cruise missile attacks, for example, can inflame public opinion in some third world countries (and even among some of our allies), affirming the belief that the United States takes too much unilateral action and has too much international sway. The ironic result can be an overall increase in political sympathy for the terrorist or their cause.

In practical terms moreover, the use of military force has become more difficult because of evolutions in the threat. Terrorist groups are increasingly amorphous, more likely to use evolving information technologies and to rely less upon traditional organizational structures, thus making it much harder to find targets to attack militarily. Sometimes perpertrators come together temporarily only for the purpose of attacking a target, as was the case in the first World Trade Center bombing.

Unfortunately however, military force is often used because it is the most immediate, demonstrable way to respond to an outrageous event. Law enforcement is the best way to build a foundation of homeland security and to develop international cooperation over time."

Terrorism: Research, Readings and Realities. Lynne L. Snowden, Bradley C. Whitsel. (2005)

Click to expand...

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

How many policemen do you think we will need to handle this criminal activity?

Conservative said:

LOL, yeah, you are right, Abe Lincoln who went to war to save the union never did anything proactive. Our Founders never did anything proactive except found a nation. JFK cut taxes and was a economic conservative but that was about all he did and I was a young JFK supporter.

Click to expand...

Your so terrible at reading comprehension its not even funny. You said liberals don't do anything proactive and I pointed out these liberals did do things proactive. You just proved my point by agreeing! What are you going to do now, try to tell me Abe, JFK, and the Founding Fathers were conservatives? Lol. I'm done with you. Don't respond to my post anymore.

JakeFromWI said:

A MUST READ. Don't even read the opinions. Look at the empirical facts. Look at the numbers and tell me Pelosi did all this....

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Here's a short paragraph to give you an idea what economist/professor/pulitzer prize winner David Cay Johnston concludes of the Bush tax cuts.

"The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable."

Obama's fault what?

Click to expand...

This really is an incredible stance to take. Bush saw a record number of quarters with job growth, unemployment in the mid 4s (considered full employment by economists), record quarters with GDP growth, increased tax revenues, and deficits less than a quarter of what Obama has been running. This was with 9/11, the tech bubble burst, two wars, and lasted up until Pelosi/Reid had run congress for almost a year.

Meanwhile, Obama/Reid/Pelosi have increased the debt by more in four years than Bush did in all eight. Obama's first year deficit dwarfed Bush's first 7 years of deficits. Unemployment is steady in the mid 9s, and stimulus hasn't done a thing to help. 2/3rds of the market recovery is the Fed Reserve buying up TARP and Obama is shutting down a record number of small banks each year.

I think it is a ridiculous premise that Bush had 8 great years which did nothing but set up for Obama's two terrible years. That is a very simplistic and false way of looking at this.

Johnny DooWop said:

Your so terrible at reading comprehension its not even funny. You said liberals don't do anything proactive and I pointed out these liberals did do things proactive. You just proved my point by agreeing! What are you going to do now, try to tell me Abe, JFK, and the Founding Fathers were conservatives? Lol. I'm done with you. Don't respond to my post anymore.

Click to expand...

You don't want me to respond, then stop posting. Define liberal for me so we are on the same page. Obviously I have a different definition than you. No way would I ever call Lincoln and our Founding Fathers liberals. JFK was a social liberal and an economic conservative. Today's liberals don't have the guts of either Lincoln or our Founding Fathers and on economic issues the guts of JFK.

Conservative said:

You don't want me to respond, then stop posting. Define liberal for me so we are on the same page. Obviously I have a different definition than you. No way would I ever call Lincoln and our Founding Fathers liberals. JFK was a social liberal and an economic conservative. Today's liberals don't have the guts of either Lincoln or our Founding Fathers and on economic issues the guts of JFK.

Click to expand...

liberalism-the uneasy feeling that somewhere, someplace someone is getting by without government help

Conservative said:

LOL, yeah, you are right, Abe Lincoln who went to war to save the union never did anything proactive. Our Founders never did anything proactive except found a nation. JFK cut taxes and was a economic conservative but that was about all he did and I was a young JFK supporter.

Click to expand...

Actually it was LBJ who signed the law, JFK was DEAD because he had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas 11/22/63. But it wasn't actually a tax cut, it was a restructuring of the tax code much of the legislation was meant to cut loopholes the tax code. Am I to assume that you think the top marginal tax rate should be 70%???

friday said:

This really is an incredible stance to take. Bush saw a record number of quarters with job growth, unemployment in the mid 4s (considered full employment by economists), record quarters with GDP growth, increased tax revenues, and deficits less than a quarter of what Obama has been running. This was with 9/11, the tech bubble burst, two wars, and lasted up until Pelosi/Reid had run congress for almost a year.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me, Bush had the worst track record on jobs. Check the actual numbers, they are not seasonally adjusted as you may have seen from other posters here at DP.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

pbrauer said:

Actually it was LBJ who signed the law, JFK was DEAD because he had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas 11/22/63. But it wasn't actually a tax cut, it was a restructuring of the tax code much of the legislation was meant to cut loopholes the tax code. Am I to assume that you think the top marginal tax rate should be 70%???

Click to expand...

no one should have a tax rate on any of his income above 25% and everyone should pay the same rate but in terms of 2010 dollars where did that 70% rate kick in?

friday said:

This really is an incredible stance to take. Bush saw a record number of quarters with job growth, unemployment in the mid 4s (considered full employment by economists), record quarters with GDP growth, increased tax revenues, and deficits less than a quarter of what Obama has been running. This was with 9/11, the tech bubble burst, two wars, and lasted up until Pelosi/Reid had run congress for almost a year.

Meanwhile, Obama/Reid/Pelosi have increased the debt by more in four years than Bush did in all eight. Obama's first year deficit dwarfed Bush's first 7 years of deficits. Unemployment is steady in the mid 9s, and stimulus hasn't done a thing to help. 2/3rds of the market recovery is the Fed Reserve buying up TARP and Obama is shutting down a record number of small banks each year.

I think it is a ridiculous premise that Bush had 8 great years which did nothing but set up for Obama's two terrible years. That is a very simplistic and false way of looking at this.

Click to expand...

Absolutely amazing that everyone that supports obama wants to compare Bush to Clinton! Clinton took over from GHW Bush a growing economy that he tried to destroy with the largest tax increase in history. His economic policy gave us a GOP Congress which took over in January 1995. That Congress gave us the Contract with American 60% of which Clinton signed. That Congress cut the Clinton tax increases in 1997 and most of the Clinton economic growth occurred with that Republican Congress. A question I ask those Clinton supporters, did Clinton sign budgets more or less than he proposed? Clinton was smart enough to move to adopting the GOP legislation and that led to the economic numbers Clinton supporters want to take credit for.

Now, Clinton left office in 2001 as the dot.com and tech bubble burst leaving the country in a recession which Bush inherited. Bush then had 9/11 so the first two years there was no job creation and poor economic growth. Bush however implemented a pro growth economic policy and cut tax rates for all taxpayers. That tax cut went into effect in July 2003. Following that tax cut there were 52 straight months of economic growth and 8.5 million jobs created. Bush was demonized by the media and Democrats which the idiot voters bought thus lost the Congress in November 2006. Democrats took over in January 2007 and immediately set out to take the WH. They didn't do a thing, stonewalled Bush's attempt to make the tax cuts permanent, refused to implement Fannie and Freddie controls and werein power when the recession started in December 2007. They then did an outstanding job helping create the financial crisis that hit in the Summer of 2008 which led to high unemployment and those 700k job losses they want to blame Bush for.

Bush went to the Congress with the TARP bailout program in the late summer and it was passed early October. The 700 billion TARP bailout was credited with saving the financial industry and Obama to this day takes credit for saving the financial industry when it was TARP that did it. Bush spent 350 billion of TARP and left the other 350 billion for Obama. Obama took office spent 150 billion more and started receiving payback from the major banks. instead of applying those payments to the deficit no one is sure what he did with the money so he blamed Bush for inheriting a 1.3 trillion deficit. His minions bought that bull**** which was an outright lie. Anyway then Obama took over GM/Chrysler, passed the 862 billion stimulus program and the rest is history, two trillion dollar deficits, 4 million added to the unemployment roles, higher unemployment on a month to month basis in 2010 than 2009, and weak economic growth. NBER says the recession ended in June 2009 so the question, where is the mess that Obama claims he inherited and where are the jobs. The idiots in the media and Obama supporters bought the Obama rhetoric but it looks like the majority in this country have woken up. We will see on Tuesday.

pbrauer said:

Actually it was LBJ who signed the law, JFK was DEAD because he had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas 11/22/63. But it wasn't actually a tax cut, it was a restructuring of the tax code much of the legislation was meant to cut loopholes the tax code. Am I to assume that you think the top marginal tax rate should be 70%???

Click to expand...

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

pbrauer said:

Actually it was LBJ who signed the law, JFK was DEAD because he had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas 11/22/63. But it wasn't actually a tax cut, it was a restructuring of the tax code much of the legislation was meant to cut loopholes the tax code. Am I to assume that you think the top marginal tax rate should be 70%???

Click to expand...

Wrong, tax cuts retroactive to January 1, 1963

YouTube - Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13

Unlike the New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came just as the United States' post-war prosperity was starting to fade, but before the coming decline was being felt by the middle and upper classes. President Kennedy proposed a tax cut lowering the top marginal rate by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964 (three months after Kennedy's assassination)

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pbrauer said:

Unlike the New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came just as the United States' post-war prosperity was starting to fade, but before the coming decline was being felt by the middle and upper classes. President Kennedy proposed a tax cut lowering the top marginal rate by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964 (three months after Kennedy's assassination)

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, they went into effect in 1964, my error and I apologize. His tax cuts however affected all income tax payers and reduced withholding for all. Like the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts those cuts increased govt. revenue by increasing jobs and consumer spending. revenue went up, jobs went up just like they did with Reagan and Bush

Conservative said:

Yes, you are right, they went into effect in 1964, my error and I apologize. His tax cuts however affected all income tax payers and reduced withholding for all. Like the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts those cuts increased govt. revenue by increasing jobs and consumer spending. revenue went up, jobs went up just like they did with Reagan and Bush

Click to expand...

The revenue increased because the new law eliminated loopholes in the code. Tax cuts don't increase revenue, they decrease it.

pbrauer said:

The revenue increased because the new law eliminated loopholes in the code. Tax cuts don't increase revenue, they decrease it.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, tax cuts do not decrease revenue. JFK didn't believe so and the result show differently. Of course in your world it is all about population growth.

pbrauer said:

The revenue increased because the new law eliminated loopholes in the code. Tax cuts don't increase revenue, they decrease it.

Click to expand...

You should take some time and learn the difference between margin and volume.

Johnny DooWop said:

This is from a textbook that is being used in several criminal justice programs around the U.S.

"Record shows that the use of military force is rarely successful at stopping terrorism over time, since it tends to drive existing groups even further underground, can lock a government into an unproductive tit-for-tat escalation with terrorist , and can increase international alienation against the United States. Dramatic cruise missile attacks, for example, can inflame public opinion in some third world countries (and even among some of our allies), affirming the belief that the United States takes too much unilateral action and has too much international sway. The ironic result can be an overall increase in political sympathy for the terrorist or their cause.

In practical terms moreover, the use of military force has become more difficult because of evolutions in the threat. Terrorist groups are increasingly amorphous, more likely to use evolving information technologies and to rely less upon traditional organizational structures, thus making it much harder to find targets to attack militarily. Sometimes perpertrators come together temporarily only for the purpose of attacking a target, as was the case in the first World Trade Center bombing.

Unfortunately however, military force is often used because it is the most immediate, demonstrable way to respond to an outrageous event. Law enforcement is the best way to build a foundation of homeland security and to develop international cooperation over time."

Terrorism: Research, Readings and Realities. Lynne L. Snowden, Bradley C. Whitsel. (2005)

Click to expand...

This quote is a bit off the mark with regard to Iraq\Saddam. We were dealing with an aggressor, first. As for dealing with aggressors, the methods of Neville Chamberlain have already proven to be ineffective.

Even Al Gore (in 1992 -- post Gulf War I) thought GHWB was a little too limp wristed in his handling of Saddam: YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

And let's not forget Saddam's 12 years of dodging UN sanctions and inspection teams. Toward the end of this time, Hans Blix lamented that what Saddam had disclosed could be just the "tip of the iceberg" as far as WMD's go.

Finally, David Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 2003, says that Saddam was simply biding his time until the UN went away. He says Iraq was "far more dangerous" before the US-led coalition invaded in 2003 than after.

YouTube vid: YouTube - David Kay - Iraq weapons inspector discusses WMD's

Samboni said:

This quote is a bit off the mark with regard to Iraq\Saddam. We were dealing with an aggressor, first. As for dealing with aggressors, the methods of Neville Chamberlain have already proven to be ineffective.

Even Al Gore (in 1992 -- post Gulf War I) thought GHWB was a little too limp wristed in his handling of Saddam: YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

And let's not forget Saddam's 12 years of dodging UN sanctions and inspection teams. Toward the end of this time, Hans Blix lamented that what Saddam had disclosed could be just the "tip of the iceberg" as far as WMD's go.

Finally, David Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 2003, says that Saddam was simply biding his time until the UN went away. He says Iraq was "far more dangerous" before the US-led coalition invaded in 2003 than after.

YouTube vid: YouTube - David Kay - Iraq weapons inspector discusses WMD's

Click to expand...

I agree. Don't listen to the textbook, you know liberals control the universities anyway. So what that there wasn't any WMDs or connections with Alqaeda, Saddam Hussein was a threat and he needed to be dealt with. Liberals want to say the war was a big mess and only made the country worse, but you know what? I sure feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that there are 600,000 dead Iraqi terrorist thanks to the work of our brave soldiers. Now we should hit Iran and North Korea before they hit us.

Johnny DooWop said:

I agree. Don't listen to the textbook, you know liberals control the universities anyway. So what that there wasn't any WMDs or connections with Alqaeda, Saddam Hussein was a threat and he needed to be dealt with. Liberals want to say the war was a big mess and only made the country worse, but you know what? I sure feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that there are 600,000 dead Iraqi terrorist thanks to the work of our brave soldiers. Now we should hit Iran and North Korea before they hit us.

Click to expand...

So you didn't listen to David Kay's testimony with regard to Saddam? What about 374 members of Congress, 3 US presidents and dozens of foreign leaders?

As far as your claim that we should "hit Iran and North Korea before they hit us," what's your justification for that?

Samboni said:

This quote is a bit off the mark with regard to Iraq\Saddam. We were dealing with an aggressor, first. As for dealing with aggressors, the methods of Neville Chamberlain have already proven to be ineffective.

Even Al Gore (in 1992 -- post Gulf War I) thought GHWB was a little too limp wristed in his handling of Saddam: YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

And let's not forget Saddam's 12 years of dodging UN sanctions and inspection teams. Toward the end of this time, Hans Blix lamented that what Saddam had disclosed could be just the "tip of the iceberg" as far as WMD's go.

Finally, David Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 2003, says that Saddam was simply biding his time until the UN went away. He says Iraq was "far more dangerous" before the US-led coalition invaded in 2003 than after.

YouTube vid: YouTube - David Kay - Iraq weapons inspector discusses WMD's

Click to expand...

Saddam was not actively agressive in 2003. And Kay has said other things, like he was wrong and that Saddam was mostly trying to bluff Iran into thinking he was a tiger when he wasn't.

Boo Radley said:

Saddam was not actively agressive in 2003. And Kay has said other things, like he was wrong and that Saddam was mostly trying to bluff Iran into thinking he was a tiger when he wasn't.

Click to expand...

You mean the David Kay that made these headlines

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam"

The Today Show

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)
Complete interview

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs." It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for. There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Kay also said despite no evidence of weapons stockpiles, Iraqi documents, physical evidence and interviews with Iraqi scientists revealed that Iraq was engaged in weapons programs prohibited by U.N. resolutions

Conservative said:

You mean the David Kay that made these headlines

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam"

The Today Show

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)
Complete interview

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs." It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for. There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Kay also said despite no evidence of weapons stockpiles, Iraqi documents, physical evidence and interviews with Iraqi scientists revealed that Iraq was engaged in weapons programs prohibited by U.N. resolutions

Click to expand...

No. That's Kay's personal opinion. I try to focus on fact over opinion:

Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs - CNN

He said at the time that he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US expert slams WMD 'delusions'

Here's his lede:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Iraq, Iran and how the Neocons failed (Part I) | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Kay's expertise is not in political judgments. And it wasn't Kay who use the intel inappropriately. That was the Bush administration.

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq - washingtonpost.com

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

Pentagon report condemns misleading Iraq intelligence | World news | guardian.co.uk

These allegations are supported by an annex to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP, if connected to an "Iraqi intelligence cell" also headed by Douglas Feith which is described in the annex, sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In one instance, in response to a cautious CIA report, "Iraq and al-Qa'eda: A Murky Relationship", the annex relates that "one of the individuals working for the [intelligence cell led by Feith] stated that the June [2002] report, '...should be read for content only - and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored.'"[5]

Office of Special Plans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia