the longterm economic impact of bush's tax cuts & policies.
 

Key policies enacted in the Bush Administration will continue to harm the budget outlook throughout the next decade. For instance, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for nearly $7 trillion in deficits in 2009-2019.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-11-10f2.jpg

key policies enacted in the Bush Administration will continue to harm the budget outlook throughout the next decade.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/whos...-is-it-anyway/

He did tax cuts with out cutting spending. Now Obama is raising taxes and spending larger than Bush. We are fucked.

You really know nothing about economics except what the idealogues tell you to think, huh?



It's so sad that people are swallowing this stuff as gospel without taking any time and effort to educate themselves on how economies work.... just reading blogs that they already agree with.

This graph is being put out so that the left can justify the terrible problems that will be created from the big tax increases that are coming down the pike. It's the same thing that caused the great depression to last so long in the US.


I'm now copying myself from another thread...


The rich use the money to invest in businesses, which creates jobs. Even when they take blocks of capital and put it into mutual funds, or just a savings account, it ends up invested. They don't hide the money under their beds. It's always circulated through investment, growing businesses, or spending on large items/services. The rich get that way because they use their money to create more wealth. When you raise taxes, it goes into a government system that does not create wealth in any way. The government either takes it from the actual producers of wealth, or it inflates the money by printing more, or it borrows it in the form of bonds. The government creates NOTHING in terms of actual wealth for society.

EVERY SINGLE TIME, taxes are lowered, the economy is stimulated, more jobs are created, more people are working and paying taxes, and the actual tax revenues realized GO UP!!

This has been proven over and over and over again. It was the reason why for example the depression of 1920 was avoided, and instead we had the roaring 20s. By the same token, raising taxes is the reason that the US depression of the 30s lasted so much longer than it did everywhere else.

You really should read some books on economics and history.

Just sayin....


.

gear down, big rig, you have a long way to go before you are in 12clicks territory.

i have no problem admitting i am not an expert on economics, you can try to act like you are but i also know better.

fact is, those are not my thoughts and opinions, they are from a couple of economists who've studied the matter in depth, thought i'd post the link. are they right, who knows. but i know you don't know so please, take it elsewhere.

you know what. i just read this part, you really have no idea what you are talking about-

to say you have original thoughts while posting your comments that are regurgitated from whomever you got them from while telling me i need to study history and not believe whatever whomever told me makes you a hypocrite.

Ron and I have fun conversations... He's a good guy.


And you don't know anything about my educational background, so I'm not sure how you "know better". We can certainly both play the link game to back up our points, I'm sure, but anyone that knows me, not only knows that I have a passion for history, and studied economics while getting my degree, but also that my house is stuffed with non-fiction books, many on economics and history, that I read for fun all the time.

You seem to think that your points are more valid based on, what, exactly?


:)

P.S. Try reading some Adam Smith, just as an example. It's actually fun and interesting to read, seriously.


.

Not correct. There is a big difference in studying concepts in depth, from comprehensive sources, over time, and reaching an understanding in your own mind as to how something works; and simply quoting a short piece from the internet without having that background in order to put it into perspective.

Do you really think that they are the same?


.

i've done business with ron and chatted with him as a result. he's harmless. on the other hand, you try too hard.

you claimed you knew my educational background based on your insulting comments/assumptions about my views and need to study history and economics (i've a degree in history from berkeley, 1996)

i've read more smith than i care to.

fact is, as smart as you think you are, i find it funny you assume you know what people have or have not read as you fire off your attempts to insult.

kinda sounds like you have the way to solve this here global financial crisis, in a one paragraph, no less

I wasn't attempting to insult, I was making general statements. I apologize that you got that impression. Frankly, I thought you were attempting to insult me also. LOL. Apparently neither of us knows enough about the other (although some people might find the fact that you have a degree from Berkeley somewhat revealing.. :) ).


We can simply agree to disagree on this one, I guess. Personally I'm really hoping that we do not go with the increased taxes, increased spending route.


.

For some reason I keep thinking it was economically a bad idea to spend more than a trillion dollars in Iraq with no return on that investment while simultaneously providing tax cuts without funding them with countervailing spending cuts. Also, I can't figure out the economic advantage Bush was trying to gain by having Paul Bremer 'misplace' billions of dollars in Iraq, but Bremer must have exceeded Bush's expectations somehow because Bush awarded him a Medal of Freedom for his 'work.'

If you do like history, feel free to jot this down... you will eventually see a paragraph just like it in every history book about this era: "George W. Bush squandered one of the largest budget surpluses in American history by engaging in a trillion dollar war of choice while simultaneously stripping American citizens of key Constitutional rights. He managed to quell public outrage during his Presidency by satiating his constituency with unfunded tax cuts that kept them quiet while he badly damaged the country and put the national economy on the verge of imminent collapse. Barack Obama did an inadequate job of cleaning up the enormous economic mess that George W. Bush created and failed to return the country to the economic heights achieved during the Clinton administration." :2 cents:

i appreciate the clarification. fact is though, i don't know what it is you think we disagree on. i haven't stated an opinion.

The govt is fucked no matter who runs it. There are major changes that need to be in place for it work cost effectively. If you gave the President line item veto, prohibited piggy backing bills on top of other bills and had a balanced budget amendment we might, just maybe, begin to make some headway.

If you give the president line item veto we no longer have a president, we have a dictator.

A line item veto would be subject to legislative override just like any other Presidential veto. Also, in every state but 6 or 7 the Governor has line item veto power. Why not the President too?

I think he mentions that in this speech

Probably the most spot on post regarding simple economics. You, wig, and woj know their shit.. People don't understand the concept of "capital investments".

Great, now Obama is making Bush's mistakes look harmless.

http://www.combatkaare.com/images/is...n-of-peace.jpg

http://www.selfrevolution.com/graphi...olitics/03.jpg

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1231509608.jpg

http://www.rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/sheep.jpg

People are idiots. When a politician says "I'm going to lower your taxes" what they are really saying is "I'm going to reduce the amount of taxes your paying now to make me look good, but then your going to pay more when the next jackass is in office".

Here's an example of what Bush just did... Remember that last stimulus package he pushed through? Did anyone look at what was really in it? How many hundreds of millions of dollars went right the door to, say, the Philippines? I mean, there is no better way to stimulate the American economy other than sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the children of Filipinos who supported the US during WWII. Then to top it off, we won't fund it and make the other guy pay for it.

Think I'm kidding? Fucking look it up.

This is how Washington operates. They pass laws and bills without funding anything, and then leave a mess for the next guy to pay for it. They've been doing it for years.