NEWS: Bush: Tax Cuts Good for... Everything!!!!

POLITICS: Bush: Tax Cuts Good for... Everything!!!!

In what has become a hallmark for his administration's more controversial policies, President Bush today claimed that his tax cuts, which are disproportionately skewed towards wealthier individuals, will help workers and create jobs. The Bush administration's approach to basically every policy issue it has attempted to tackle has been to choose the action before the facts are in and then change the justification depending on the context. Good economy? Tax cuts! People deserve their money back. Bad economy? Tax cuts! Stimulate growth and investment. Job losses? Tax cuts! Because they're... good... and... stuff.

So I guess Halliburton is now considered to be a "small business"?

It's true that small businesses are a major player in the creation of new jobs. But how many small business owners are pulling in over $200,000 a year in personal income? And for those who are, will an additional few thousands dollars in taxes force them to lay off employees? It seems unlikely.

Bush did get it (almost) right when he said that tax cuts can help stimulate a stagnant economy. But those cuts should have been more equitably distributed across the economic spectrum; tax cuts for the wealthy do increase investment, but tax cuts aimed at middle and lower income workers help to increase consumer spending. More money for businesses means more jobs, and that's where the economy has not yet caught up. Instead, cost cutting and layoffs have helped the corporate bottom line, but at the expense of jobs. And while those cuts may help to stimulate the economy, making them permanent could permanently cripple social programs, infrastructure, defense and the military, all of which are dependent on tax revenue. That is, unless you decide to deficit spend forever. Or at least until your term runs out. Because afterwards, it just becomes the next guy's problem.

It's strange how that when taxes are cut on top earners, their gross taxes paid increases. You'd think people who favor government programs would thik that's a good thing, but they don't.

i'm still stumped that this complete joke of a man is probably going to pull of a second term, you could pick a random guy on the street and he'd probably do a better job.

Its strange how after 25 years of no objective source being able to confirm that, the free lunch conservatives keep claiming it.

Marie Laveau was not an economist.

Oh, by the way, we're still waiting for you in the Kerry medals thread.

Well reprobate, look into whether tax receipts have increased or decreased since Bush passed tax cuts.

The same thing happened in the 60's when Kennedy cut taxes on the top earners and in the 80's when Reagan further cut rates on top earners. Somehow, tax revenue increased.

If you care to be even more amazed, check out "Bush's Lost Year," the cover story of this month's Atlantic by James Fallows. In his usual clear style, Fallows lays out a sweeping and devastating indictment of the Administration's decisions and actions during 2002. If all Bush supporters and swing voters took the time to read that piece with an open mind, the President would go down in a resounding defeat this November.

Where can I get a copy of the "Stockula Historical Fact book(TM)"?

I'll be happy to look into it as soon as you show me the data. Thats how it works you know, you make a claim you prove it.

If you can, you get a Nobel prize because after accounting for the stimulus of massive government spending and the weighted cost shifting across brackets no economist in the world who isn't a slaving hack has been able to establish your claim. Reagan's tax cuts did squat without his overspending, He pretended Ture and did a classic Keynes. He also slammed the shit out of the middle class and small business owners by shoving more income into the taxable pool when no one was looking. As for Kennedy, In 1963, the top income tax rate was 91%, creating a massive incentive to normalize returns anywhere but in that revenue pool. Sure knocking down the top rate from nearly all to only most is going to stimulate taxable interest in that revenue pool. Notice however all the wonks who want to compare Kennedy's cuts to Bush and Reagan's don't talk about aggregate tax burden, just marginal income tax and gross receipts for income tax only.


[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by reprobate]

Tax cuts are funny. On Bush's first tax cut $91,000 was the average cut for the richest one percent. $838 for the rest, except for the 50 million who didn't even recieve one. Fun facts.

Lets see. The richest americans pay the most taxes. Wouldn't it also make sense that they would get the most money back? DO you like driving on interstae highways? Rich peoples taxes pay for those.

No they don't the $.184 you pay in federal excise tax on every gallon of gas you buy does.

Back to the shallow end of the pool for you, son.

bush did create thousands of jobs, but they are all overseas.
i work in the airline industry and i see more and more overhauls and heavy maintenance visits being performed at 2nd and 3rd world countries with unlicenced mechanics working on them. the FAA is supposed to govern these repair stations, but they don't have enough personel to keep an eye on all of these stations that service US airlines planes. ahh fuck i'm just going to end this rant early.

91,000 is after the difference is worked out. If you look at it in percentages 33% of the cut went to the richest one percent. Sorry I should of stated that before hand.

[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by AccNasty]

In stockula-world, the burden of proof is: "I make a claim, then run away."

Here's Nouriel Roubini of NYU's take on the evidence.

*looks in vain for information on tax receipts*

By the way, stockula, take some time out from the realm of fuckwitism, and read Roubini on how to properly test for the effects of tax cuts on revenues, controlling for other influencing factors.

I provided a link for you, a couple of posts above. I'm nice like that.

Why vilify the rich for receiving more tax money back? They pay more in the first place.

You'll never get a job from a poor person.

That few thousand dollars that business owners will recieve from Bush's tax cuts will allow them to reinvest into their business. Aallowing them to expand overtime, which will lead to increased employment and tax revenue. Its stupid to think that our that the government could spend our money better then we can.

The real problem is government overspending, we need more fiscally responsible government officials.

When someone's post #1 is in Current Events, the baby Jesus cries and God kills a kitten.

2003 Average 1962-2001

Expenditures 20.6% 20.6%

Revenues 16.3% 18.7%

Deficits 4.2% 1.9%

Columns may not add due to rounding

Hey look, a 13% reduction in revenue, bolstered by runaway deficits.

Hey Stock, Mr. Keynes wants to see your GPA.

Yeah, my boss it totally down with paying out overtime when he comes across a couple grand. Like he doesn't want to spend that on a new company truck, Seahawks season tickets, or extra lunches at the bar. Come on.

It really was the Bush line when we were running a surplus that the money should be given back to the people via tax cuts. The situation has more than changed but apparently the medicine hasn't.

[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by lukie2p]

Yeah small business owners are getting the money to pay for many new workers and services...please the Republican party is all about corporate-welfare. Maybe we should cut some new weapon programs like McCain suggested and reorganize healthcare. Oh, and what's a tax-cut with increased spending?

nah..I've been in this argument to many times already. I think I'll just sit and watch.

maybe I'm just naive, but if you want to give people tax cuts in the hopes that they might spend the new money on creating new jobs, why not give them tax cuts ONLY when they spend the money on creating new jobs, rather than just discretionary spending?