Bush defends tax cuts for the rich

[Raider Bill]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN.

[b

To use a grade school math expression, Millionaires are a subset of small business owners not the other way around. [/b]

You've got it bass-ackwards again. You are essentially saying that all small business owners are millionaires. A 'subset' is a class contained by another class, and you're saying the class of millionaires is contained within the class of small business owners--which is false.

.

I can't believe you're still struggling with this one. According to the survey a typical millionaire in this country owned a small business, so therefore Millionaires are a subset of small business owners. If picked a Millionaire out of a crowd, chances are he owns a small business.

I'm not arguing that If you picked a small business owner out of a crowd chances are he is a millionaire.


Holy Moly you are still trying to twist around what I said. A millionaire in this country is likely a small business owner.

If I said that apples are likely to be red, you are trying to twist it that I said anything red is likely to be an apple. Face it you're wrong.

[Old Dude]

The whole "rich vs. poor" thing aside, the bad news is that the Bush tax cuts seem not to have achieved anywhere near the economic stimulus hoped for.

According to Economy.com, the stimulus created by the reduction in the tax rates themselves produced only 59 cents for every tax dollar forgone. Even worse was the return on the cuts in capital gains & dividends - just 9 cents for every tax dollar lost. One of the reasons why the return in this instance was so palltry was because capital gain cut operate mainly as a reward for capital already in place, rather than for new investments. (This should not have been all that unexpected. The Congressional Budget Office forsaw it in January, 2002.)

Aid to state governments, on the other hand, showed the best return: $1.24 for each dollar invested. Unfortunately, that accounted for only 3% of the package.

[RaiderH8r]

On the one hand they b!tch about the rich in this country and the need to tax them to death. And on the other hand wonder why they pack ship and head to friendlier tax climates. How many jobs does a bankrupt business create? Go ahead and villify those signing the checks to the people working who pay the taxes to support those sucking off of the rather considerable government teet. Those same people who have worked to build an economy and standard of living that provides an opportunity and soap box for those (see Michael Moore hollywood rich b!tch, limosine liberal types) to complain about the means by which their lifestyle is sustained. What a bunch of freaking fascists, don't agree with me...I'll sue, complain, whine and when I don't get my way...I'll sue some more. So, ultimately the philosophical question is, do we want to encourage entrepreneurial spirit via lower taxes and business incentives, or the inevitable mediocrity that is socialism?

[Old Dude]

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For some reason, people refuse to vote their wallet.

Stop a middle-age white man on the street and he'll tell you it's important that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet get another tax cut. The GOP has convinced people they're better off when the super-rich get richer - even though the super-rich have refused to hire anybody with the billions of tax dollars Bush gave them.

Bush can't even break even on jobs.

Clinton taxed the super-rich and gave America the best years ever.

[errand]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

It doesn't take an economic genius to realize that when you give rich people a tax cut, they are going to put the money in the bank, whereas, when you give regular working people a tax cut, they are going to spend the money and thus stimulate the economy.

.

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

Old Dude...surely you run a household as does the majority of posters here. What options do you have if you find that your bills are greater than your income?

You have basically two options....raise your income....or lower your expenses. Some people take on 2nd jobs, or their spouses take on jobs to help raise their income levels. They take night classes to increase their knowledge or training to obtain higher paying jobs, they hold yard sales...whatever they have to do to increase their incomes.

And if that doesn't get you back on track, then you have to lower expenses. so you stop eating out, or you car pool to save fuel $$$, or you raise your deductible on your insurance (if your a safe driver that is) you buy generic Fruit Wheels at Food Lion instead of Fruit Loops for your kids.....the point is, you do what you have to do to lower your expenses to keep your budget in line.

Well, businesses aren't any different than your household. They too have bills to pay and to pay them they have to have the money to do so. If they are operating in the red, they have to do the same two things you would....either raise their income (via increased sales) or lower their expenses (budget cuts, layoffs, outsourcing)

So why do you blast them for trying to stay in business when nobody would blast you trying to keep your budget in line?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by errand

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

But Einstein:

All the "expanded" small businesses in the world are worth nothing if regular working people don't have money to spend on their products and/or services.

As for auto loans, last I checked, auto retailers (among others) all over the country were in deep doo-doo because of the poor economy and the evaporation of disposable income for the working and middle classes. (Not to mention what happens when you factor in the record number of American jobs lost under AWOL Boy.)

And your foregone conclusion that banks were not already doing brisk business lending money to people for the kind of things you mentioned before Smirk's tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy is ridiculous.

Bottom line: Smirk and his team of trickle-down snake oil salesmen said their tax cuts for millionaires were supposed to "stimulate the economy."

We all saw how that turned out. (Again.)

[Exile_In_SJ]

Originally Posted by errand

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

I've often had to explain how rich people put their money to work and it creates jobs and helps the economy. Most of these lefties think rich people put their money into a show box and keep it there. Money in the economy is good for everyone.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

Your myopic view is startling. We have few choices in terms of dealing with the Chinese. 1. Engage them in combat (Never start a land war in Asia and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, great line from the Princess Bride) 2. Economic sanctions hurting US producers of goods and ag products. 3. Engage the 1.2 Billion consumers of the country in free trade of goods and ideas.

Furthermore, the labor movement in this country has priced themselves out of the competition. How much would a pair of Nikes cost if made in the US? You'd have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your house. This isn't to say that I condone sweatshops but the US worker bears some responsibility here. For better or worse the economy is now global, competition exists on all continents and will continue in that fashion. The US GDP is still the highest and we are on the cutting edge of most aspects of business. The only real impediments are those we place on ourselves. So get the hell out of the way and let those with the knowledge and will make money and create jobs. The liberal economic theory states, "Tax it to death, if it still moves then regulate it, and when you've finally killed it then you subsidize it."

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

But Einstein:

All the "expanded" small businesses in the world are worth nothing if regular working people don't have money to spend on their products and/or services.

As for auto loans, last I checked, auto retailers (among others) all over the country were in deep doo-doo because of the poor economy and the evaporation of disposable income for the working and middle classes. (Not to mention what happens when you factor in the record number of American jobs lost under AWOL Boy.)

And your foregone conclusion that banks were not already doing brisk business lending money to people for the kind of things you mentioned before Smirk's tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy is ridiculous.

Bottom line: Smirk and his team of trickle-down snake oil salesmen said their tax cuts for millionaires were supposed to "stimulate the economy."

We all saw how that turned out. (Again.)

And last I checked home ownership is the highest it has ever been. Yearning for the days of 27% interest on a 30yr. fixed mortgage are you? Do the math, figure what that comes to on a modest $250K loan. The greatest, and largest, investment the average American will make is the purchase of their home. That is something you've conveniently overlooked.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by errand

Old Dude...surely you run a household as does the majority of posters here. What options do you have if you find that your bills are greater than your income?

You have basically two options....raise your income....or lower your expenses. Some people take on 2nd jobs, or their spouses take on jobs to help raise their income levels. They take night classes to increase their knowledge or training to obtain higher paying jobs, they hold yard sales...whatever they have to do to increase their incomes.

And if that doesn't get you back on track, then you have to lower expenses. so you stop eating out, or you car pool to save fuel $$$, or you raise your deductible on your insurance (if your a safe driver that is) you buy generic Fruit Wheels at Food Lion instead of Fruit Loops for your kids.....the point is, you do what you have to do to lower your expenses to keep your budget in line.

Well, businesses aren't any different than your household. They too have bills to pay and to pay them they have to have the money to do so. If they are operating in the red, they have to do the same two things you would....either raise their income (via increased sales) or lower their expenses (budget cuts, layoffs, outsourcing)

So why do you blast them for trying to stay in business when nobody would blast you trying to keep your budget in line?

The first thing I'd do is pay off my damned credit cards before I went on a hunting trip in Iraq.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Your myopic view is startling. We have few choices in terms of dealing with the Chinese. 1. Engage them in combat (Never start a land war in Asia and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, great line from the Princess Bride) 2. Economic sanctions hurting US producers of goods and ag products. 3. Engage the 1.2 Billion consumers of the country in free trade of goods and ideas.

Furthermore, the labor movement in this country has priced themselves out of the competition. How much would a pair of Nikes cost if made in the US? You'd have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your house. This isn't to say that I condone sweatshops but the US worker bears some responsibility here. For better or worse the economy is now global, competition exists on all continents and will continue in that fashion. The US GDP is still the highest and we are on the cutting edge of most aspects of business. The only real impediments are those we place on ourselves. So get the hell out of the way and let those with the knowledge and will make money and create jobs. The liberal economic theory states, "Tax it to death, if it still moves then regulate it, and when you've finally killed it then you subsidize it."

First of all, the stats don't back you up.

Tax cuts are intended to be an investment in the economy itself.

The tax cuts generated 59 cents for every tax dollar lost. That's a net loss of 41 cents on the dollar. The capital gains tax breaks generated 9 cents for every tax dollar lost. That's a net loss of 91 cents on the dollar.

That does not strike me as a real good investment.

Aid to States, for things like rebuilding the country's infrastructure, generated $1.24 for every dollar spent. That's a gain of 24 cents on the dollar. That was obviously a better investment, but it formed only 3% of the package.

As far as labor and corporations are concerned, consider this. Corporations, like any other business, can increase profits two ways - cut costs or increase revenues.

We are still the biggest consumer market, per capita, in the world. When the American labor force loses ground, they have less to spend, they buy less, and revenues fall. So corporations do have an interest in making sure that labor gets paid. The problem is that corporations are all basically in competition with one another, so what they really want to see is that their COMPETITOR'S labor gets paid well. So the corporation that relies priomarily on American workers is at a disadvantage to the one that ships work overseas.

Well, there are ways to fix that. For one thing, you can give a tax incentive to corporations who hire American workers, in order to help level the playing field.

Am I worried that corporations will pack up their home offices and go overseas? No. They get tremendous benefits from being in teh US - our transportation system (supported by tax dollars) our R&D (much of which is supported by tax dollars) our educated work force (tax dollars again) and our banking & telecommunications industries are all the best in the world. And even if they do pack up, there is no way they can resist the American consumer market. They get tremendous benefits from being here, and they need to share the load.

There was certainly a time when "big labor" and the unions were out of control here. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The last thing we needed were capital gains cuts that did nothing but reward the wealthy for being wealthy.

.

[Raider Bill]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

The whole "rich vs. poor" thing aside, the bad news is that the Bush tax cuts seem not to have achieved anywhere near the economic stimulus hoped for.

According to Economy.com, the stimulus created by the reduction in the tax rates themselves produced only 59 cents for every tax dollar forgone. Even worse was the return on the cuts in capital gains & dividends - just 9 cents for every tax dollar lost.

Unless economy.com has a time machine and can compare what has happened subsequent to the Bush tax cuts to what would have happened had Bush not cut taxes this is basicly opinion. Revenues to the treasury are up over last year. Even if only 59 cents of every dollar made it in to the economy the multiplier effect of this 59 cents being spent year after year will make up the difference.

Originally Posted by Old Dude

One of the reasons why the return in this instance was so palltry was because capital gain cut operate mainly as a reward for capital already in place, rather than for new investments. (This should not have been all that unexpected. The Congressional Budget Office forsaw it in January, 2002.)

Aid to state governments, on the other hand, showed the best return: $1.24 for each dollar invested. Unfortunately, that accounted for only 3% of the package.

This doesn't make any sense. Taxes were withheld sent to washington, doled out by vast beuracracies, sent back to the states to be doled out again by vast beuracracies to the individual communities and showed a net return? I don't buy it personally.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Proof Bush LIED about his tax cuts

From the 2000 debates:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

BUSH: Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan that he continues to criticize, I set one-third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check. But I also dropped the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. Because by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.


from Yahoo...

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o_dc&e=3&ncid=

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Electoral Vote Predictor is now:

Kerry 327

Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by njbil

Unless economy.com has a time machine and can compare what has happened subsequent to the Bush tax cuts to what would have happened had Bush not cut taxes this is basicly opinion. Revenues to the treasury are up over last year. Even if only 59 cents of every dollar made it in to the economy the multiplier effect of this 59 cents being spent year after year will make up the difference.

The whole point is that the "trickle down" was far less than predicted. (the so-called multiplier effect) And even if there is a hidden second wave on its way, what makes a bigger wave? 9 cents on the dollar? 59 cents on the dollar? or $1.24 on the dollar. No matter how you spin the numbers, the payoff was far better for the State Aid.

Meanwhile, the deficit grows and grows.

Originally Posted by njbil

This doesn't make any sense. Taxes were withheld sent to washington, doled out by vast beuracracies, sent back to the states to be doled out again by vast beuracracies to the individual communities and showed a net return? I don't buy it personally.

So you basically reject any economic data that doesn't square with your personal economic theories? I don't really have an answer to that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[watermock]

I am literally speechles.

Rarely does my nose itch. You have absolutely no clue. It's sad and disapointing that someone that had all the opportunity to educate himself wound up as a coward and indulges in cheap insults and misrepresentations.

Don't come back until you redeem yourself.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Bush Economic Record: What a Difference Three Years Makes

It's still the economy, stupid! Don't the Bushes ever learn? Bush inherited record surpluses, a balanced budget and steady job growth -- and he's blown it. The budget deficit is ballooning, job growth is non-existent and the stock market is faltering. Even Republicans are disgusted with Bush's handling of the economy. It's time to ask yourself the classic question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Jobs


Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office (1)

2,931,000

Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman (2)

135,000

Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush (1)

-79,189

Number of people who have become unemployed since Bush took office (1)

2,447,000


Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office (1)

37 percent

Unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 2001 (1)

4.1 percent

Unemployment rate in March 2004 (1)

5.6 percent

Total number of unemployed Americans (1)

8,170,000

Number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) when Bush took office in January 2001 (1)

675,000

Number of Americans suffering long-term unemployment in March 2004 (1)

1,871,000

Increase in long-term unemployment under Bush (1)

177 percent

Percentage of consumers who believe jobs are plentiful (3)

11.8 percent

Number of workers who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 2002 (4)

760,000

Ballooning Deficits

Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001 (5)

$5.6 trillion

Budget deficit over next 10 years if Bush's 2005 budget proposal is enacted (6)

$5.2 trillion

Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years (6)

$2.4 trillion

Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted (6)

$478 billion

Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father (6)

$188 billion

Bush's 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan

Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt (7)

$2.2 trillion

Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan (8)

32.4 percent

Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan (8)

8.5 percent

Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

64 million

Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

$30,127

Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

$289

Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states (10)

$4-5 billion

Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999 (11)

1 million

Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT (11)

36 million

Lower Income, Rising Costs

Decrease in real median household income in 2002 (12)

1.1 percent

Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office (13)

10 percent

Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003 (13)

1,625,213

Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office (14)

24 percent

Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office (15)

50 percent

Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years (15)

14 percent

Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003 (16)

8.7 percent

Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003 (15)

61 percent

Increase in gas prices since 2000 (17)

11.5 percent

Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students. (18)

49

Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation (19)

35 percent

Sources:

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/04; 2 House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff, 3/04; 3 Conference Board, 3/04; 4 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/25/04; 5 Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, 1/01; 6 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/1/04; CBO, An Analysis of Bush's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2005, 3/04; 7 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04, 1/21/04; 8 CTJ Fact Sheet, 1/8/03; 9 CTJ Fact Sheet, 2/3/03; 10 CBPP Fact Sheet, 1/10/03; 11 Brookings Institute, Tax Policy Center, The AMT: Out of Control, 9/18/02; New York Times, 1/10/03; 12 U.S. Census Bureau, "Money Income in the United States: 2002"; 13 American Bankruptcy Institute, 3/04; 14 Conference Board, 3/04; 15 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003; 16 AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 17 CNN.com, 2/23/04; 18 Associated Press, 8/25/03; 19 College Board, College Costs 2003

[Raider Bill]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

The whole point is that the "trickle down" was far less than predicted. (the so-called multiplier effect) And even if there is a hidden second wave on its way, what makes a bigger wave? 9 cents on the dollar? 59 cents on the dollar? or $1.24 on the dollar. No matter how you spin the numbers, the payoff was far better for the State Aid.

Meanwhile, the deficit grows and grows.




So you basically reject any economic data that doesn't square with your personal economic theories? I don't really have an answer to that.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/econom...scalpolicy.pdf

I finally found the link to the source of the stats you posted. They are only talking about the short term. That 59 cents if it earns 3% (2 cents) and is taxed at 28% (around 17 cents) the other 41 cents is made up in three years not to mention the increase in GDP from allowing people to keep/invest/save/ or spend more of their own money.



After reading that report. That 1.24 figure assumes the money would be a one time measure for states to plug their budget holes and long term would have no impact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oil and Economy Cloud Stocks' Outlook

Record high oil prices and never-ending war - let's vote the bastard out.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...cks_outlook_dc

[watermock]

I think this latest Bartcop can basically explain LABF. What saddens me the most I guess that so many actually bought in.

I am incredibly hard to insult, even with personal attacks. You may think that there is some demonic motivation to the Bush Administration, just whatever. I'm a little shaken. It saddens me actually.

If Senator Kerry is elected, I will support him and expect him to protect the national security. This so blatently over the top. I can't keep from shaking my head and will let it go.

[Cito Pelon]

Old Dude, LABF, nice arguments, and I've presented a few good ones myself, but some people revel in being led.

Some people actually believe that power comes from enslaving themselves. But despite facts, reasoning, and common-sense - they believe that allying themselves with someone who's only plan is to use them for their own ends will actually profit them.

Despite all of American's sacrifices to give them power as an individual, they bow down under the lash. Subservience is their reward. They LIKE it.