Quantcast

I blame Bush for this!!!

Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by N8 v2.0, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    18 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,007
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    Oh how I hate him! :angry:


    House Passes 3 Tax Cuts, Plans a 4th
    Cost Would Outstrip Recent Action on Deficit
    Washington Post | December 8, 2005 | Jonathan Weisman

    The House passed three separate tax cuts yesterday and plans to approve a fourth today, trimming the federal revenue by $94.5 billion over five years -- nearly double the budget savings that Republicans muscled through the House last month.

    GOP leaders portray the tax bills -- for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, affluent investors, U.S. troops serving in Iraq and taxpayers who otherwise would be hit by the alternative minimum tax -- as vital to keeping the economy rolling.

    "Our economic policies have done the trick," said Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). "We are in the middle of one of the strongest economies this country has ever seen."

    But some budget analysts say the flourish of tax cutting badly undermines the recent shows of fiscal discipline. Last month's budget-cutting bill would save $50 billion over five years by imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, trimming the food stamp rolls, squeezing student lenders and cutting federal child support enforcement.

    "I don't think it makes any sense to go through all the difficulty they just went through with the budget-cutting bill, then give it all back in tax cuts," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group. "If they want to cut taxes, fine, but they are going to have to cut spending by at least that much to help the deficit, and clearly they are not willing to do that. They have to start looking reality in the face."

    Under rules reserved for the least controversial bills, the House yesterday approved three tax bills in rapid succession. The first, at a cost of $31.2 billion, would slow the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to prevent the rich from dodging taxation but that increasingly has affected the middle class.

    The next, at a cost of $7.1 billion over five years, would provide an array of tax breaks to create President Bush's proposed Gulf Opportunity Zone in the region ravaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Businesses could write off much of the cost of new structures and equipment, while the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would be granted tax-exempt bond authority for their own rebuilding.

    Bowing to pressure from Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and other social conservatives, GOP leaders exempted casinos, country clubs, hot tub facilities, liquor stores, massage parlors, golf courses, racetracks and tanning salons from the tax breaks, exemptions the administration initially opposed.

    Finally, the House passed a modest, $153 million tax break that would extend a provision allowing members of the military to use their combat pay to claim the earned income credit.

    The three measures passed overwhelmingly, with virtually all Democrats voting with Republicans, and with hardly a mention of their impact on the deficit, which is projected to reach $331 billion in fiscal 2006 and remain above $300 billion a year through the end of the decade, when most of Bush's tax cuts are set to expire. The Senate has already passed similar measures, indicating that all the measures are likely to become law.

    The House voted 414 to 4 to spare 17 million individuals and families from paying the alternative minimum tax next year. Democratic Reps. Jerry F. Costello (Ill.), Collin C. Peterson (Minn.), Martin O. Sabo (Minn.) and Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (Va.) voted against the measure.

    In a highly partisan atmosphere, tax cutting without regard to the growing federal debt appears to be one area that both parties can agree on, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Everybody's losing credibility right now," she said.

    Debate will be considerably more rancorous today, when the House votes on a $56 billion tax package, the centerpiece of which would extend the 2003 cuts on the tax rates on dividends and capital gains through 2010. Those provisions alone would cost the Treasury $20.6 billion through 2010 and nearly $51 billion through 2015, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

    Some moderate Republicans have expressed misgivings about those cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit affluent investors, especially as Congress moves to cut programs for the poor in the name of deficit reduction. But House GOP leaders expressed confidence yesterday that the tax cuts will pass, saying that the cuts would add to the tax revenue by generating more economic growth.

    "By cutting taxes, you grow the economy, and you generate an enhanced flow of revenues to the Treasury," said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Rules Committee.

    Although the federal tax revenue has grown since the passage of the 2003 tax cuts -- from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005 -- the tax revenue measured against the size of the economy remains below the 2002 level and well below the level of 2001, when the first of Bush's five tax cuts was passed. "The argument that tax cuts will grow the economy and pay for themselves is very attractive, but it's just not true," MacGuineas said.

    Today's vote on the capital gains and dividend tax cut extension promises to bring out the deficit-reduction rhetoric that was absent yesterday. In 2003, Congress lowered the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent from as high as 38.5 percent. The rate on most capital gains was lowered to 15 percent from 20 percent.

    Democrats have long charged that the cuts overwhelmingly benefited the affluent. The liberal watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice says that the richest 1 percent of Americans, with an average income of almost $1.3 million in 2009, would enjoy 53 percent of the value of the extension that year, while 78 percent would receive no benefit.

    A recent study by economists at the Federal Reserve concluded that the dividend tax cut had no real impact on the stock market and prompted "only muted gain in total corporate payouts."

    In contrast, Americans for Tax Reform maintains that dividend payouts among the largest companies have jumped 59 percent, while the number of firms offering dividends soared after the tax cuts.
     
    #1 -   Dec 8, 2005

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. narlus

    narlus Eastcoast Softcore
    Staff Member

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 25
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,658
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    so they cut revenue...good thing they've been responsible in spending.

    oh wait, they haven't?
     
    #2 -   Dec 8, 2005
  3. reflux

    reflux Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 2
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    G14 Classified
    No. I blame the White House, and each Congress(wo)man for their lack of fiscal responsibility. It's not a good thing when Greenspan has repeatedly warned the Administration of deficits even before the most recent tax cuts. If this pace is kept, could we be looking at stagflation?
     
    #3 -   Dec 8, 2005
  4. Westy

    Westy the teste

    Rep/Likes:
    448 / 2,909
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    36,192
    Location:
    Sleazattle
    I'll take a good old fashioned cut tax and spend conservative over a tax and spend liberal. Fiscal responsibility is for homo's and the Japanese.
     
    #4 -   Dec 8, 2005
  5. Radarr

    Radarr Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,129
    Location:
    Helena, MT
    If you shoot yourself in the foot, you deserve to get shot.
     
  6. kinghami3

    kinghami3 Future Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,241
    Location:
    Ballard 4 life.
    It's simple economics: governments run on taxes. No taxes = governments can't do their job, and if they try to keep doing their job with no income, sooner or later it's gonna bust. I'm hoping it's later, but who knows :rolleyes: Tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate the economy; they let the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. At the point of debt we are at, tax cuts for anyone but the poor are unethical, immoral, and financially irresponsible. I blame Bush for this too :thumb:
     
  7. H8R

    H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep/Likes:
    7 / 4
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,965
    We're at war...

    TAX CUT!

    Great idea.
     
  8. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
    Blaming Bush for anything is like blaming Terri Shiavo for the reduction in MENSA memberships.


    Just trying to keep Terri alive.
     
  9. H8R

    H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep/Likes:
    7 / 4
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,965
    I blame Bush.
     
  10. Echo

    Echo crooked smile

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    11,818
    Location:
    Slacking at work
    Damn, how do I become an affluent investor? That seems like a pretty sweet job description.
     
  11. valve bouncer

    valve bouncer Master Dildoist

    Rep/Likes:
    9 / 17
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    7,783
    Location:
    Japan
    When does the trickle start N8?
     
  12. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
    I was at lunch and some rich phucker just pissed on my shoes.
     
  13. noname

    noname Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    545
    Location:
    outer limits
    first off, that's an incredibly ignorant statement, tax cuts increase available financial capital, increasing business performance, increasing growth, increasing amount of money in the economy, increasing the amount of taxes paid in, jsut look at the eighties and nineties, yes we still ran a deficit, but that's because every new dollar brought in we spent a buck fifty, go figure. (run on sentence I know)
    It is possible to cut too much, but we're not quite there yet. The problem we have now is too much spending.
    "There's no problem more money can't fix" is the motto in DC, especially when you have one party in power and trying to consolidate that power. Republicans are supposed to be for limited government, but they only push for it when Democrats are in control.
    Look at unemployment, interest rates, inflation rates for the late 70's early eighties, then look at them again in the early nineties, after tax cuts. Amazing difference.
    So much for Jimmy Carters "great malaise"
     
  14. noname

    noname Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    545
    Location:
    outer limits
    damn it.
     
  15. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
    trickle-down isn't as brilliant as you're suggesting.

    Also, Clinton ran a surplus for most of his presidency.
     
  16. blue

    blue boob hater

    Rep/Likes:
    2 / 0
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Messages:
    10,165
    Location:
    california
    It's great when 90% of your tax cut goes to the top 1%, isn't it...
     
  17. narlus

    narlus Eastcoast Softcore
    Staff Member

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 25
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    24,658
    Location:
    behind the viewfinder
    it helps to be a CEO; then other CEOs (aka 'board of directors') can also set your compensation package...it's the ultimate old boys' network.
     
  18. noname

    noname Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    545
    Location:
    outer limits
    He also spent far less than Bushie is spending.
     
  19. LordOpie

    LordOpie MOTHER HEN

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    21,033
    Location:
    Denver
    uhh, yeah, that's one way to create a surplus.
     
  20. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    :rofl:
     
  21. kinghami3

    kinghami3 Future Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,241
    Location:
    Ballard 4 life.
    Tax cuts are meant to increase business performance and growth. In theory it can work, but in reality this country is no better off than it was; part of the problem being is that the money saved stays in the upper percentages of the population. The government loses money and social services go down the drain. Social services are for the poor, not the rich, and the poor are taking the biggest hit. In the meantime, the debt increases (drastically). I agree on this level though, the liberal spending by the current administration is the main problem. I would much rather pay more, have a surplus, and have social services than what is going on in the current situation. There's way too much money being spent on this 'war' of Bush's.