The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving: Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
thomas wheat
Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
SOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite
President George W. Bush is welcomed to Omaha, Nebraska, on February
28, 2001, during a five-state tour to promote his budget agenda and
tax cuts.
By Michael Linden, Michael Ettlinger | June 7, 2011
PrintEmailText-size: A A A Share: Ten years ago today, the first
round of Bush tax cuts became law. But what if they hadn’t? What would
our fiscal situation look like if history had been different in just
one respect: if we’d never implemented President George W. Bush’s
eponymous tax policies? The short answer is that the debate over
federal debt levels would be entirely different. In that alternate
world, total debt as a share of GDP would be under 50 percent this year
—instead of pushing 70 percent—and it would be expected to stay under
60 percent for the rest of the decade. (see chart) That’s well below
the levels causing such great consternation in Washington.
Bear in mind that President Bush inherited perhaps the strongest
federal balance sheet in postwar history. There were record-high
surpluses, debt was at around 30 percent of GDP and falling, and the
Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal government
would be debt free by 2009.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2727/entire-report.pdf
The country was in great fiscal shape to deal with any crises or
emergencies coming down the road, and it was even ready to deal with
the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
But rather than follow President Bill Clinton’s successful lead,
President Bush handed out gigantic tax cuts, with people at the top of
the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. Those “supply-side” tax
cuts
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
were a complete failure as economic policy, and now, instead of being
debt free and well prepared to care for an aging population, our debt-
to-GDP ratio is almost 70 percent. If those tax cuts are extended—
instead of being allowed to expire on schedule at the end of 2012—it
will approach 100 percent by 2021.
Of course, other factors contributed to the federal budget’s
deterioration: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; the
subsequent recession; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; President
Bush’s domestic spending programs; and the onset of the Great
Recession at the end of 2007, which led to massively reduced tax
collections as incomes plummeted.
But even with all of that, when one adds back the foregone revenue
from the Bush tax cuts
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
to the actual revenue collections over the past 10 years, the debt
picture suddenly becomes markedly better. That additional revenue
would have meant lower deficits in each year and therefore lower
overall debt. And lower debt means lower interest payments on that
debt, further reducing deficits. In the “no Bush tax cuts” alternate
universe, our debt-to-GDP ratio would be less than 50 percent this
year even after all the other fiscal shocks of the past 10 years.
Similarly, in a future without the Bush tax cuts, the national debt
would be under control. In the Congressional Budget Office’s official
baseline, the debt-to-GDP ratio rises by only 3 percentage points from
2012 to 2021 despite the retirement of the baby boomers.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf
In large part, that’s because the CBO baseline assumes the full
expiration of the tax cuts. And if instead of starting from almost 75
percent of GDP, we were starting from just 55 percent—which is where
we’d be in 2012 if the Bush tax cuts had never happened—debt would
stay below 60 percent for the remainder of the decade. There is no
magic level above which the debt level becomes dangerous. But few, if
any, consider 60 percent of GDP in debt as a significant risk to the
country.
To some extent, there’s nothing we can do about the disastrous fiscal
impact of the Bush tax cuts now. We’re stuck with the debt built up
during the past 10 years, and we’re stuck with the interest payments
on that debt. But we can make choices about where we go from here.
We know that the next few decades are going to be difficult ones for
the federal budget. As the population ages, it will cost more to
ensure a safe and secure retirement for America’s senior citizens.
So can we afford to continue a tax regime that’s already weakened our
ability to meet those needs? If all the Bush tax cuts are extended,
debt will rise from about 70 percent of GDP this year to just less
than 100 percent of GDP by 2021. Debt will reach 93 percent of GDP by
2021 if the bonus tax cuts on income of more than $250,000 are allowed
to expire but the rest remain. If we allow all the Bush tax cuts to
expire after 2012 as scheduled, debt will be around 80 percent by
2021.*
There’s no undoing the fiscal damage from the Bush tax cuts. But we
can learn from the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them.
Ten years after the first round of Bush tax cuts were signed into law,
we know with certainty that they were a huge mistake. Without them,
the country would have been in much stronger shape to weather all the
fiscal storms of the past 10 years and much better prepared for those
of the next 10.
*All three scenarios assume that the alternative minimum tax is
indexed to inflation.
Michael Linden is Director of Tax and Budget Policy and Michael
Ettlinger is Vice President for Economic Policy at American Progress.
thomaswheat1975
CB
Congress spending more than they TAKE from their subjects.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:50:40 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
<thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving
>Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
Can you sustain a lifestyle on credit cards?
Can you just print money out of thin air as Bernake thinks he can with
quantitative easing?
Don't you think government should live within a budget? No, of course
you don't, you think government should raise taxes so it can continue
to spend like they always did, never sacrificing its self.
Felix Reynaldo
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:i6h6v6dfvnlm04li7...@4ax.com...
>
> Don't you think government should live within a budget? No, of course
> you don't, you think government should raise taxes so it can continue
> to spend like they always did, never sacrificing its self.
Since you purport to be so smart, perhaps you can detail how the Bush
administration planned to pay for two wars (which have thus far cost us
$1T -- $800B in Iraq, $200B in Afghanistan) while cutting taxes.
CB
I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
Sinse Dims had the majority NO budget has been produced or followed!
This past election Dims lost majority in the House and still no
budget.
You should smarten up like me and eccept the fact that Obama's
President now, not Bush.
You should also eccept that this economic was created by Progressives
like Oboobuh.
http://cagle.com/working/110126/beeler.jpg
In one ear, out the other on the recommended cuts to spending
CB
Keynesian economics 'is' at work by Oboobuh duh Marxist in sheep's
clothing.
Fabian/Kensyan coat of arms, a wolf in sheeps clothing
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5061156284_476ecafd07_m.jpg
The whole Fabian stain window
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/FabianWindow-1.jpg
Felix Reynaldo
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>
> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%. The
GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
blame the Democrats.
I don't think you're very smart. In fact the dog manure lying in front of
your home is a lot smarter.
CB
<FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>news:n8r6v6toll6q6s2an...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
>> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
>
>The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
>and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
surplus' and balanced budgets!
The
>GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
>blame the Democrats.
<sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
>
>I don't think you're very smart. In fact the dog manure lying in front of
>your home is a lot smarter.
Right into the gutter
I be smart enough to know your character would reveal you as a low
life eventully and it has.
Felix Reynaldo
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>>The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
>>and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
>
> Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> surplus' and balanced budgets!
If that were true, why did the country go down the toilet when the GOP
controlled all three branches of government? National debt was nearly
doubled from $5.8T to $10.8T, unemployment spiked from 4% to over 7%.
The answer is that whenever the voters trust the GOP with control of all
three branches of government, the GOP creates a disaster.
The country gave the GOP that level of trust throughout the 1920s and we all
know what the GOP did with that trust. It took eight years for the
Democrats to turn it around. But the American voter has never had much of a
memory and gave the GOP that level of trust again in 2001 and once more the
Democrats have their work cut out for them.
CB
http://brual.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/national-debt-gdphalfsize.gif?w=517&h=317
To bad Oboobuh isn't reflected in this economic graph, chump
Sid9
"Felix Reynaldo" <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:it006f$3ge$1...@dont-email.me...
Republicans cannot face up to the damage they've done to our country.
Now Republicans work hard to cause the Obama administration to fail.
At this point they have trapped themselves into a corner from which they
cannot escape
Lisa Lisa
wrote:
You ain't kidding. Any country that cuts taxes during a war is led by
shit-for-brains leaders.
Lisa
CB
Is that any way to describe your President?
Wal-mart Heirs: Obama tax cut funds rightwing war chest
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/04/952568/-Wal-mart-Heirs:-Obama-tax-cut-funds-rightwing-war-chest
Tom Jigme Wheat
2001 when Bush assumed office, that the national debt would have been
paid off by 2009, if the Bill Clinton tax rate had remained in effect.
However, Clinton may have undercut his legacy by repealing the Glass
Steagal Banking Act in 1999. This allowed vertical integration between
commercial and investment banks, which under Bush's lax SEC oversight
encouraged massive speculation in collateralized debt obligations,
i.e, speculation in mortgage backed securities,.,credit default swaps,
or negative default options excercised by Goldman Sach's and others
that tanked the real estate market and the overall economy, in
november of 2007. The initial speculation drove up real estate prices,
but when investment banks like Goldman Sachs exercised their credit
default option, in the real estate derivatives market, stock prices
fell, homeowners suddenly owed more on their homes than they were
worth, and began defaulting in en masse, as companies began laying off
workers. The Bush tax cuts, and the repeal of Glass Steagal are what
tanked the economy.
thomaswheat1975
see this article: "Closing The Book and the Bush Legacy"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the
country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office,
the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood
poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without
health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved
on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often
substantially."
"Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after
2000, the median income-the income line around which half of
households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500
(measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office
after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline
of 4.2 per cent."
"Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office
in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in
poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans
had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since
1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over
8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase
occurred before the economic collapse of 2008...
Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction
under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George
H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an
increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined
from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6
million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per
cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon
Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the
launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined
as much over two presidential terms.
So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans
under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it
declined 4.2 per cent.
Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9
per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.
Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per
cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.
Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance,
remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under
Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture
from another angle.
Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the
younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent
during the elder Bush's single term.) "
But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the
younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should
compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts
are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why
did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families
on these core measures of economic well being?"
On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, thomas wheat <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving
> Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversar...
Thomas Jigme Wheat
Tax Cuts are extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
findings.
thomaswheat1975
U.S. Macro Outlook: Decision Time for Policy
By Mark Zandi
September 08, 2010
-excerpt-
"In all, the Bush tax cuts are worth about $300 billion per year, or
about 2% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office." see
CBO cost projeections of the Bush Tax Cuts on page 4
-excerpt-
"Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that making
the Bush tax cuts permanent generates only 35 cents in economic
activity for every dollar of revenue."
Budget Matters
6ShareThe Bush Tax Cuts: 10 Years Later, Still Expensive And
Ineffective
Written by Chris on June 06, 2011 in General Budget .
That's the conclusion of a new analysis by the Economic Policy
Institute (EPI), in a report released last week: "Tenth Anniversary of
the Bush-Era Tax Cuts: A decade later, the Bush tax cuts remain
expensive, ineffective, and unfair."
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-era_tax_cuts
According to EPI's website, their mission "is to achieve shared
prosperity by raising the economic status of low- and middle-income
Americans."
In the report EPI policy analysts Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack
detail ten findings:
1) The Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy – The
top 0.1% of wage earners (those making over $3 million) received an
average tax cut of roughly $520,000, more than 450 times larger than
the share received by an average middle-income family.
2) The cuts did little for low-income families – In 2010, tax filers
in the bottom 20% of wage earners (those making less than $20,000)
received only a 1% share of the tax cuts, and 75% of these low-income
families saw no reduction at all.
3) The tax cuts never trickled down – The Bush economic expansion had
the worst wage and salary growth and total compensation growth of any
postwar economic expansion, and workers fared progressively worse the
lower their wages were.
4) The Bush tax cuts were a poorly designed economic stimulus –
Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that making the
Bush tax cuts permanent generates only 35 cents in economic activity
for every dollar of revenue. Meanwhile, the targeted refundable tax
credits included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the
stimulus package) are estimated to generate much more per dollar of
uncollected taxes, ranging from $1.17 for the Making Work Pay Credit
to $1.38 for the Child Tax Credit.
5) The Bush tax cuts failed to create strong long-run growth – Between
the end of the 2001 recession and the peak of Bush-era expansion at
the end of 2007, the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic
expansion of the post WWII era.
6) The Bush tax cuts were so expensive that they added greatly to the
debt – From 2001 through 2010, the cuts added $2.6 trillion to the
public debt, nearly 50% of the total debt accrued during this period.
7) The Bush tax cuts were much more expensive than advertised – The
Bush tax cuts were designed using a few budget gimmicks to obscure
their true cost.
8) The Bush tax cuts continue to be expensive – The extension of the
Bush tax cuts as part of the December 2010 tax deal is projected to
decrease revenue by $423 billion over 2012-21, adding more than $5
trillion to the debt over the next decade. This represents about half
of the total projected deficits over this period.
9) The Bush tax cuts eliminated the most progressive federal tax:
taxes on large estates – The Bush tax cuts repealed the tax on large
estates for the first time since 1916, eliminating the only federal
tax on concentrated wealth.
10) A decade of Bush tax cuts are increasing interest spending today –
The U.S. government has spent more than $400 billion over the last
decade in higher interest payments to finance the debt created by the
Bush tax cuts.
These are just some of the facts presented in the EPI analysis which
call into question the economic benefits put forth by supporters of
permanently extending the Bush tax credits. At a time when the federal
deficit is in the forefront of everyone's thoughts, this information
needs to be considered as the nation debates ways to reduce the
deficit and stimulate economic recovery.
Tags : Bush Cuts Tax
Short url : http://bit.ly/lkdNjt
discussion archived on usenet here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/406ab9b3e27a1b24
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 12, 7:59 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It should be noted that the Congressional Budget Office predicted in
> 2001 whenBushassumed office, that the national debt would have been
> paid off by 2009, if the Bill Clintontaxrate had remained in effect.
> However, Clinton may have undercut his legacy by repealing the Glass
> Steagal Banking Act in 1999. This allowed vertical integration between
> commercial and investment banks, which underBush'slax SEC oversight
> encouraged massive speculation in collateralized debt obligations,
> i.e, speculation in mortgage backed securities,.,credit default swaps,
> or negative default options excercised by Goldman Sach's and others
> that tanked the real estate market and the overall economy, in
> november of 2007. The initial speculation drove up real estate prices,
> but when investment banks like Goldman Sachs exercised their credit
> default option, in the real estate derivatives market, stock prices
> fell, homeowners suddenly owed more on their homes than they were
> worth, and began defaulting in en masse, as companies began laying off
> workers. TheBushtaxcuts, and the repeal of Glass Steagal are what
> tanked the economy.
> thomaswheat1975
>
> see this article: "Closing The Book and theBushLegacy"
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-...
>
> "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the
> country lost ground duringBush'stwo terms. WhileBushwas in office,
> the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood
> poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without
> health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved
> on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often
> substantially."
>
> "Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after
> 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of
> households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500
> (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). WhenBushleft office
> after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline
> of 4.2 per cent."
>
> "Bush'srecord on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office
> in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in
> poverty. WhenBushleft office in 2008, the number of poor Americans
> had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since
> 1960.) UnderBush, the number of people in poverty increased by over
> 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase
> occurred before the economic collapse of 2008...
>
> Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction
> under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George
> H.W.Bushleft office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an
> increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined
> from 38 million when the elderBushleft office in 1992 to 31.6
> million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per
> cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon
> Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the
> launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined
> as much over two presidential terms.
>
> So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans
> under the past two presidents would look like this:
>
> Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. UnderBushit
> declined 4.2 per cent.
>
> Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9
> per cent; underBushit increased 26.1 per cent.
>
> Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per
> cent; underBushit increased by 21.4 per cent.
>
> Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance,
> remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); underBushit increased by 20.6 per cent.
> Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture
> from another angle.
>
> Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to bothBushthe
> younger andBushthe elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent
> during the elderBush'ssingle term.) "
>
> But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the
> youngerBushon income, poverty and access to health care should
> compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: iftaxcuts
> are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why
> did theBushyears yield such disastrous results for American families
> on these core measures of economic well being?"
>
> On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, thomas wheat <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TheBushTaxCutsAre the Disaster that Keeps on Giving
> > Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
>
> >http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversar...
>
> > SOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite
>
> > President George W.Bushis welcomed to Omaha, Nebraska, on February
> > 28, 2001, during a five-state tour to promote his budget agenda and
> >taxcuts.
>
> > By Michael Linden, Michael Ettlinger | June 7, 2011
>
> > PrintEmailText-size: A A A Share: Ten years ago today, the first
> > round ofBushtaxcutsbecame law. But what if they hadn’t? What would
> > our fiscal situation look like if history had been different in just
> > one respect: if we’d never implemented President George W.Bush’s
> > eponymoustaxpolicies? The short answer is that the debate over
> > federal debt levels would be entirely different. In that alternate
> > world, total debt as a share of GDP would be under 50 percent this year
> > —instead of pushing 70 percent—and it would be expected to stay under
> > 60 percent for the rest of the decade. (see chart) That’s well below
> > the levels causing such great consternation in Washington.
>
> > Bear in mind that PresidentBushinherited perhaps the strongest
> > federal balance sheet in postwar history. There were record-high
> > surpluses, debt was at around 30 percent of GDP and falling, and the
> > Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal government
> > would be debt free by 2009.
>
> >http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2727/entire-report.pdf
>
> > The country was in great fiscal shape to deal with any crises or
> > emergencies coming down the road, and it was even ready to deal with
> > the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
>
> > But rather than follow President Bill Clinton’s successful lead,
> > PresidentBushhanded out gigantictaxcuts, with people at the top of
> > the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. Those “supply-side”tax
> >cuts
>
> >http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
>
> > were a complete failure as economic policy, and now, instead of being
> > debt free and well prepared to care for an aging population, our debt-
> > to-GDP ratio is almost 70 percent. If thosetaxcutsare extended—
> > instead of being allowed to expire on schedule at the end of 2012—it
> > will approach 100 percent by 2021.
>
> > Of course, other factors contributed to the federal budget’s
> > deterioration: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; the
> > subsequent recession; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; President
> >Bush’sdomestic spending programs; and the onset of the Great
> > Recession at the end of 2007, which led to massively reducedtax
> > collections as incomes plummeted.
>
> > But even with all of that, when one adds back the foregone revenue
> > from theBushtaxcuts
>
> >http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
>
> > to the actual revenue collections over the past 10 years, the debt
> > picture suddenly becomes markedly better. That additional revenue
> > would have meant lower deficits in each year and therefore lower
> > overall debt. And lower debt means lower interest payments on that
> > debt, further reducing deficits. In the “noBushtaxcuts” alternate
> > universe, our debt-to-GDP ratio would be less than 50 percent this
> > year even after all the other fiscal shocks of the past 10 years.
>
> > Similarly, in a future without theBushtaxcuts, the national debt
> > would be under control. In the Congressional Budget Office’s official
> > baseline, the debt-to-GDP ratio rises by only 3 percentage points from
> > 2012 to 2021 despite the retirement of the baby boomers.
>
> >http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf
>
> > In large part, that’s because the CBO baseline assumes the full
> > expiration of thetaxcuts. And if instead of starting from almost 75
> > percent of GDP, we were starting from just 55 percent—which is where
> > we’d be in 2012 if theBushtaxcutshad never happened—debt would
> > stay below 60 percent for the remainder of the decade. There is no
> > magic level above which the debt level becomes dangerous. But few, if
> > any, consider 60 percent of GDP in debt as a significant risk to the
> > country.
>
> > To some extent, there’s nothing we can do about the disastrous fiscal
> > impact of theBushtaxcutsnow. We’re stuck with the debt built up
> > during the past 10 years, and we’re stuck with the interest payments
> > on that debt. But we can make choices about where we go from here.
>
> > We know that the next few decades are going to be difficult ones for
> > the federal budget. As the population ages, it will cost more to
> > ensure a safe and secure retirement for America’s senior citizens.
>
> > So can we afford to continue ataxregime that’s already weakened our
> > ability to meet those needs? If all theBushtaxcutsare extended,
> > debt will rise from about 70 percent of GDP this year to just less
> > than 100 percent of GDP by 2021. Debt will reach 93 percent of GDP by
> > 2021 if the bonustaxcutson income of more than $250,000 are allowed
> > to expire but the rest remain. If we allow all theBushtaxcutsto
> > expire after 2012 as scheduled, debt will be around 80 percent by
> > 2021.*
>
> > There’s no undoing the fiscal damage from theBushtaxcuts. But we
> > can learn from the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them.
> > Ten years after the first round ofBushtaxcutswere signed into law,
> > we know with certainty that they were a huge mistake.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RichTravsky
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:45:07 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
> >
> >The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
> >and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
>
> Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> surplus' and balanced budgets!
Oh puh leeze. This is your lame ass excuse? So then what happened in 2001-2006?
WELL?
> The
> >GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
> >blame the Democrats.
>
> <sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
Oh?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-5-charts-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
Top 5 Charts on the Bush Tax Cuts
On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 tax-cut law, weve assembled five charts
that show how the tax cuts have affected the deficit, the economy, and peoples
incomes...
RichTravsky
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:04:45 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>>and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
> >>
> >> Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> >> surplus' and balanced budgets!
> >
> >If that were true, why did the country go down the toilet when the GOP
> >controlled all three branches of government? National debt was nearly
> >doubled from $5.8T to $10.8T, unemployment spiked from 4% to over 7%.
> >
> >The answer is that whenever the voters trust the GOP with control of all
> >three branches of government, the GOP creates a disaster.
> >
> >The country gave the GOP that level of trust throughout the 1920s and we all
> >know what the GOP did with that trust. It took eight years for the
> >Democrats to turn it around. But the American voter has never had much of a
> >memory and gave the GOP that level of trust again in 2001 and once more the
> >Democrats have their work cut out for them.
>
> http://brual.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/national-debt-gdphalfsize.gif?w=517&h=317
> To bad Oboobuh isn't reflected in this economic graph, chump
Chump - Obama is there. The graph goes to 2010...
IDIOT.
RichTravsky
>
> The problem has never been revenue, the problem has ALWAYS been
> Congress spending more than they TAKE from their subjects.
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:50:40 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
> <thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving
> >Debt Would Be at Sustainable Levels Without Them
>
> Can you sustain a lifestyle on credit cards?
Ask Duhbya. They spent like drunken sailors.
RichTravsky
Oh, easy. The wars were OFF BUDGET!
LOL
Tom Jigme Wheat
and if they are extended indefinetly they will add another 2.5
trillion to the national debt. Stop the fleecing of america!!! The
Bush Tax Cuts never created any jobs. In fact under Bush we had
negative job growth, and under his administration corporations
outsourced 5 million manufacturing jobs to communist china!!!! At the
same time median family income in the US declined by 2300 dollars. We
must stop carrying out Bush's failed reckless policies. He added 5
trillion to our national debt, and now Obama will probably be blamed
for it in the partisanized historical record. What people dont know is
you need a super majority in the senate to pass anything, regardless
of who controls the house, and both competing bills have to be
reconcilled. Republicans are holding seniors, students, the poor and
disabled, hostage so they can give more corporate welfare to their
corporate cronies.
Thomaswheat1975
According to Moddys Analytics Chief economist, Mark Zandi, if the
Bush
Tax Cuts are extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
findings.
thomaswheat1975
U.S. Macro Outlook: Decision Time for Policy
By Mark Zandi
September 08, 2010
-excerpt-
"In all, the Bush tax cuts are worth about $300 billion per year, or
about 2% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office." see
CBO cost projections of the Bush Tax Cuts on page 4
6) The Bush tax cuts were so expensive that they added greatly to the
debt – From 2001 through 2010, the cuts added $2.6 trillion to the
public debt, nearly 50% of the total debt accrued during this period.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-era_tax_cuts
if the bush tax cuts were so effective why did we have negative job
growth during his administration!!!!!!!!
more evidence of corporate welfare, Top 12 Corporations paid a
combined tax rate of negative 1.5 percent on profits of 170 billion
dollars!!!! Trickle down supply side economics is a crock of shit,
where are the jobs!!!!!!
check out this summary, citizens for tax justice report on how the top
12 corporations in america paid an effective income tax rate of
negative 1.5 percent on earnings of 170 billion, from 2008 - 2010. Its
only like 3 pages for the tards who dont like to read.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 13, 9:06 pm, Thomas Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According to Moddys Analytics Chief economist, Mark Zandi, if the Bush
> Tax Cuts are extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
> national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
> findings.
> thomaswheat1975
>
> U.S. Macro Outlook: Decision Time for Policy
> By Mark Zandi
> September 08, 2010
>
> http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Cr...
> see
>
> -excerpt-
> "In all, the Bush tax cuts are worth about $300 billion per year, or
> about 2% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office." see
> CBO cost projeections of the Bush Tax Cuts on page 4
>
> http://nationalpriorities.org/en/blog/2011/06/06/bush-tax-cuts-10-yea...
>
> -excerpt-
> "Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that making
> the Bush tax cuts permanent generates only 35 cents in economic
> activity for every dollar of revenue."
>
> Budget Matters
> 6ShareThe Bush Tax Cuts: 10 Years Later, Still Expensive And
> Ineffective
> Written by Chris on June 06, 2011 in General Budget .
>
> That's the conclusion of a new analysis by the Economic Policy
> Institute (EPI), in a report released last week: "Tenth Anniversary of
> the Bush-Era Tax Cuts: A decade later, the Bush tax cuts remain
> expensive, ineffective, and unfair."
>
> http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-e...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
RichTravsky
>
> CB wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:45:07 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> > <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
> > >> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
> > >
> > >The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
> > >and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
> >
> > Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> > surplus' and balanced budgets!
>
> Oh puh leeze. This is your lame ass excuse? So then what happened in 2001-2006?
>
> WELL?
Silence.
> > The
> > >GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
> > >blame the Democrats.
> >
> > <sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
> Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth
>
> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-5-charts-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
> Top 5 Charts on the Bush Tax Cuts
>
> On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 tax-cut law, weve assembled five charts
> that show how the tax cuts have affected the deficit, the economy, and peoples
> incomes...
Silence.
RichTravsky
>
> CB wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:45:07 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> > <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
> > >> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
> > >
> > >The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
> > >and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
> >
> > Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> > surplus' and balanced budgets!
>
> Oh puh leeze. This is your lame ass excuse? So then what happened in 2001-2006?
>
> WELL?
Still silence.
> > The
> > >GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
> > >blame the Democrats.
> >
> > <sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
> Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth
>
> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-5-charts-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
> Top 5 Charts on the Bush Tax Cuts
>
> On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 tax-cut law, weve assembled five charts
> that show how the tax cuts have affected the deficit, the economy, and peoples
> incomes...
STILL silence.
RichTravsky
>
> CB wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:45:07 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> > <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
> > >> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
> > >
> > >The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
> > >and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
> >
> > Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> > surplus' and balanced budgets!
>
> Oh puh leeze. This is your lame ass excuse? So then what happened in 2001-2006?
>
> WELL?
Well. Still silence.
> > The
> > >GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
> > >blame the Democrats.
> >
> > <sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
> Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth
>
> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-5-charts-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
> Top 5 Charts on the Bush Tax Cuts
>
> On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 tax-cut law, weve assembled five charts
> that show how the tax cuts have affected the deficit, the economy, and peoples
> incomes...
Damn! STILL silence.
thomas wheat
Tax Cuts are extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
"Fiscal policymakers also face a major decision regarding the expiring
2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Passed up to a decade ago under the Bush
administration, these will lapse at the end of 2010 if Congress does
not act. The most important provisions concern individual income tax
rates, but capital gains and dividend taxes will also be affected, as
will personal exemptions, the marriage penalty, the alternative
minimum tax, the Making Work Pay program, the earned income tax
credit, child tax credit, and estate and gift taxes. In all, the Bush
tax cuts are worth about $300 billion per year, or about 2% of GDP,
according to the Congressional Budget Office."
If we had kept the Clinton Tax Rates
President Bush inherited perhaps the strongest federal balance sheet
in postwar history. There were record-high surpluses, debt was at
around 30 percent of GDP and falling, and the Congressional Budget
Office projected that the federal government would be debt free by
2009.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2727/entire-report.pdf
The country was in great fiscal shape to deal with any crises or
emergencies coming down the road, and it was even ready to deal with
the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
But rather than follow President Bill Clinton’s successful lead,
President Bush handed out gigantic tax cuts, with people at the top of
the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. Those “supply-side” tax
cuts
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
were a complete failure as economic policy, and now, instead of being
debt free and well prepared to care for an aging population, our debt-
to-GDP ratio is almost 70 percent. If those tax cuts are extended—
instead of being allowed to expire on schedule at the end of 2012—it
will approach 100 percent by 2021.
Negative Fiscal Impact of The GOP Paul Ryan Budget on the Job Market.
Washington Post reports on comments made by Moodys Analytics Chief
Economist, Mark Zandi, that the GOP Budget if passed would cause
700000 more jobs lost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html
thomaswheat1975
info for GOP lugnuts regarding the economic effects of their
Corporatist policies derived through "primitive accumulation"
On Jun 14, 8:08 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bush tax cuts have already addded 2.5 trillion to the national debt,
> and if they are extended indefinetly they will add another 2.5
> trillion to the national debt. Stop the fleecing of america!!! The Bush Tax Cuts never created any jobs. In fact under Bush we had
> negative job growth, and under his administration corporations
> outsourced 5 million manufacturing jobs to communist china!!!! At the
> same time median family income in the US declined by 2300 dollars. We
> must stop carrying out Bush'sfailed reckless policies. He added 5
> trillion to our national debt, and now Obama will probably be blamed
> for it in the partisanized historical record. What people dont know is
> you need a super majority in the senate to pass anything, regardless
> of who controls the house, and both competing bills have to be
> reconcilled. Republicans are holding seniors, students, the poor and
> disabled, hostage so they can give more corporate welfare to their
> corporate cronies.Thomaswheat1975
>
> http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Cr....
>
> According to Moddys Analytics Chief economist, Mark Zandi, if theBushTaxCutsare extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
> national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
> findings.
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> U.S. Macro Outlook: Decision Time for Policy
> By Mark Zandi
> September 08, 2010
>
> -excerpt-
> "In all, theBushtaxcutsare worth about $300 billion per year, or
> about 2% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office." see
> CBO cost projections of theBushTaxCutson page 4
>
> http://nationalpriorities.org/en/blog/2011/06/06/bush-tax-cuts-10-yea...
>
> 6) TheBushtaxcutswere so expensive that they added greatly to the
> debt – From 2001 through 2010, thecutsadded $2.6 trillion to the
> public debt, nearly 50% of the total debt accrued during this period.
>
> http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-e...
>
> if thebushtaxcutswere so effective why did we have negative job
> growth during his administration!!!!!!!!
> more evidence of corporate welfare, Top 12 Corporations paid a
> combinedtaxrate of negative 1.5 percent on profits of 170 billion
> dollars!!!! Trickle down supply side economics is a crock of shit,
> where are the jobs!!!!!!
>
> check out this summary, citizens fortaxjustice report on how the top
> 12 corporations in america paid an effective incometaxrate of
> negative 1.5 percent on earnings of 170 billion, from 2008 - 2010. Its
> only like 3 pages for the tards who dont like to read.
>
> http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 13, 9:06 pm, Thomas Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > According to Moddys Analytics Chief economist, Mark Zandi, if theBush
> >TaxCutsare extended Permenantly they will add 2.5 trillion to the
> > national debt by 2020, Congressional Budget Office concurs with his
> > findings.
> >thomaswheat1975
>
> > U.S. Macro Outlook: Decision Time for Policy
> > By Mark Zandi
> > September 08, 2010
>
> >http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Cr...
> > see
>
> > -excerpt-
> > "In all, theBushtaxcutsare worth about $300 billion per year, or
> > about 2% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office." see
> > CBO cost projeections of theBushTaxCutson page 4
>
> >http://nationalpriorities.org/en/blog/2011/06/06/bush-tax-cuts-10-yea...
>
> > -excerpt-
> > "Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that making
> > theBushtaxcutspermanent generates only 35 cents in economic
> > activity for every dollar of revenue."
>
> > Budget Matters
> > 6ShareTheBushTaxCuts: 10 Years Later, Still Expensive And
> > Ineffective
> > Written by Chris on June 06, 2011 in General Budget .
>
> > That's the conclusion of a new analysis by the Economic Policy
> > Institute (EPI), in a report released last week: "Tenth Anniversary of
> > theBush-EraTaxCuts: A decade later, theBushtaxcutsremain
> > expensive, ineffective, and unfair."
>
> >http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-e...
>
> > According to EPI's website, their mission "is to achieve shared
> > prosperity by raising the economic status of low- and middle-income
> > Americans."
>
> > In the report EPI policy analysts Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack
> > detail ten findings:
>
> > 1) TheBushtaxcutsdisproportionately benefited the wealthy – The
> > top 0.1% of wage earners (those making over $3 million) received an
> > averagetaxcut of roughly $520,000, more than 450 times larger than
> > the share received by an average middle-income family.
>
> > 2) Thecutsdid little for low-income families – In 2010,taxfilers
> > in the bottom 20% of wage earners (those making less than $20,000)
> > received only a 1% share of thetaxcuts, and 75% of these low-income
> > families saw no reduction at all.
>
> > 3) Thetaxcutsnever trickled down – TheBusheconomic expansion had
> > the worst wage and salary growth and total compensation growth of any
> > postwar economic expansion, and workers fared progressively worse the
> > lower their wages were.
>
> > 4) TheBushtaxcutswere a poorly designed economic stimulus –
> > Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that making the
> >Bushtaxcutspermanent generates only 35 cents in economic activity
> > for every dollar of revenue. Meanwhile, the targeted refundabletax
> > credits included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the
> > stimulus package) are estimated to generate much more per dollar of
> > uncollected taxes, ranging from $1.17 for the Making Work Pay Credit
> > to $1.38 for the ChildTaxCredit.
>
> > 5) TheBushtaxcutsfailed to create strong long-run growth – Between
> > the end of the 2001 recession and the peak ofBush-era expansion at
> > the end of 2007, the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic
> > expansion of the post WWII era.
>
> > 6) TheBushtaxcutswere so expensive that they added greatly to the
> > debt – From 2001 through 2010, thecutsadded $2.6 trillion to the
> > public debt, nearly 50% of the total debt accrued during this period.
>
> > 7) TheBushtaxcutswere much more expensive than advertised – The
> >Bushtaxcutswere designed using a few budget gimmicks to obscure
> > their true cost.
>
> > 8) TheBushtaxcutscontinue to be expensive – The extension of the
> >Bushtaxcutsas part of the December 2010taxdeal is projected to
> > decrease revenue by $423 billion over 2012-21, adding more than $5
> > trillion to the debt over the next decade. This represents about half
> > of the total projected deficits over this period.
>
> > 9) TheBushtaxcutseliminated the most progressive federaltax:
> > taxes on large estates – TheBushtaxcutsrepealed thetaxon large
> > estates for the first time since 1916, eliminating the only federal
> >taxon concentrated wealth.
>
> > 10) A decade ofBushtaxcutsare increasing interest spending today –
> > The U.S. government has spent more than $400 billion over the last
> > decade in higher interest payments to finance the debt created by the
> >Bushtaxcuts.
>
> > These are just some of the facts presented in the EPI analysis which
> > call into question the economic benefits put forth by supporters of
> > permanently extending theBushtaxcredits. At a time when the federal
> > > "Bush'srecord on poverty is equally bleak....
>
> read more »
RichTravsky
>
> CB wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:45:07 -0400, "Felix Reynaldo"
> > <FelixR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> I 'is' smart enough to know that in 2007 DimocRATs won both House and
> > >> Senate which allowed Progressives to spend, spend, spend.
> > >
> > >The GOP controlled all three branches of government from 2001 through 2006
> > >and increased the national debt (which Clinton was PAYING DOW) by 80%.
> >
> > Republicans set Clinton up so that he could crow about 'budget
> > surplus' and balanced budgets!
>
> Oh puh leeze. This is your lame ass excuse? So then what happened in 2001-2006?
>
> WELL?
crickets.wav
> > The
> > >GOP waged two wars while cutting taxes at the same time. And for that you
> > >blame the Democrats.
> >
> > <sigh> Oh for the Bush economy once again
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
> Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth
>
> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-5-charts-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
> Top 5 Charts on the Bush Tax Cuts
>
> On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 tax-cut law, weve assembled five charts
> that show how the tax cuts have affected the deficit, the economy, and peoples
> incomes...
Come on CB, crank out one of your famous excuses!
RT