W Tax Cuts

[dogtowner]

More correctly, government "workfare". Also, the money sent home was in a sense, stimulus money with which the parents of the CCC workers would spend on rent, food, fuel, etc.

The boys of the CCC were not what the Conservatives label welfare recipients; they were willing to work hard and did, disproving that welfare recipients are "too lazy to work."

Its not stimulus, its maintenance at best. The point of actual stimulus is to create jobs that will fuel the economy (again think TVA which still employs peope decades later).

Thats why the administration was quick to change the narrative from creating jobs (which it was never intended to do) to saving them (which has only turned out to be delaying the inevitable unsupportable jobs).

Different time, back then the Great Society had not yet crushed the work ethic of the humbler classes. You think the currently chronicly unemployed would do that work today ? Not a chance. They could already be doing it.

 

[Gipper]

Its not stimulus, its maintenance at best. The point of actual stimulus is to create jobs that will fuel the economy (again think TVA which still employs peope decades later).

Thats why the administration was quick to change the narrative from creating jobs (which it was never intended to do) to saving them (which has only turned out to be delaying the inevitable unsupportable jobs).

Different time, back then the Great Society had not yet crushed the work ethic of the humbler classes. You think the currently chronicly unemployed would do that work today ? Not a chance. They could already be doing it.

Agreed.

We now have a class of Americans who have no intention of ever working. They unlike their forebears during the Great Depression, have NO Work ETHIC. And why? Because of liberalism. It has destroyed the poor and is destroying the middle class as we speak.

The Detroit Public (socialist) Schools polled their students recently and found that less than 10% of the students knew anyone who got up in the morning and went to work.

Liberalism has been a disaster. It is unsustainable and leads to ruin for all except the liberal elites. Because of liberalism, really big economic trouble is just over the horizon and approaching at a rapid pace.

But on the bright side, the coming suffering will lead to the death of liberalism altogether. Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dogtowner]

Agreed.

We now have a class of Americans who have no intention of ever working. They unlike their forebears during the Great Depression, have NO Work ETHIC. And why? Because of liberalism. It has destroyed the poor and is destroying the middle class as we speak.

The Detroit Public (socialist) Schools polled their students recently and found that less than 10% of the students knew anyone who got up in the morning and went to work.

Liberalism has been a disaster. It is unsustainable and leads to ruin for all except the liberal elites. Because of liberalism, really big economic trouble is just over the horizon and approaching at a rapid pace.

But on the bright side, the coming suffering will lead to the death of liberalism altogether. Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

plagiarized from Boortz

It used to be said that democracies end in tyranny. Now democracies are fulfilling the complementary expectation of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman that democracies end in bankruptcy.

 

[PLC1]

How is it that the tax cuts supported by Bush are conservative, and therefore good, but the ones supported by Obama are liberal and therefore bad?

Both administrations supported tax cuts and deficit spending. Neither one was willing to match spending with revenues.

Further, no president can cut taxes or increase spending without the advice and consent of Congress, whose members, incidentally, don't have the balls to do what has to be done now that the debt has grown out of control:

Cut spending and raise taxes.

If conservative means willing to make the hard financial choices to keep the federal government out of the red, then conservatives in Washington are extinct, dead, gone, kaput.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm just blaming him for tripling the debt in 18 months and with a vastly deteriorated situation to show for it. And its more like 20 years before it if you have any interest in examining what really happened to facilitate it.

next time tell your party not to destroy out Econ before it leaves, so we don't have to spend money to fix it then.

and we could have spent none, and watched the econ keep getting worse and worse...that was what republicans where doing...and seem content on doing still

 

[dogtowner]

Some actual facts regarding the Bush tax cuts


more at the link

President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:
• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I've analyzed CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).





The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.
• The next decade's deficits are the result of the previous administration's profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his January State of the Union Address that by the time he took office, "we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

 

[dogtowner]

How is it that the tax cuts supported by Bush are conservative, and therefore good, but the ones supported by Obama are liberal and therefore bad?

Both administrations supported tax cuts and deficit spending. Neither one was willing to match spending with revenues.

Further, no president can cut taxes or increase spending without the advice and consent of Congress, whose members, incidentally, don't have the balls to do what has to be done now that the debt has grown out of control:

Cut spending and raise taxes.

If conservative means willing to make the hard financial choices to keep the federal government out of the red, then conservatives in Washington are extinct, dead, gone, kaput.

There are effective tax cuts and those prezbo offered up.

Bush's stimulus worked obama's failed. Both as predicted.

 

[PLC1]

There are effective tax cuts and those prezbo offered up.

Bush's stimulus worked obama's failed. Both as predicted.

If Bush's stimulus worked so well, why did the worst recession in years hit near the end of his term?

It looks to me like neither stimulus worked very well.

Trickle down, aka voodoo economics leads to deficits. We should have learned that during the '80s.

 

[Gipper]

If Bush's stimulus worked so well, why did the worst recession in years hit near the end of his term?

It looks to me like neither stimulus worked very well.

Trickle down, aka voodoo economics leads to deficits. We should have learned that during the '80s.

More liberal BS.

Tax cuts always lead to economic growth and benefits for ALL Americans. Big government spending always leads to wastefulness and deficits.

Please see what Calvin Coolidge, JFK, and Reagan did to revive the economy. All pushed big tax cuts resulting in benefits for all.

Hoover, FDR and BO did just the opposite and depressions resulted...

You must stop believing what liberals tell you.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If Bush's stimulus worked so well, why did the worst recession in years hit near the end of his term?

It looks to me like neither stimulus worked very well.

Trickle down, aka voodoo economics leads to deficits. We should have learned that during the '80s.

well if you ingore the horrible econ, failed banks, auto industry, houseing, and overall sales down, and debt growing...then yes Bush tax cuts worked

to be fair they did work, they where to put money in the hands of the rich..it did that...stimuls was never the reason ...after all Bush called for the same tax cuts when the econ was doing well...becuse it was doing so well we should get that money back...then when it had a downturn, it was to stimulate the econ...the reasons given don't matter...all that matters is the rich got richer, and Bush co was happy

 

[BigRob]

If Bush's stimulus worked so well, why did the worst recession in years hit near the end of his term?

It looks to me like neither stimulus worked very well.

Trickle down, aka voodoo economics leads to deficits. We should have learned that during the '80s.

That is because stimulus, in any setting, simply does not work.

 

[PLC1]

More liberal BS.

Tax cuts always lead to economic growth and benefits for ALL Americans. Big government spending always leads to wastefulness and deficits.

Excellent. When do you think we'll see the Obama tax cuts begin to kick in?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Excellent. When do you think we'll see the Obama tax cuts begin to kick in?

shhhh they hate it when they find out how much of the stim, was tax cuts

 

[Gipper]

Excellent. When do you think we'll see the Obama tax cuts begin to kick in?

You won't.

Big tax increases take effect Jan 1. This will further dampen economic growth and lead to more unemployed.

I am sure the kooky lib politicians will soon be demanding a return of the WPA, CCC, and other failed make work programs the socialists pushed in the 1930s.

 

[Gipper]

plagiarized from Boortz

It used to be said that democracies end in tyranny. Now democracies are fulfilling the complementary expectation of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman that democracies end in bankruptcy.

Yes, but our Founders knew this and they did not want a democracy in the true sense of the word to avoid this problem- (THC do you know what a democracy is?) So, they structured a perfect constitutional republic. It worked very well for 200 years, but now the liberal vermin have infested every nook and cranny of our government and culture.

How do you like this analogy? The USA is like a beautiful well built house infested with termites (aka liberals). And, those termites have eaten the foundation to the point where the house is teetering and about to crumble.

I really like that analogy. It is so very apt.