The Lost Decade according to BO

Post Reply
User avatar
SOBF
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Maine

The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by SOBF » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:25 pm

If any of you folks find it can you give me a "shout out" My wife was gainfully employed and my 401 K was looking pretty good.
The Bush tax cuts were benefiting the wealthy like myself. The company I work for was growing instead of retracting.

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by Upsetter » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:57 pm

That's contracting bud, not retracting, and are you sure the reason why is bush's tax cuts and not a sound business plan, hard work, wise risk mgmt, etc...you know, the kinds of things that make most businesses a success vs a failure? Bush's tax cuts were more like icing on the cake, making the fat fatter, rather than engendering any success vs failure in the american business world.
When George W. Bush became President, the federal government enjoyed a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Today, less than three years later, Washington confronts sizable annual budget deficits regardless of the cyclical ups and downs of the economy. A growing number of private forecasters now predict a 10-year deficit of around $4 trillion -- $6.7 trillion excluding the Social Security surplus. Government debt and interest payments are slated to double as a share of the economy over the next decade, crowding out private investment and government spending on anything else.

The Administration argues that its tax cuts are necessary to stimulate growth in a sluggish economy. But this argument is specious. The economy may have needed a temporary infusion of additional demand during the past three years. But temporary tax cuts or spending hikes for hard-pressed working families, unemployed workers, and state governments would have stimulated demand much more effectively than tax cuts for the rich. The Administration has also made misleading comments about the size of the tax benefits people will receive from the 2003 tax package. Although the average tax cut is about $1,000, that's because the tax breaks for the richest Americans are so large. More than half of all American taxpayers will get a reduction of less than $120 per year over the next two years. More than a third of taxpayers will get nothing.

Over the past three years, the Administration has served its ideological and wealthy campaign supporters well. Payroll taxes that pose the heaviest tax burden for most American families have been left untouched while the top marginal income tax rate, the capital-gains tax, and the dividend tax have been reduced. At the same time, the government has been starved of revenue to honor its entitlement commitments to the middle class and its means-tested commitments to the poor and disadvantaged. Even as they attack the Democrats for inciting class warfare, the President and his congressional allies have been waging it with a vengeance. Many Americans, especially those with low incomes, do not vote. As Americans consider whether to vote in 2004, they should ask: Are they better off now? Will they be better off in the long run? For most Americans, the answer is no.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _mz007.htm
So, was it worth it? I hear 20% of this deficit yall bitch about that BO ran up is cause of these tax cuts, that really didnt do shit. BO's stimulus worked 10x better considering we had a 4% contraction in Q2 and a two straight quarters of 2.5-3+% growth in Q3-4. Those tax cuts jumped us from .5% growth to 4% growth over several years and much of it fueled by real estate speculation. Yeah, sounds like you got yours. I think that is the right wing mantra these days, isnt it?

User avatar
SOBF
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Maine

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by SOBF » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:15 am

Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Taxpayer Tax That Would Have Been Owed under Clinton-Era Tax Law Tax Owed under Current Law, with Bush Tax Cuts
Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50
*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax
The bold is the tax after Bush cuts went into place.

Looks to me like the Bush tax cuts helped all income brackets. Just keep saying it only helped the rich does not make it so. Under Clinton any bonus I received was taxed at 44%...it dropped to 36% under Bush...To blame the huge deficit on tax cuts seems odd to me...you just can't cut them and spend like crazy which the Bush and Congress did.

User avatar
bigfatomcat
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:01 am
Location: Maine

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by bigfatomcat » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:56 am

While I'm sure there's a great point in here somewhere, i can't get my eyes of your avatar.

Reminds me of following the bouncing ball....casper the friendly ghost, the ghost with great big tits!

User avatar
troutsnot
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:15 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by troutsnot » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:53 am

bigfatomcat wrote:While I'm sure there's a great point in here somewhere, i can't get my eyes of your avatar.

Reminds me of following the bouncing ball....casper the friendly ghost, the ghost with great big tits!

Thats what the Right Wing does. They throw a bunch of numbers at you with delectible titties distracting you.
Thats Ok though. I heard a rumor from the bowels of D.C., that my girl Nancy P. is going to lose her blouse on C-span next week, and say here " you dummies want transparency on C-span?, span these". Cougars Rock!

User avatar
m.b.
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: U.S.-occupied Texas

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by m.b. » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:51 am

check your pms, boob boy.
III

User avatar
SOBF
Posts: 9031
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Maine

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by SOBF » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:16 pm

Chime the crickets...no response Upsetter on the Clinton vs Bush tax rates? "Bush's tax cuts only helped the rich" HORSESHIT..his tax cuts helped all...his spending hurt all

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by BigCliff » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:42 pm

SOBF wrote:To blame the huge deficit on tax cuts seems odd to me...
Its fair to say that the deficit does not exist solely due to Bush's tax cuts. But we might be calling it "large" instead of "huge" if all that additional money had come in.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
ditchdoc
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Flatlands of Kansas

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by ditchdoc » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:41 pm

That avatard IS hypnotic. er... what was this thread about?
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever.

User avatar
ditchdoc
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Flatlands of Kansas

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by ditchdoc » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:42 pm

SOBF wrote:Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Taxpayer Tax That Would Have Been Owed under Clinton-Era Tax Law Tax Owed under Current Law, with Bush Tax Cuts
Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50
*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax
The bold is the tax after Bush cuts went into place.

Looks to me like the Bush tax cuts helped all income brackets. Just keep saying it only helped the rich does not make it so. Under Clinton any bonus I received was taxed at 44%...it dropped to 36% under Bush...To blame the huge deficit on tax cuts seems odd to me...you just can't cut them and spend like crazy which the Bush and Congress did.
Upsetter posted attribution. What's yours?
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever.

User avatar
Spudnik
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:34 am

Re: The Lost Decade according to BO

Post by Spudnik » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:45 pm

BigCliff wrote:
SOBF wrote:To blame the huge deficit on tax cuts seems odd to me...
Its fair to say that the deficit does not exist solely due to Bush's tax cuts. But we might be calling it "large" instead of "huge" if all that additional money had come in.
You're right, we'd rather collect taxes on households than collect them on revenue from businesses that would benefit from increased consumer spending due to noted tax cuts. Good job.

Actually, you may be right. Corporate taxes are far too high in this nation.
"Do you think it is real? I bet it is hard and soft, like hard muscle but really smooth skin. I bet it is real nice." - midstream

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests