Bush vs President Clinton

Some people like McG rarely understands the subject they talk about on a2k.

Here's the official analysis by some respected organizations.

New Report Questions Effectiveness, Design of
Bush Tax Cuts through 2004 and Beyond

Comments by Brookings economist William Gale

View Related Analyses

If you cannot access the files through the links, right-click on the underlined text, click "Save Link As," download to your directory, and open the document in Adobe Acrobat Reader.

A new study of three years of Administration tax cuts, issued by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, finds adverse fiscal, distributional, and long-term economic effects from the tax cuts. The study, Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration Tax Cuts, represents perhaps the most comprehensive analysis yet issued of the effects of the tax cuts, synthesizing previous findings on both the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts and the tax policy proposals in the Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget and featuring significant new data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

Among the study's highlights:

* The average tax cut for the top one percent of households will be nearly $35,000 this year, 54 times the average tax cut of $647 that the middle fifth of households will receive. This finding is based on a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center that examines the effects of all components of the tax cuts and is the first comprehensive Tax Policy Center analysis to be based on a revised and improved Tax Policy Center model that fully incorporates the corporate and estate tax reductions.

* The tax cuts will bestow more than $30 billion in 2004 on the 257,000 households with incomes exceeding $1 million, with these households securing average tax cuts of $123,600 each. The $30+ billion in tax cuts that these "millionaires" will receive in 2004 far exceeds the total amount of tax cuts that the nearly 29 million households who comprise the middle fifth of the U.S. population will get.

* The tax cuts were not well designed to stimulate a weak economy. Only eight to 14 percent of the 2003 tax-cut package, which was promoted as being necessary to boost economic recovery, consists of high "bang-for-the-buck" tax cuts that will be provided by the end of fiscal year 2004. (A high bang-for-the-buck proposal is one that increases economic "demand" in the short term by more than one dollar for each dollar of lost tax revenue.) The tax cuts consequently have produced significantly less economic stimulus than could have been provided for the same (or less) budgetary cost. The failure of policymakers to design and enact more effective stimulus measures has likely contributed to job creation being more meager during this recovery than in other recoveries since the end of World War II.

0 Replies

Please do not miss reading the last sentence; the most important one in the article IMHO.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Woiyo, the comparisons are useful because, with the possible exception of the Social Security plan, most Republicans have supported Bush's tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy economic plan. They are even saying how it has led to an increase in government funds. In fact, if you adjust for inflation, the government is collecting LESS money now than in Clinton's final year!

To which, Woiyo responded

woiyo wrote:

] Wrong!

The tax plan that was recently extended benefited everyone across the board. No one is paying more in taxes now than they were prior to the legislation passed several years ago.

Woiyo, can you read English?

I did not say that anyone was paying more in taxes than in 2000, I said that without the Bush tax cuts, we were collecting more in revenue in 2000 than this year.

The country had grown larger in five years. We have numerically more people working now. Yet if you eliminate the Social Security tax, (which is officially "off-budget"), you get the following figures:

US Government Revenue Minus Social Security Tax:

2000: $1372.4 billion
2005: $1359.8 billion

Republicans are lying when they saying cutting taxes spurs the economy which creates more tax revenue. It does not work that way. Without those tax cuts, Clinton could get rid of the deficit and put the country on a good financial footing. With the Bush tax cuts, the US Government collects numerically less total revenue, even though we now have more population and more people working than five years ago.

Which is why we now have huge deficits where a surplus used to exist. And a national debt that is going out of control.

If you love America and care about her future, you have to go for a balanced budget-and that means getting rid of the disastrous tax cuts. And that means voting for a balanced budget Democrat, because the Republicans favor the tax cuts for the wealthy which is driving up the deficits and national debt.

0 Replies

1. He definitely doesn't understand English.
2. He puppets the rhetoric of the conservatives even though credible organizations says otherwise.
3. He cannot see the struggles of the middle class families; more falling into poverty, losing their health insurance, and pay raises not keeping up with inflation.

Some people have calcified brains that can't be penetrated with evidence. Their belief in their party is similar to religion. No amount of facts will deter their belief.

0 Replies

Clinton was good for Republicans as he made more people rich and conservative. Bush is good for Democrats as he makes more people poor and thus become Democrats.

0 Replies

talk, That's a brilliant analogy of Clinton and Bush. I always thought Clinton was more conservative than liberal, and Bush is definitely a democrat; spending like a drunken sailor with no tomorrows.

0 Replies

I just wanted you to laugh.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

1. He definitely doesn't understand English.
2. He puppets the rhetoric of the conservatives even though credible organizations says otherwise.
3. He cannot see the struggles of the middle class families; more falling into poverty, losing their health insurance, and pay raises not keeping up with inflation.

Some people have calcified brains that can't be penetrated with evidence. Their belief in their party is similar to religion. No amount of facts will deter their belief.

The stupidity of your commentary reinforces my belief that you and your ilk can never have an onjective thought and refuse to see the facts AS YOU POST THEM.

WITH then tax cuts, your figures suggest that we are collecting the same amount of revenue. I have more in my pocket yet the country is still collecting the same revenue.

Only stupid people like you think that is a bad thing.

0 Replies

No, Woiyo, that is not a good thing.

The population has grown in the past five years. The government must supply more because we have more people. Numerically, we have more people working. IF things were normal, the revenues would be growing.

In fact, since 1962, the revenues of the US government-minus Social Security tax-have grown at the rate of 6.7% a year. THAT'S normal. Standing still year after year is not.

For the first five years of Clinton's presidency, on-budget, (ie. minus social Secuirity) revenues grew at a rate of 8.9% a year. That is why Clinton could produce a surplus, and put a halt to the runaway deficits and ballooning national debt of the Reagan-Bush years. I'll give Reagan credit, the economy was in big trouble when he took over and he got it started again. But the downside was that in his later years, plus Bush I years, the deficits began to mount up and hurt us badly.

The Republicans have been selling this line that if you cut taxes to the wealthy, they willl invest more, more people will be working and paying taxes, and in the end we get more revenue. Well, it has not worked that way.

When it is normal to increase 6.7% a year, and you have been standing still for five years, you are falling behind.

When your population grows and your government revenue is standing still year after year, you are falling behind.

When more people are working, but your government revenue does not grow year after year, you are falling behind.

The Bush tax cut plan is a disaster for the country.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
1. He definitely doesn't understand English.
2. He puppets the rhetoric of the conservatives even though credible organizations says otherwise.
3. He cannot see the struggles of the middle class families; more falling into poverty, losing their health insurance, and pay raises not keeping up with inflation.

Some people have calcified brains that can't be penetrated with evidence. Their belief in their party is similar to religion. No amount of facts will deter their belief.

The stupidity of your commentary reinforces my belief that you and your ilk can never have an onjective thought and refuse to see the facts AS YOU POST THEM.

WITH then tax cuts, your figures suggest that we are collecting the same amount of revenue. I have more in my pocket yet the country is still collecting the same revenue.

Only stupid people like you think that is a bad thing.

Don't spend your $20 all in one place!

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
1. He definitely doesn't understand English.
2. He puppets the rhetoric of the conservatives even though credible organizations says otherwise.
3. He cannot see the struggles of the middle class families; more falling into poverty, losing their health insurance, and pay raises not keeping up with inflation.

Some people have calcified brains that can't be penetrated with evidence. Their belief in their party is similar to religion. No amount of facts will deter their belief.

The stupidity of your commentary reinforces my belief that you and your ilk can never have an onjective thought and refuse to see the facts AS YOU POST THEM.

WITH then tax cuts, your figures suggest that we are collecting the same amount of revenue. I have more in my pocket yet the country is still collecting the same revenue.

Only stupid people like you think that is a bad thing.

Don't spend your $20 all in one place!

You do not have the intellectual capacity to debate this issue. So take your childish comments somewhere else.

0 Replies

Woiyo:

Anytime you would like to respond to my analysis would be fine with me.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

No, Woiyo, that is not a good thing.

The population has grown in the past five years. The government must supply more because we have more people. Numerically, we have more people working. IF things were normal, the revenues would be growing.

In fact, since 1962, the revenues of the US government-minus Social Security tax-have grown at the rate of 6.7% a year. THAT'S normal. Standing still year after year is not.

For the first five years of Clinton's presidency, on-budget, (ie. minus social Secuirity) revenues grew at a rate of 8.9% a year. That is why Clinton could produce a surplus, and put a halt to the runaway deficits and ballooning national debt of the Reagan-Bush years. I'll give Reagan credit, the economy was in big trouble when he took over and he got it started again. But the downside was that in his later years, plus Bush I years, the deficits began to mount up and hurt us badly.

The Republicans have been selling this line that if you cut taxes to the wealthy, they willl invest more, more people will be working and paying taxes, and in the end we get more revenue. Well, it has not worked that way.

When it is normal to increase 6.7% a year, and you have been standing still for five years, you are falling behind.

When your population grows and your government revenue is standing still year after year, you are falling behind.

When more people are working, but your government revenue does not grow year after year, you are falling behind.

The Bush tax cut plan is a disaster for the country.

In order to agree with your position, one must support high taxes and wasteful spending. I support neither. Over the past 20 years this govt has expanded spending in areas that provide no return (paying extortion to foreign countries and social welfare programs to the unwilling as examples). That trend needs to stop and while the Bush tax plan does NOT do anything in this regard, cutting taxes accross the board has helped turn the economy around.

However, the cuts needed to be deeper at the middle brackets and spending has to be reduced.

GW has NOT done a good job in either area but the tax bill passed a few years ago needed to be extended.

0 Replies

So what you are saying, then Woiyo, is that you believe it is a good thing to cut taxes REGARDLESS of what happens to the budget?

If the deficits get large, larger, larger still, cut taxes anyway!

If the national debt gets big, bigger, bigger still, cut taxes anyway!

If ten percent, fifteen percent, twenty percent of our budget soon is devoted to paying off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous deficits, cut taxes anyway.

By all means, cut taxes. IF you can cut the size of the budget to fit the reduced revenue, that is fine. But if you cannot cut the size of the budget, go ahead and cut taxes anyway!

That is your position, correct?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

So what you are saying, then Woiyo, is that you believe it is a good thing to cut taxes REGARDLESS of what happens to the budget?

If the deficits get large, larger, larger still, cut taxes anyway!

If the national debt gets big, bigger, bigger still, cut taxes anyway!

If ten percent, fifteen percent, twenty percent of our budget soon is devoted to paying off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous deficits, cut taxes anyway.

By all means, cut taxes. IF you can cut the size of the budget to fit the reduced revenue, that is fine. But if you cannot cut the size of the budget, go ahead and cut taxes anyway!

That is your position, correct?

Not without cuts in spending.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
So what you are saying, then Woiyo, is that you believe it is a good thing to cut taxes REGARDLESS of what happens to the budget?

If the deficits get large, larger, larger still, cut taxes anyway!

If the national debt gets big, bigger, bigger still, cut taxes anyway!

If ten percent, fifteen percent, twenty percent of our budget soon is devoted to paying off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous deficits, cut taxes anyway.

By all means, cut taxes. IF you can cut the size of the budget to fit the reduced revenue, that is fine. But if you cannot cut the size of the budget, go ahead and cut taxes anyway!

That is your position, correct?

Not without cuts in spending.

EXACTLY!

Until spending and pork are cut from the federal budget, the deficit will remain going up. If spending is NOT curtailed, all raising taxes does is give Congress more money to waste.

0 Replies

But you're NOT cutting spending. Even under Reagan, the budget got bigger every year.

In my lifetime, and I suppose yours as well, nobody has ever come up with a politically viable means of reducing the budget.

So Woiyo and McGentrix come up supporting these tax cut bills, then don't come up with any viable budget cuts with any chance of success, and that is supposed to be okay.

Fact is, your entire plan is to just cut taxes, and if we soon end up paying twenty or twenty five percent of our budget to pay off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous shortfalls-hey that's not your fault.

Reckless, extreme, and will lead to disaster.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

But you're NOT cutting spending. Even under Reagan, the budget got bigger every year.

In my lifetime, and I suppose yours as well, nobody has ever come up with a politically viable means of reducing the budget.

So Woiyo and McGentrix come up supporting these tax cut bills, then don't come up with any viable budget cuts with any chance of success, and that is supposed to be okay.

Fact is, your entire plan is to just cut taxes, and if we soon end up paying twenty or twenty five percent of our budget to pay off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous shortfalls-hey that's not your fault.

Reckless, extreme, and will lead to disaster.

I just posted 2 simnple ideas where to make spending cuts. So, once again, you react without fully absorbing an objective approach.

I see you have offerred no alternatives, except to keep increasing taxes to cover the waste in the govt spending. BRILLIANT!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
So what you are saying, then Woiyo, is that you believe it is a good thing to cut taxes REGARDLESS of what happens to the budget?

If the deficits get large, larger, larger still, cut taxes anyway!

If the national debt gets big, bigger, bigger still, cut taxes anyway!

If ten percent, fifteen percent, twenty percent of our budget soon is devoted to paying off the interest on the money we had to borrow to make up previous deficits, cut taxes anyway.

By all means, cut taxes. IF you can cut the size of the budget to fit the reduced revenue, that is fine. But if you cannot cut the size of the budget, go ahead and cut taxes anyway!

That is your position, correct?

Not without cuts in spending.

Let's just eliminate spending. That's the answer! Then our taxes will be zero.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I just posted 2 simnple ideas where to make spending cuts. So, once again, you react without fully absorbing an objective approach.

I see you have offerred no alternatives, except to keep increasing taxes to cover the waste in the govt spending. BRILLIANT!

I'm glad you offered two simple ideas to make spending cuts, but you fail to show how they can ever be implemented.

Ronald Reagan said pretty much the same thing, yet his budgets grew at the rate of 5.8% a year. And he delivered big deficits besides. As I said previously, he inherited a bad situation coming in and he got the country economically moving again, so he's entitled to have some downside as well. But if you keep on mounting large deficit after large deficit, year after year after year, you put the country in the hole which gets harder and harder to get out of.

Woiyo, your economic "plan" is to cut taxes, advocate spending cuts which have never happened in your or my lifetime, even under Ronald Reagan, and if everything goes to hell, claim that it ain't your fault.

If you care about the future of America, you have to support a candidate with a realistic plan to balance the budget and cut these insame deficits.

0 Replies

Bush vs President Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know