A Question On The Bush Tax Cuts That Are Sunsetting

2»

Replies

  • riverdiverriverdiver Posts: 2,014 Captain
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    Because we were going into a recession when Bush entered office. The dotcom bubble burst while Clinton was President.

    People on the far right want to blame Democrats, those on the left want to blame Republicans. The bottom line is the world has changed dramatically in the last 20-30 years.
  • esteroestero Posts: 2,041 Captain
    riverdiver wrote: »
    Because we were going into a recession when Bush entered office. The dotcom bubble burst while Clinton was President.

    People on the far right want to blame Democrats, those on the left want to blame Republicans. The bottom line is the world has changed dramatically in the last 20-30 years.

    Politicians and the need to be reelected has changed dramatically. Politicians are so worried that they might lose that many would give their right arm to be reelected. They try to please all little groups in order to get their vote. Give this group and that group what they want so they will vote for them. This causes people to want more from the government. Many times have I heard "let the government pay for it". These people don't realize that they are the government that is paying for their free junk. Many are now dependent on being given enough stuff so they can just get by.

    More spending, more taxes, more ways for the government leaders to exploit the middle class in this country to pay for the promises they make to all the small groups. Most do not realize that one day the middle class will be no longer because they will not be able to continue to support the growing lower class of people. Republicans or Democrats are not really that much different. One blames the other but neither has been helpful to the middle class of Americans.

    Just because you’re  Offended  Doesn’t mean you right!

  • Anonymous3Anonymous3 Posts: 5,987 Officer
    Menzies wrote: »
    The sauce?

    I'll see you at the GTG right ?? We can discuss it over a root beer. If not, maybe I'll swing by the boat while I am working at the marina.
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,124 AG
    The Bush tax cuts are officially dead, please welcome in the President Obama tax cuts for the middle class going forward.
  • capt billcapt bill Posts: 4,035 Officer
    The Bush tax cuts are officially dead, please welcome in the President Obama tax cuts for the middle class going forward.

    widely known as the bush tax cuts...obama didnt lower them anymore than when he came into office...in fact he increased taxes on the upper class. So it would in fact be a tax increase
    attachment.php?attachmentid=58515&d=1353007399
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 25,725 AG
    capt bill wrote: »
    widely known as the bush tax cuts...obama didnt lower them anymore than when he came into office...in fact he increased taxes on the upper class. So it would in fact be a tax increase

    Since the payroll tax reduction has gone away even with the new deal in congress, Obama has raised taxes on everyone January 1, 2013 by 2%.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    cadman wrote: »
    Since the payroll tax reduction has gone away even with the new deal in congress, Obama has raised taxes on everyone January 1, 2013 by 2%.

    That should never have been reduced in the first place.
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 25,725 AG
    I agree

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,124 AG
    cadman wrote: »
    Since the payroll tax reduction has gone away even with the new deal in congress, Obama has raised taxes on everyone January 1, 2013 by 2%.

    Is that not the result of Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supporting a bill that the Republican controlled House passed?
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 25,725 AG
    Is that not the result of Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supporting a bill that the Republican controlled House passed?

    All bills get approved by congress. If you want to call any tax cuts the "Obama tax cuts", you have to call any increases "Obama tax increases". Can't have your cake and eat it to.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • james 14james 14 Posts: 2,879 Moderator
    Menzies wrote: »
    That should never have been reduced in the first place.

    [email protected]!!! I have to agree with you on that one. It was nice while it lasted though.

    This can't be claimed as "Obama's Tax Cut" because nobody will have felt any of the increase. Bush cuts are gone and even Nordquist recognized this fact to let off the hook those who made the pledge for no tax increases. In fact, this tax increase was actually brought about by those who voted for the orginal tax cut with the expiration date. It passed as it should've. Yes it sucks but what sucks more is everyone in the middle class paying 2-3 grand more a year in taxes.
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    james 14 wrote: »
    [email protected]!!! I have to agree with you on that one. It was nice while it lasted though.

    This can't be claimed as "Obama's Tax Cut" because nobody will have felt any of the increase. Bush cuts are gone and even Nordquist recognized this fact to let off the hook those who made the pledge for no tax increases. In fact, this tax increase was actually brought about by those who voted for the orginal tax cut with the expiration date. It passed as it should've. Yes it sucks but what sucks more is everyone in the middle class paying 2-3 grand more a year in taxes.

    This.
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • Duke LaCroixDuke LaCroix Posts: 123 Officer
    SuperFluke wrote: »
    freebie for you:

    slowest-spending.png

    This is the most misleading chart I have ever seen in my life.
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,171 Admiral
    This is the most misleading chart I have ever seen in my life.

    only because of your warped sense of reality

    Blind and brainwashed
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    rickc wrote: »
    only because of your warped sense of reality

    Blind and brainwashed

    obama gets to have his trillion dollar deficits compared in "growth" to the TARP bailout.

    very, very, very misleading graph. Fun with numbers. Why don't you post one with actual deficit spending of each president. And to be fair, you can normalize the dollars to a specific year to take out inflation.
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,430 AG
    obama gets to have his trillion dollar deficits compared in "growth" to the TARP bailout.

    very, very, very misleading graph. Fun with numbers. Why don't you post one with actual deficit spending of each president. And to be fair, you can normalize the dollars to a specific year to take out inflation.

    None of his leftist sites have cut and paste graphs of what you are asking. :grin
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • nuevowavonuevowavo Posts: 6,465 Admin
    obama gets to have his trillion dollar deficits compared in "growth" to the TARP bailout.

    very, very, very misleading graph. Fun with numbers. Why don't you post one with actual deficit spending of each president. And to be fair, you can normalize the dollars to a specific year to take out inflation.

    More appropriate would be "deficit spending of each Congress", as they are the ones controlling the purse strings.
    Federales, bring my baby back to me!
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    Why don't you post one with actual deficit spending of each president. And to be fair, you can normalize the dollars to a specific year to take out inflation.

    Meaningless. Spending bills don't start and end at the start and end of a presidency. Nor does the impact of such actions span simple 4 year timelines.
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Menzies wrote: »
    Meaningless. Spending bills don't start and end at the start and end of a presidency. Nor does the impact of such actions span simple 4 year timelines.

    ignorant view of the budget process there. Again, if you looked up the budgets corresponding to the the presidential tenure the picture painted will be quite different. But....that will require a bit of leg work and thought on your part
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,171 Admiral
    ignorant view of the budget process there. Again, if you looked up the budgets corresponding to the the presidential tenure the picture painted will be quite different. But....that will require a bit of leg work and thought on your part

    when you look at most of the graphs about spending if you notice its spending as a portion of GDP. Gives you a warped view. We all know that Obama took the reins in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

    It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

    Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Who knew?
    Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors Capital Flows Capital Flows Contributor

    Check out the chart –

    MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg













    So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

    It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

    The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

    Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

    So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

    Courtesy of Marketwatch-

    In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

    No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

    However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

    Keep reading…
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    ignorant view of the budget process there. Again, if you looked up the budgets corresponding to the the presidential tenure the picture painted will be quite different. But....that will require a bit of leg work and thought on your part

    So, the Bush tax cuts ended when he left office?

    Interesting.
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    rickc wrote: »
    when you look at most of the graphs about spending if you notice its spending as a portion of GDP. Gives you a warped view. We all know that Obama took the reins in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.…

    then don't look at the numbers as a comparision to the GDP. Not a true way to compare anyway. Look at actual numbers.

    Defict (real dollars) spending under Bush was less than 500 billion, I beleive closer to 300-400 billion. Except for '08 which saw the TARP spending that crossed over into '09. That pushed difficiet spending way up. Pre-TARP budget was still in the under $500 billion deficit spending. The TARP should have been a one time spending increase and deficit spending should have come back down to the under $500 billion in '10. it didn't, it stayed over a trillion dollars a year for Obama's entire term.

    Obama's delta spending looks great because you are comparing it to a one time bailout bill.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.