PDA

View Full Version : Bush Tax Cuts A Decade Of Failure



Gayle in MD
06-08-2011, 09:36 AM
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts: A Decade Of Failure</span>June 07, 2011 10:01 am ET
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first of the two massive tax cuts signed by President George W. Bush and is yet another great opportunity to illustrate that both tax packages failed to deliver on their promised results. Bush told the country that the tax cuts would result in economic growth and sustained prosperity, but the economy got neither. In fact, from 2001 to 2007, the economy experienced the weakest job growth since the end of World War II. While the nation's millionaires and billionaires were enriched, average household income fell for the first time on record. Worse, since the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves as many conservatives claimed they would the two tax packages added trillions to the nation's deficit. During the current debate on deficits and debt, it's important to remember just how much the Bush tax cuts accelerated the fiscal troubles we're now facing.


Bush Tax Cuts Failed To Deliver
During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. According to the Tax Policy Center's William Gale: "Economic research over the past decade can explain why extending the original Bush tax cuts is not good stimulus policy. After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households appear to have spent in relatively short order somewhere between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut. This makes tax cuts in general - even the parts of those tax bills that were intended to stimulate - a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending." [Tax Policy Center, 9/30/10]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts Followed By Weakest Jobs And Income Growth In Post-War Period. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the Bush tax cuts failed to deliver jobs and income growth: "This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty." [Center for American Progress, February 2009]</span>

Bush Tax Cuts Followed By "The Slowest Average Annual Growth Since World War II." As the New York Times' David Leonhardt explains:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 - the dreaded 1970s - but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.

The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods. Here's a chart ranking five-year periods over the past 50 years, in descending order of average annual growth:



[...]

Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

[New York Times, 11/18/10]

Heritage Foundation Budget Guru: Bush Tax Cuts Played Some Role In Lower Revenues. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl admits: "the 2001/2003 tax cuts played some role in keeping revenues below their historical average for most of the 2000s, but the country was also recovering from a recession at that time, too." [Heritage Foundation, 7/29/10]

Bush Cuts Followed By Slowest Jobs Growth Since The End Of World War II. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, "from March 2001 to December 2007 the economy added 1.8 million jobs for workers aged 25 to 54, only 22,000 per month. That translates to an average annualized growth rate of only 0.3 percent per month-the slowest of any cycle on record since the end of World War II and one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Are Costly, Add To Deficit And Debt
The Bush Tax Cuts Are The Primary Driver Of Federal Budget Deficits Over The Next Decade. Below is a chart from CBPP showing the deficit impacts of war spending, financial recovery spending, the recession itself, and the Bush tax cuts:



[CBPP.org, 6/28/10]

Continuing Bush Tax Cuts Doom The Long-Term Fiscal Picture. As the Tax Policy Center's William Gale has explained: "The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020." [Washington Post, 8/1/10]

Extending Bush Tax Cuts "Would Increase The Debt By An Amount Roughly Equal To The Size Of The Economy." As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In fact, if an unpaid-for extension is enacted, by 2050, the national debt "would increase the debt by an amount roughly equal to the size of the economy."



[CBPP, 11/16/10]

Present "Huge Deficits" Partly Due To Bush Tax Cuts. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains: <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers' actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term."</span> [CBPP.org, 5/10/11]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities prepared the following graphic showing that the Bush tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for nearly half of public debt by 2019:</span>

[CPBB.org, 5/20/11]


Numerous charts available at the link!

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

LWW
06-08-2011, 09:55 AM
Yet amazingly, from the inception of the tax cuts until the democrooks took congress ... revenue increased from S1,782.3B to $2,568.0B to. That's an increase of 44.08% in 4 years, or an increase of $785.7B.

Then, from when the democrooks took over, revenue fell from $2,568.0B to $2,162.7B. That's a drop of 15.78%, or $405.3B.

Now here's a question, you may use a calculator if need be, which number is larger ... +$785.7B or -$405.3B.

Here's another hint, it's +$785.3B.

Let me know when you figure it out.

LWW
06-08-2011, 09:57 AM
BTW ... that's a turnaround of $1,191B ... or about 80% of the current deficit.

Put another way, the budget mess is the result of the democrookic congress ... without which the deficit would be back to Bush/R era levels.

Further, I used to think the Bush/R era levels were horrendous ... by the current standards, they are downright skinflintish.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2011, 09:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts: A Decade Of Failure</span>June 07, 2011 10:01 am ET
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first of the two massive tax cuts signed by President George W. Bush and is yet another great opportunity to illustrate that both tax packages failed to deliver on their promised results. Bush told the country that the tax cuts would result in economic growth and sustained prosperity, but the economy got neither. In fact, from 2001 to 2007, the economy experienced the weakest job growth since the end of World War II. While the nation's millionaires and billionaires were enriched, average household income fell for the first time on record. Worse, since the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves as many conservatives claimed they would the two tax packages added trillions to the nation's deficit. During the current debate on deficits and debt, it's important to remember just how much the Bush tax cuts accelerated the fiscal troubles we're now facing.


Bush Tax Cuts Failed To Deliver
During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. According to the Tax Policy Center's William Gale: "Economic research over the past decade can explain why extending the original Bush tax cuts is not good stimulus policy. After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households appear to have spent in relatively short order somewhere between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut. This makes tax cuts in general - even the parts of those tax bills that were intended to stimulate - a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending." [Tax Policy Center, 9/30/10]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts Followed By Weakest Jobs And Income Growth In Post-War Period. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the Bush tax cuts failed to deliver jobs and income growth: "This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty." [Center for American Progress, February 2009]</span>

Bush Tax Cuts Followed By "The Slowest Average Annual Growth Since World War II." As the New York Times' David Leonhardt explains:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 - the dreaded 1970s - but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.

The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods. Here's a chart ranking five-year periods over the past 50 years, in descending order of average annual growth:



[...]

Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

[New York Times, 11/18/10]

Heritage Foundation Budget Guru: Bush Tax Cuts Played Some Role In Lower Revenues. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl admits: "the 2001/2003 tax cuts played some role in keeping revenues below their historical average for most of the 2000s, but the country was also recovering from a recession at that time, too." [Heritage Foundation, 7/29/10]

Bush Cuts Followed By Slowest Jobs Growth Since The End Of World War II. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, "from March 2001 to December 2007 the economy added 1.8 million jobs for workers aged 25 to 54, only 22,000 per month. That translates to an average annualized growth rate of only 0.3 percent per month-the slowest of any cycle on record since the end of World War II and one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Are Costly, Add To Deficit And Debt
The Bush Tax Cuts Are The Primary Driver Of Federal Budget Deficits Over The Next Decade. Below is a chart from CBPP showing the deficit impacts of war spending, financial recovery spending, the recession itself, and the Bush tax cuts:



[CBPP.org, 6/28/10]

Continuing Bush Tax Cuts Doom The Long-Term Fiscal Picture. As the Tax Policy Center's William Gale has explained: "The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020." [Washington Post, 8/1/10]

Extending Bush Tax Cuts "Would Increase The Debt By An Amount Roughly Equal To The Size Of The Economy." As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In fact, if an unpaid-for extension is enacted, by 2050, the national debt "would increase the debt by an amount roughly equal to the size of the economy."



[CBPP, 11/16/10]

Present "Huge Deficits" Partly Due To Bush Tax Cuts. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains: <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers' actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term."</span> [CBPP.org, 5/10/11]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities prepared the following graphic showing that the Bush tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for nearly half of public debt by 2019:</span>

[CPBB.org, 5/20/11]


Numerous charts available at the link!

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And now that we all had the opportunity to watch the Repiglican stand up comedy show, we all know the Repiglican candidates have no plan for recovering from their failed neocon policies, other than more of the same policies that brought this country to it's knees in the first place!

Same old tired, failed Repiglican rhetoric and lies!

They have not learned one thing from the mess they made! Nothing!

At least now we know their S**t simple campaign slogan,


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's "mourning" in America</span>!

G.
</span> </span>

Qtec
06-14-2011, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet amazingly, from the inception of the tax cuts until the democrooks took congress ... revenue increased from S1,782.3B to $2,568.0B to. That's an increase of 44.08% in 4 years, or an increase of $785.7B.

Then, from when the democrooks took over, revenue fell from $2,568.0B to $2,162.7B. That's a drop of 15.78%, or $405.3B.

Now here's a question, you may use a calculator if need be, which number is larger ... +$785.7B or -$405.3B.

Here's another hint, it's +$785.3B.

Let me know when you figure it out. </div></div>

Dishonest of you. How about revenue as a % of GDP?

http://krmullins1964.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/govt-revenue-to-gdp-ratio-for-1950-to-2010_06_02_2011.png

Q

Sid_Vicious
06-14-2011, 02:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts: A Decade Of Failure</span>June 07, 2011 10:01 am ET
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first of the two massive tax cuts signed by President George W. Bush and is yet another great opportunity to illustrate that both tax packages failed to deliver on their promised results. Bush told the country that the tax cuts would result in economic growth and sustained prosperity, but the economy got neither. In fact, from 2001 to 2007, the economy experienced the weakest job growth since the end of World War II. While the nation's millionaires and billionaires were enriched, average household income fell for the first time on record. Worse, since the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves as many conservatives claimed they would the two tax packages added trillions to the nation's deficit. During the current debate on deficits and debt, it's important to remember just how much the Bush tax cuts accelerated the fiscal troubles we're now facing.


Bush Tax Cuts Failed To Deliver
During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. According to the Tax Policy Center's William Gale: "Economic research over the past decade can explain why extending the original Bush tax cuts is not good stimulus policy. After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households appear to have spent in relatively short order somewhere between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut. This makes tax cuts in general - even the parts of those tax bills that were intended to stimulate - a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending." [Tax Policy Center, 9/30/10]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush Tax Cuts Followed By Weakest Jobs And Income Growth In Post-War Period. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the Bush tax cuts failed to deliver jobs and income growth: "This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty." [Center for American Progress, February 2009]</span>

Bush Tax Cuts Followed By "The Slowest Average Annual Growth Since World War II." As the New York Times' David Leonhardt explains:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 - the dreaded 1970s - but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.

The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods. Here's a chart ranking five-year periods over the past 50 years, in descending order of average annual growth:



[...]

Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

[New York Times, 11/18/10]

Heritage Foundation Budget Guru: Bush Tax Cuts Played Some Role In Lower Revenues. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl admits: "the 2001/2003 tax cuts played some role in keeping revenues below their historical average for most of the 2000s, but the country was also recovering from a recession at that time, too." [Heritage Foundation, 7/29/10]

Bush Cuts Followed By Slowest Jobs Growth Since The End Of World War II. According to a report by the Center for American Progress, "from March 2001 to December 2007 the economy added 1.8 million jobs for workers aged 25 to 54, only 22,000 per month. That translates to an average annualized growth rate of only 0.3 percent per month-the slowest of any cycle on record since the end of World War II and one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s."



[Center for American Progress, February 2009]

Bush Tax Cuts Are Costly, Add To Deficit And Debt
The Bush Tax Cuts Are The Primary Driver Of Federal Budget Deficits Over The Next Decade. Below is a chart from CBPP showing the deficit impacts of war spending, financial recovery spending, the recession itself, and the Bush tax cuts:



[CBPP.org, 6/28/10]

Continuing Bush Tax Cuts Doom The Long-Term Fiscal Picture. As the Tax Policy Center's William Gale has explained: "The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020." [Washington Post, 8/1/10]

Extending Bush Tax Cuts "Would Increase The Debt By An Amount Roughly Equal To The Size Of The Economy." As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In fact, if an unpaid-for extension is enacted, by 2050, the national debt "would increase the debt by an amount roughly equal to the size of the economy."



[CBPP, 11/16/10]

Present "Huge Deficits" Partly Due To Bush Tax Cuts. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains: <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers' actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term."</span> [CBPP.org, 5/10/11]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities prepared the following graphic showing that the Bush tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for nearly half of public debt by 2019:</span>

[CPBB.org, 5/20/11]


Numerous charts available at the link!

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/5902

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And now that we all had the opportunity to watch the Repiglican stand up comedy show, we all know the Repiglican candidates have no plan for recovering from their failed neocon policies, other than more of the same policies that brought this country to it's knees in the first place!

Same old tired, failed Repiglican rhetoric and lies!

They have not learned one thing from the mess they made! Nothing!

At least now we know their S**t simple campaign slogan,


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's "mourning" in America</span>!

G.
</span> </span> </div></div>

Some really stupid people in this country Gayle. First, you have absolutely the best economy(Clinton) in 2000, and still vote the Dems out and get Bush, not only one term, but even a second term! Went from the best to the absolute worst with Bush. What total baffons we have for voters in this country. I have to say, we as a country "asked for it", no matter if you and I did not vote republican. Maybe Obama will get things going better in his second term. sid

Qtec
06-14-2011, 04:20 AM
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/29136/slide_29136_290494_large.jpg

Q

LWW
06-14-2011, 04:45 AM
So why are you campaigning for a system where the rich pay a lower share?

Gayle in MD
06-14-2011, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/29136/slide_29136_290494_large.jpg

Q </div></div>

The charts showing the percentage of wealth, and where it has gone, are undeniable.

But, the RW Neoconned, can deny all of it.


WE have a revenue problem. You can't run a huge country, on a shoe string.

REpigs getting back in there was the absolute worse thing that could have happened.

They destroyed any opportuunity to make progress, faster, basically they filibustered the recovery, and their Shock Doctrine, for fascism, is well on its way.

Wrapped in the flag, waving the cross...as they chip away at our constitutional rights, and seek to be dictators.

LWW
06-14-2011, 08:12 AM
So you also are in favor of a tax policy that shifts the burden away from the top 1% ... actually I'm not at all surprised by that.

All your chart proves is that:

- Leftists are illiterate enough on economics to believe the economy is static.

- The entrepreneurial wealth producers will, when allowed by the state, produce wealth.

- The old money of the top 1% will hide it from the tax man, and this is generally where the wealthy leftists reside.

- Those addicted to welfare because the state has deprived them of an education and stuck the needle of taxpayer funding in their veins from birth, will consume and consume wealth while creating nearly none.

But, I have little hope that you will comprehend the truth when presented to you.