Negative Fiscal Impact of Ongoing Bush Tax Policies, and GOP Paul Ryan's Budget

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 8:06:29 AM6/23/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
Fiscal Impact of the Bush Tax Cuts: They will add 2.5 trillion to the
National Debt by 2020

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. see pg 3

http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Credit-Analytics/Samples/Dismal-Scientist.ashx

"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.

Consequences for Medicare and Social security if Debt ceiling is not
Raised

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110519-712142.html

MAY 19, 2011, By Erin McCarthy
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A failure to raise the U.S. debt ceiling
wouldn't be good for the U.S. economy, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of
U.S. President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said
Thursday.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the U.S. would be forced to default
either on government bonds, Social Security, Medicare or the military,
Goolsbee said while speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in
New York.

The U.S. hit its debt limit Monday, and Treasury officials expect to
exhaust the federal government's capacity to borrow in August.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned of an economic
catastrophe if the U.S. defaults on its debt.


Impact of House GOP Legislation re: Medicare Medicaid (MediCal)

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2128

"Congressional Budget Office analysis of GOP Paul Ryan's proposal to
privatize Medicare and make cuts to Medicaid (MediCal)
Under the proposal, most elderly people who would be entitled to
premium support payments would pay more for their health care than
they would pay under the current Medicare system.

CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket
expenditures as a share of a benchmark amount: what total health care
spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By
2030, the beneficiary’s share would be 68 percent of that benchmark
under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario,
and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be
substantially smaller than currently projected amounts."


If the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is repealed, it will add 230
billion to Federal deficit

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750

CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing
Health Care Law Act

The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2)
to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March—that
is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

"As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects
that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits
over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the
basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of
technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the
forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the
projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230
billion"

Kaiser Health News : Out of Pocket costs double for seniors on
Medicare

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/07/MNKF1IRDL6.DTL

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Laurie McGinley, Kaiser Health News

"Seniors and people with disabilities would pay much more for Medicare
under a new plan by Republicans in the House of Representatives that's
designed to curb the nation's growing budget deficit, a Congressional
Budget Office analysis shows.

For example, by 2030, typical 65-year-olds would be required to pay 68
percent of the cost of their coverage, which includes premiums,
deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, according to the CBO.
They'd pay 25 percent under current law, the CBO said. Ryan's
proposal, called "The Path to Prosperity," also would scrap the health
care law's Medicaid expansion, repeal a voluntary long-term-care
insurance program and cancel an advisory board the law created to
recommend changes to Medicare spending.

Ryan appears to retain the health law's Medicare payment cuts to
hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans."


GOP Budget proposal raises Taxes on Middle class, and lowers taxes for
the Rich GOP Republican Tax Plan for the Rich will add 2.9 trillion to
the
deficit in the next 10 years

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html

also see this link:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ryan_tax_plan.html

Analysis of the GOP Paul Ryan Plan:
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year, to
12000 dollars annually. For those seniors on medicaid, who are in
nursing homes, Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of their
care. Also his plan would lead to higher taxes (higher health care
costs) for the middle class and poor.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html

thomaswheat1975

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 12:14:46 PM6/23/11
to
Only "if" revenue does not keep up with spending?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:db1c96ed-5ffa-4c0c...@f39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Credit-Analytics/Samples/Dismal-Scientist.ashx

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2727/entire-report.pdf

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110519-712142.html

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2128

CBO estimated the beneficiary�s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket


expenditures as a share of a benchmark amount: what total health care
spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By

2030, the beneficiary�s share would be 68 percent of that benchmark


under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario,
and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be
substantially smaller than currently projected amounts."


If the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is repealed, it will add 230
billion to Federal deficit

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750

CBO�s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing
Health Care Law Act

The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2)

to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March�that


is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

"As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects
that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits

over the 2012�2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:26:07 PM6/23/11
to
On Jun 23, 9:14 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Only "if" revenue does not keep up with spending?
Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues, the
cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
disasterous to the economy, GAO estimates that if the GOP across the
board cuts were adopted we would lose another 700000 jobs. We need to
invest in infrastructural spending, which would increase employment,
and restore the Bill clinton tax rates, at least on the top two
percent of income earners. Supply side, tanked the economy and
outsourced almost half of our manufacturing industrial base abroad,
that's why we're in the shitter right now, economically, and this is
excerbated by rampant speculation in commodities, like food and oil.
Also we have to find finding a way to wind down two Bush started wars,
that officially have cost the USA over 2 trillion dollars!, w/out
damaging our collective security. Furthermore we need to redesign the
tax code, since there are so many loopholes, that allow, the top 1/10
of 1 percent to pay an effective rate of 16 percent, along with Major
US corporations on the S P 500, that payed little or no taxes at all
and fact got million dollar rebates. The official tax rate may be
high, but that is not a reliable indicator of what these guys actually
pay, Corporate taxes only make up 6 percent of GDP, down from
approximately 20 percent under Dwight D. Eisenhower. So there are
fuckin free loaders, who sold us out to communist
china!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:db1c96ed-5ffa-4c0c...@f39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Fiscal Impact of the Bush Tax Cuts: They will add 2.5 trillion to the
> National Debt by 2020
>
> 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. see pg 3
>
> http://www.moodysanalytics.com/~/media/Brochures/Economic-Consumer-Cr...

>
> "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
> CBO estimated the beneficiary s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket

> expenditures as a share of a benchmark amount: what total health care
> spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By
> 2030, the beneficiary s share would be 68 percent of that benchmark

> under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario,
> and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.
>
> Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be
> substantially smaller than currently projected amounts."
>
> If the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is repealed, it will add 230
> billion to Federal deficit
>
> http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
>
> CBO s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing

> Health Care Law Act
>
> The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2)
> to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March that

> is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
>
> "As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects
> that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits
> over the 2012 2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the

> basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of
> technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the
> forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the
> projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230
> billion"
>
> Kaiser Health News : Out of Pocket costs double for seniors on
> Medicare
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/07/MNKF1IRDL...

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:59:21 PM6/23/11
to

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:6309a7e8-0c51-482c...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 9:14 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Only "if" revenue does not keep up with spending?
Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues,

When has tax revenue ever decreased? Is it even possible, when the
population continues to increase?

the
cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
disasterous to the economy,

So would continuing to increase the National Debt?

Already responded to the rest of your posting so I won't do it again....we
will see how your respond....

Sir Ray

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 3:47:34 PM6/23/11
to
On Jun 23, 1:59 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> When has tax revenue ever decreased?  Is it even possible, when the
> population continues to increase?

What? Do you guys even bother to read what you post?

Here's a table from the The Tax Policy center showing tax revenue
decreasing significantly twice in the 21st century.

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

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 5:18:16 PM6/23/11
to

"Sir Ray" wrote in message
news:2f45de0d-8d0c-4b0b...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

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

Look up the historical trend of government revenue as a percentage of
GDP.....

Obwon

unread,
Jun 24, 2011, 6:57:52 AM6/24/11
to

Republicans: Increase the load on the shoulders of that
lazy worker holding two jobs and he'll get off his ass and
get to work! The problem is the poor people are lobbying
congress to hand out more checks, so they can go buy
Cadillacs! ETC...

When was the last time you heard the media complain, that
the poor were flying Congressmen around the country on
private jets? When was the last time the poor threw a 5,000
dollar a plate fund raiser for Congress critters, to get
them to pass unmonitored bailouts, no bid contract handouts
or increase "entitlements"?

Let's face the facts: The tax cuts did not create jobs, the
bailouts didn't create jobs, deficit reduction on the backs
of the poor and middle classes will only cause more economic
disruptions. Already we have highly stressed, sleep
deprived workers suffering, causing accidents, and losing
jobs because they're performing poorly, in workplaces where
moral is at all time lows. Now that might not have made
much difference in earlier times, when most work was simple
labor done with the hands. But today we live in a high
tech world, where a worker can cause pure calamity for
thousands, if not millions, simply by writing one peice of
faulty code, transposing a single figure in a spreadsheet,
or writing a false/erroneous report that goes viral.

Today, when a person "falls off the log", there's no
telling how many he takes with him. In the Hamptons, where
rents are unaffordable for entry level workers, they're
forced to bus in workers from far away. New York City is on
the road to that same place. Trouble is, NYC has a very
expensive infrastructure to maintain, with businesses
getting large tax breaks, property taxes will have to rise.
Or, they can try to tax the workers who they bus in to
work, to try and pay for the infrastructure. Can anyone
guess how that's going to work?

Businesses won't be taxed, the wealthy refuse to be taxed,
the workers can only be taxed so much, before they seek
work elsewheres, after all, why take a bus or train into
the City to work, if you don't get to take the money home?
Of course, these are things that happen "quietly", out of
view of "the camera". They keep "the camera" focused on
the fresh and new, while the foundations rot out of sight.

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 24, 2011, 8:59:42 PM6/24/11
to political conspiracy and the quest for democracy
your link only goes back to 1940's, my link shows the tax rates going
back to 1913 to the present year 2011. Fuckwad. The fact is the
current tax rate is at the lowest level since 1931, when republican
USA president Herbert Hoover, tanked the economy. The current rate for
the rich and middle class is 35 percent. Under Hoover, it was 25
percent, which is what House of represantives Republican Paul Ryan's
budget, "The Path to Prosperity," calls for, lowering the rate on the
middle class and the rich to 25 percent, despite the fact that the top
1 percent of income earners have already doubled their money under
Bush, such that the top 1 percent of income earners now own 40 percent
of all private wealth in this country, and earn annually 23 percent of
all national income. Meanwhile the middle class has seen income
decline by 2300 dollars, from 2001 - 2007, according to US Census
Data.

The top 1 percent of income earners, own more wealth than the bottom
50 percent of income earners combined. This unequal income
distribution, is the same as where it was under president Herbert (J.
Edgar) Hoover, who single-handedly plunged America into the worse
economic depression of year 1929. Like then as it is now, the market
crashed due to rampant unregulated speculation. Despite that
Republicans want to restore the same economic banking system before
Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. Roosevelt-Eisenhower single-
handedly saved the American democratic and economic system back then,
and presently republicans run the risk of being declared morally
hypocritically irrelevant.

here are the tax rates going back to 1913, to the present year 2011

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Franklin D. Roosevelt brought us out of the great depression with John
Maynard Keynesian Economics. Republicans have such short memories.
Eisenhower was a FDR new deal republican, he had the highest marginal
income (AMT) tax on the rich in the history of our country. He
balanced the budget, and was pro-union. The AMT marginal income tax on
the rich back then was 91 percent on the super rich. Right on
President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Tax the fuckin rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 1:04:13 PM6/25/11
to
Did not answer the question I asked...

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:19900fee-5afa-48c8...@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

s01...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 10:15:37 PM6/25/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
Jerry Okamura, if that's even your real name, eat shit I started this
thread, you have nothing to offer, house negro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Top Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

Note this doesnt actually reflect effective income tax rates, ex.
multi-Billionaire, Warren Buffet's effective income tax rate, since he
gets most of his income from capital gains, is 16%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Year:
1913 7%
1929 24% (Herbert Hoover)
1930 25% Hoover
1931 25% Hoover
1932 63% Franklin D. Roosevelt
1952 92% Dwight D. Eisenhower
1953 92% Eisenhower
1954 91% Eisenhower
1960 91% Eisenhower/ Kennedy
1980 70% Ronald Reagan
1986 50% Reagan
1988 28% " "
1992 31% GHWB / Bill Clinton
1993 39.6% William J. Clinton
2000 39.6% William "Bill" Clinton
2001 38.6% George W. Bush
2003 35% Bush again
2008 35% Bush
2011 35% Bush tax cuts extended by Obama and Congress

Analysis, when the Highest marginal income tax rates were raised on
the rich the economy prospered. Just look at the years when President
Eisenhower was in office. The Top Marginal Income tax rate was 92
percent in 1953. Almost half of the workforce was also unionized and
America prospered.

Then Look at the GHWB / Clinton example: Both George H. W. Bush and
Clinton raised taxes on the rich, albeit GHWB's raising of rates was
meager. In 1993 Clinton's first year in office the top marginal income
tax rate was raised 39.6% where it stayed at that level until the end
of year 2000. The economy prospered and we added over a 11 million
jobs. The last three years of his administration, he ran budget
surpluses totally over 200 billion dollars total, and the budget was
balanced!!!!!! Enter Fuck nut Gerorge W. Bush 2001 tax cut package 1,
the rate on the super rich was lowered to 38.6 %. 2003, Bush tax cut
plan part 2, the rate on millionaires and billionaires was lowered to
35 percent, were it has remained to this day, in year 2011. Obviously
Bush tax cuts only stimulated the wealth of the top 1 percent of
income earner, including those of the top 1/10 of 1% who doubled their
money under Bush, while under Bush median family income declined by
2300 dollars. So therefore all the Bush tax cuts did was stimulate
rampant derivatives speculation and unemployment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now republicans under GOP Paul Ryan are trying to lower the rate even
further on the rich to 1931 herbert hoover levels, and slash capital
gains, and estate taxes, which only effect the top 1 % of income
earners. Paul Ryan is a coked out junkbond trader. The GAO.gov
estimated that that the republican budget would cost 700000 jobs!!!!!!
screw these stooges of the big bankers~!!!!!!!!!!!!!

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/71d479929ce56c03/e5b527ca84571621#e5b527ca84571621

On Jun 25, 10:04 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:


> Did not answer the question I asked...
>

> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:19900fee-5afa-48c8...@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

s01...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 10:18:05 PM6/25/11
to
Top Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

Note this doenst actually reflect effective income tax rates, ex.
Warren Buffet's effective income tax rate, since he gets most of his
income from capital gains is 16%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

estimated that that the Paul Ryan republican budget would cost 700000


jobs!!!!!!
screw these stooges of the big bankers~!!!!!!!!!!!!!

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/71d479929ce56c03/e5b527ca84571621#e5b527ca84571621

s01...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 9:20:28 AM6/26/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@go9oglegroups.com
Top Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

EAT SHIT Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!
Get an education and get off the METH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/71d479929ce56c03/e5b527ca84571621#e5b527ca84571621

google.com is blocking my posts, why?????

On Jun 24, 5:59 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 10:36:05 AM6/26/11
to
eat shit jerry, you've been clowned

On Jun 25, 10:04 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:


> Did not answer the question I asked...
>

> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:19900fee-5afa-48c8...@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

David Hatunen

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 5:01:57 PM6/26/11
to
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:20:28 -0700, s011023 wrote:

> Top Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

[***]

> Then Look at the GHWB / Clinton example: Both George H. W. Bush and
> Clinton raised taxes on the rich, albeit GHWB's raising of rates was
> meager. In 1993 Clinton's first year in office the top marginal income
> tax rate was raised 39.6% where it stayed at that level until the end of
> year 2000. The economy prospered and we added over a 11 million jobs.
> The last three years of his administration, he ran budget surpluses
> totally over 200 billion dollars total, and the budget was
> balanced!!!!!! Enter Fuck nut Gerorge W. Bush 2001 tax cut package 1,
> the rate on the super rich was lowered to 38.6 %. 2003, Bush tax cut
> plan part 2, the rate on millionaires and billionaires was lowered to 35
> percent, were it has remained to this day, in year 2011. Obviously Bush
> tax cuts only stimulated the wealth of the top 1 percent of income
> earner, including those of the top 1/10 of 1% who doubled their money
> under Bush, while under Bush median family income declined by 2300
> dollars. So therefore all the Bush tax cuts did was stimulate rampant
> derivatives speculation and unemployment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Presidents don't raise tax rates; Congress raises tax rates. The current
budget brouhaha is adequate proof of this.

--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona, out where the cacti grow

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 30, 2011, 12:38:56 AM6/30/11
to political conspiracy and the quest for democracy
Yes but Eisenhower had the strength of personality, he was a hero, and
under his administration, taxes on the rich were the highest in
american history and america prospered. Over half of the labor force
was unionized. I urge you to read Eisenhower's book, "Mandate For
Change." The current neoconservative movement, is nothing more than
corporate fascism, favoring the rich. Fact the republican budget plan
will cost Americans the loss of 700000 more jobs, according to Moodys
analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html

If the republicans were serious about the debt, they wouldn't have
voted to continue tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and
subsidies for big oil and US Cotton, of which the latter makes us
liable to 800 million dollar sanctions from the WTO, payable to
Brazil, because we continue to subsidize already profitable USA cotton
farmers. The republicans voted to do this while they voted to cut 650
million dollars from WIC, 2.5 billion from SNAP (food stamps), and end
corn subsidies, despite the fact that three of the members on the
House Agriculture committee, had recieved over a million dollars each
in subsides from the federal government in the past for their farms.
Michelle Bachmann herself received over 250000 dollars in corn and
dairy subsidies for her farm,as well. Now that it is politically
conveniant, these guys vote against corn subsidies purely out of
global warming denialist spite, just because it can be used to make
ethanol, and the imagined savings coming from cutting WIC, which means
250000, women and children will have to be cut from the program,
translates into net loss of 200 million dollars, since we will be
forced to pay brazil 800 million dollars, since we are still
subsidizing US cotton. Obviously this is misplaced set of priorities
regarding common welfare and corporate welfare. The fact is the top
400 richest people in america own more wealth, than the bottom 150
million americans. WE must tax these corporate welfare queens. If we
repealed the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners we could
raise 700 billion dollars over 10 years. If capital gains taxes on
this top 2% were taxed at clinton era rates, we could raise an
additional 730 billion dollars over the next 10 years as well. We
should raise taxes on the big corporations as well, and lower them for
the middle class propietaryships. The top 12 largest corporations paid
an effective income tax rate of negative 1.5 percent.

Analysis: 12 Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5%
on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies

Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Verizon, Others Illustrate Why Revenue-Raising
Reform is Needed

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf

Taxes on the big corporations are the lowest they ever been.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Changes in the shares of the various taxes in total federal revenue
reflect these historical shifts. The individual income tax has
consistently provided nearly half of total federal revenue since 1950,
while other revenue sources have waxed and waned. Excise taxes brought
in 19 percent of total revenue in 1950 but only about 3 percent in
recent years. The share of revenue coming from the corporate income
tax dropped from about one-third in the early 1950s to less than one-
sixth in 2008. In contrast, payroll taxes provided more than one-third
of revenue in 2008, compared with just one-tenth in the early 1950s.


thomaswheat1975

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages