The Bush admin is lying to pass a tax cut

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
And really, he lies about just about everything involving the economy and the budget. Examples below. Pardon the length, but there are a lot of lies.



1. Bush has claimed that he said a deficit would be acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, a few weeks after 9/11/2001 he said:

Quote:

Well, as I said in Chicago during the campaign, when asked about should the government ever deficit spend, I said only under these circumstances should government deficit spend:_if there is a national emergency, if there is a recession, or if there's a war.



He made it part of his schtick in the year following 9/11. He used it as a joke line in his stump speeches, calling it the "trifecta."

The problem is, it's a lie. He never said it. He was called on it, and the White House provided dates, but no one was ever able to find any time where he said it. They said he said it during the debates, but nope, he didn't. And guess who did say it, according to that link? That supposed bender of the truth, Al Gore.



2. Where Bush did agree with Al Gore during the campaign was that Social Security would not be touched (Gore called it a "lock box"). That means that not only would there be no deficits, we would have a substantial surplus - around 200 billion per year. Did Bush keep that promise? Of course not. USA Today link.
Quote:

The Social Security lockbox hasn't just been picked. It's been obliterated. President Bush's budget request for fiscal year 2003 projects that $999 billion of surplus Social Security taxes will be diverted to other government programs through 2007, a diversion that politicians from both parties had vowed to avoid.



3. Bush even claimed, in his first State of the Union address to Congress, that he would set aside an additional one trillion dollars - one trillion dollars - to paying for anything else that might come up:

Quote:

We should also prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future.__We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs.__For example, after a strategic review, we may need to increase defense spending.__We may need to increase spending for our farmers or additional money to reform Medicare.__And so, my budget sets aside almost a trillion dollars over 10 years for additional needs.__That is one trillion additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this budget.



Unbelievable. What a pathological liar.



4. He has also repeatedly stated that the recession started before he came into office.

Quote:

And so the market started going down in March of 2000. And then we went into a recession. That's three quarters of negative growth. From January of 2001, for the three quarters ending, starting January 2001, we were negative. That meant we were going backwards.



But in this Wall Street Journal article, Greg Mankiw explains that that's not how recessions are officially defined. They are defined according to a more complex set of rules set forth by the National Bureau of Economic Research. According to them, the recession started several months after that. Greg Mankiw is now Bush's Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.



[Note: I'm not saying that this means Bush caused the recession. If Gore had been president, it still would have happened. But why must Bush always be so dishonest in these matters?]



5. Because many fiscally responsible Republicans criticized Bush's 2003 tax plan for increasing the deficit, Congress, with help from the Bush Administration, reduced the size of the tax cut, sort of. How did they do it? By 1) phasing in the tax cuts slower and then 2) phasing them out again quickly. It's called sunsetting, and it's a scam, pure and simple. Bush has criticized the Democrats for suggesting that his tax cuts be stopped before they're phased in all the way. He calls that a tax increase. Well, if his own tax cuts are going away, does that mean his plan raises taxes too? The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the actual loss of revenue from this tax cut at around 1 trillion, if we assume that it isn't phased out with these gimmicks. In general, tax cuts like this are routinely extended rather than being phased out. The same sunset gimmick was set in place in the big tax cut at the beginning of Bush's term, too, and so the projected long-term deficits are already much higher than they appear.



6. But doesn't it help the economy? Congress's own Joint Committee on Taxation found that there are no positive economic benefits to this tax package. Basically, any positive effects of a tax cut are outweighed by the negative effect of the increased deficit. Fine, that's a matter of policy dispute, but here's where Bush is lying again:



Bush has said his new tax cut plan will create 1.4 million new jobs. But according to this CNN Money report, that number was predicted by his own Council of Economic Advisors for the first two years. But what Bush doesn't say is that his economists have told him that the negative effect of the increased deficit will cause the economy to lose half of those jobs over the next 3 years.

Quote:

But here's the problem: the CEA also said the Bush plan would create a total of about 1.4 million jobs in 2003 and 2004 -- and that's the number Bush and his supporters most often cite when talking about the stimulative effect of his plan.



But in order to get to 700,000 total jobs created in 2003-2007, you'd actually have to cut 700,000 jobs after creating 1.4 million in 2003 and 2004. The rate of job growth will actually be slower, then, in 2005-07, than it would have been otherwise.



Read the article and the White House response. It's an amazing piece of fraud.



7. But don't tax cuts pay for themselves? Fleischer said in this press conference:

Quote:

The entire package the President does believe will lead to growth, which will over time grow the economy, create additional revenues for the federal government and pay for itself.



But Bush's own Council of Economic Advisors doesn't believe that (pdf link:

Quote:

The modest effect of government debt on interest rates does not mean that tax cuts pay for themselves with higher output. Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.



Even the supply-siders claim that they never believed that, according to this:

Quote:

Supply-siders believe that cutting upper-bracket tax rates can cause massive economic benefits, and in the early '80s they did famously claim that those benefits would be so large that they would actually cause tax revenues to increase. But most have spent the intervening years fervently insisting never to have said any such thing. "[T]he 'supply-side' movement is not remembered for its correct predictions about prosperity, but for the 'Laffer curve,' and its supposed prediction that the revenue effects of tax cuts would be large enough to shrink the deficit," writes Bartley in The Seven Fat Years, his apologia for Reaganomics. "The prediction, however, is not one any of us really ever made." So Bush has embraced a version of supply-side economics so radical that even the supply-siders themselves have repudiated it.



Another example, written by a supply-sider:

Quote:

A good example of this is the myth that the budget deficits of the 1980s resulted from a trick -- some would even call it a lie -- played by Ronald Reagan and a group of supply-side economists. Supposedly, they sold Congress and the American people a bill of goods by saying that the 1981 tax cut would lose no revenue. Based on something called the "Laffer Curve," they are said to have asserted -- on the basis of no logical or empirical evidence -- that there would be such an outpouring of work, investment and economic growth that higher revenues would be collected at lower tax rates.



This whole story is, of course, complete nonsense. No one in a position of authority ever said any such thing. And even if they had, how can one possibly believe that a skeptical Congress and a liberal news media would allow anyone to get away with it?



The truth is that every official estimate made by the Reagan Administration, published in the budget and elsewhere, showed large revenue losses associated with the 1981 tax cut. Furthermore, these estimates were comparable to those made by independent agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).



OK, fine. So Reagan never said tax cuts pay for themselves. You're right, it is an absurd, ludicrous, ridiculous idea. Anyone who would make such a claim would be using a trick, a lie.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 76
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    No takers?





    Bueller? Bueller?



    :crickets chirp:
  • Reply 2 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    No takers?



    SDW? You're usually a strong proponent of the republican party's economic policies. Any truth to some of this?
  • Reply 3 of 76
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    No takers?





    Bueller? Bueller?



    :crickets chirp:






    gotta love the former nixon speech writter...
  • Reply 4 of 76
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    There's this stuff that happened... 9/11? you know? they started this whole new cabinet for national security, and a whole new system... Oh yeah and there's that recession that happened from the democrats... when they were in office. I think now we should still concentrate about being happy we're alive and thankful that at any second it could be over if we're not careful. It would have been the same for Gore too, but sometimes measures must be taken. This is the best taxcut to have without lowering interest rates much more. It will build jobs, and spending, oh and if you're so against it will you do know that 70% of the nation is behind it right?
  • Reply 5 of 76
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by semi-coherent PTSD911

    There's this stuff that happened... 9/11? you know? they started this whole new cabinet for national security, and a whole new system...



    Hmm. Connected to tax cuts how?



    Its becoming the perpetual argument.



    Attack on Afghanistan I undestand.



    Attack on Iraq



    Tax cuts



    Lying





    Quote:

    Originally posted by semi-coherent PTSD911

    I think now we should still concentrate about being happy we're alive and thankful that at any second it could be over if we're not careful.



    So tax cuts helps us in keeping alive? Or are we facing death if we ask too many questions about Bush? Or am I just expecting to much clarity from you?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by semi-coherent PTSD911

    This is the best taxcut to have without lowering interest rates much more. It will build jobs, and spending, oh and if you're so against it will you do know that 70% of the nation is behind it right?



    No its not. But it has very little to do with the original post.
  • Reply 6 of 76
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Well, in my opinion, and that is all I claim. You have hit upon a deep schism within the party here.



    As you mentioned there are fiscal conservatives who very much want a balanced budget. (John Kasich, where are you when we need you?!?)



    There are also some more liberal Republicans who are what you might call cut and spend instead of tax and spend. This is what some conservatives find so humorous when Bush is declared this hugely conservative guy. He is about as middle of the road as you can get. His family gave us Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court but they also gave us David Souter.



    Fiscal Republicans managed to grab hold pretty decently during the 1994 "Republican Revolution" entering Congress. However to hold spending in line they went so far as to shut down the government. They did bring spending in line but there was a bit of a problem. Every election they lost just a few seats. The majority in the house grew slimmer and slimmer.



    It turns out that it is awful hard to win an election by being borishly basic. If you aren't bringing home the big bacon it gets hard to justify your job. Some Republicans have bought into this.



    This has combined with, what I believe is the actual mainstreaming of the Republican party. They really are the majority party now after having held the house and most of the time the Senate for pretty much the last decade.



    In otherwords Republican doesn't necessarily mean conservative all the time anymore. Bush is really a pretty good example of that.



    As for the Social Security lock box, until Social Security is properly defined as a true contributer pay out benefit, then no one can really claim to lock it away because it is really just a big giveway to the elderly. If it were locked away, you would get back what you gave, but anyone who is honest about this knows it isn't so.



    As for the tax cuts, there are estimates where economic output is increased and pay for the cuts. As you mentioned these can be done by the right and the left. The real issue is what happenes when growth targets are missed. For now the cut stays, the revenue drops, but the spending never stops.



    I have read dozens of attempts to swing closed the doors on tax cuts when a certain amount of revenue doesn't materialize. I have never read a plan that says, okay so the earned income tax credit is $3300 this year, but if we are running a deficit, it becomes $1100 or even disappears.



    I would love to see where spending automatically shrinks when revenue does.



    The tax cut on dividends is good because, (again in my opinion) it might actually get the stock market and stock prices back to what they should be about. Dividends are profits paid out to stock holders. You use to want to own stocks because of the dividend, not because you could speculate about the price.



    There is my two cents, feel free to rip away.



    8)



    Nick
  • Reply 7 of 76
    enaena Posts: 667member
    The tax cut will basically work.



    It's these psycho-spending congress(wo)men that worry the hell out me. Daschel is going to piss and moan about the tax cut---feining angst over not being able put that money on the......



    .....pardon me







    the "deficit"







    ...I'm better now.



    Anyway, these congress(wo)men are up there with TRILLIONS of dollars in favors to hand out and then we wonder why they act like they're all smoking crack.



    Maybe we shouldn't be simplisitic when we try to cut JUST ONE crack-head out of the herd?
  • Reply 8 of 76
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    To maintain economic growth: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent the government from paying off all its debt (a bad thing): tax cuts for the rich.

    To moderate a stock bubble: tax cuts for the rich.

    To recover from a burst bubble: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a large recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a second recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To recover from 9/11: tax cuts for the rich.

    To fight terrorism: tax cuts for the rich.

    To save social security: tax cuts for the rich.

    To save medicare: tax cuts for the rich.

    To elect and re-elect GWB: tax cuts for the rich.



    Did I miss any? I think he really only meant the last one. Too bad it's the one he won't say. But what really gets me is these "sunset" clauses. How long did it take after the last batch of tax cuts to demand that they be made "permanent"? And now they have the balls to try it on a much larger scale with the "gone-for-two-years" dvidend tax.



    An excellent indictment, BRussell.
  • Reply 9 of 76
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Guys, ummm---how do I say this---the rich pay most of the taxes.



    Enough with the retread 1920s rehtoric!
  • Reply 10 of 76
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    To maintain economic growth: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent the government from paying off all its debt (a bad thing): tax cuts for the rich.

    To moderate a stock bubble: tax cuts for the rich.

    To recover from a burst bubble: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a large recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To prevent a second recession: tax cuts for the rich.

    To recover from 9/11: tax cuts for the rich.

    To fight terrorism: tax cuts for the rich.

    To save social security: tax cuts for the rich.

    To save medicare: tax cuts for the rich.

    To elect and re-elect GWB: tax cuts for the rich.



    Did I miss any? I think he really only meant the last one. Too bad it's the one he won't say. But what really gets me is these "sunset" clauses. How long did it take after the last batch of tax cuts to demand that they be made "permanent"? And now they have the balls to try it on a much larger scale with the "gone-for-two-years" dvidend tax.



    An excellent indictment, BRussell.




    Exactly which of these things are bad? Except for the government not balancing it's books which it should.



    I would be for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and will, as I said, gladly condemn Republicans and Democrats for spending too much.



    I know... we should do what we did back in 1991. RAISE taxes that way instead of a real non-recession of slowed growth we can have a full blown recession.



    Nick
  • Reply 11 of 76
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    From the 2004 Budget :



    Defense spending: $390 billion

    All other discretionary spending: $429 billion

    On-budget deficit: -$482 billion



    In order to balance the budget, we'd have to eliminate either the DoD, or everything else.



    And it doesn't get any rosier...

    2008 projections from the same budget:

    Defense spending: $460 billion

    All other discretionary spending: $466 billion

    On-budget deficit: -$433 billion



    That's just nuts. General tax receipts are paying for barely half of the spending they're supposed to cover (interest on debt adds about another $200B to the budget). The government is building up a massive IOU to the SSA fund, that will have to start being paid back pretty soon now. 2012 was the best estimate, I think, which is presumably why the administration stopped publishing 10-year projections.
  • Reply 12 of 76
    enaena Posts: 667member
    ....from those wankers at the C.B.O.



    (what the hell do they know, anyway?)





    of all taxes:



    top 20% pay 66%

    next 20% pay 18%

    the next 20% pay 11%



    ....so the top 60% pay, that's right math fans, 95% of all taxes.



    And your Ranger Rick Quick Fact of the day:



    -the top 1% of income earners (those making $1 million or more) pay 23.1% of all taxes although they only make 16% of all income.



    VERY FAIR





    Enough with the retread 1920s rhetoric.



  • Reply 13 of 76
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    yes tax cuts help people live and support each other. you bet that if my boss got a tax break I would get a raise, I heard it from the top... heh

    Also remember that the budget doesn't show what money is going to be made its just how much money they project they will have to how much money they think they are spend thus a budget.

    How can you call this lying? whats going to be great is this way the tax cut is engineered, the money has to be reinvested in other markets ie stock market, buying somethen, pay raises, and there are cool one time cuts supposedly too (which I doubt will get through)

    seriously I hope this goes through that way I can get some health insurance woohoo

    all i ever hear from people against this are people who already have enough money that they fill they will just think their tax money would go to waste... as for me I barely make it day to day.
  • Reply 14 of 76
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders the White



    No its not. But it has very little to do with the original post.




    yeah thats really gonna help explain to me why this taxcut is bad... "no its not" well why is it not a good idea?
  • Reply 15 of 76
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    ....from those wankers at the C.B.O.



    (what the hell do they know, anyway?)





    of all taxes:



    top 20% pay 66%

    next 20% pay 18%

    the next 20% pay 11%



    ....so the top 60% pay, that's right math fans, 95% of all taxes.



    And your Ranger Rick Quick Fact of the day:



    -the top 1% of income earners (those making $1 million or more) pay 23.1% of all taxes although they only make 16% of all income.



    VERY FAIR





    Enough with the retread 1920s rhetoric.







    Um, maybe I'm misunderstanding this (entirely possible), but isn't it that the top 20% pay 66% of their INCOME as taxes? How many people is that, in the end? And can their payments possibly outweigh the amount paid by the other 200 million or so taxpayers?



    Seriously. If I've got this wrong let me know.
  • Reply 16 of 76
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Um, maybe I'm misunderstanding this (entirely possible), but isn't it that the top 20% pay 66% of their INCOME as taxes? How many people is that, in the end? And can their payments possibly outweigh the amount paid by the other 200 million or so taxpayers?



    Seriously. If I've got this wrong let me know.






    checking, checking........



    *finds chart*



    ...the percent is in quintiles, so it's an equal number of people in each group.
  • Reply 17 of 76
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    checking, checking........



    *finds chart*



    ...the percent is in quintiles, so it's an equal number of people in each group.




    Link?
  • Reply 18 of 76
    enaena Posts: 667member
    It's out of N. Gregory Mankiw's Principles of Economics, 3e, page 256. I know Thomson has a website for the book.....but he's using CBO numbers from the 2000 tax year. I should just OCR it and put it up on the thread.
  • Reply 20 of 76
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    I take that back, check table 2.....



    Am I reading that right? That the highest quintile pays 64% of the total federal income tax? If so, thanks (seriously) for setting me straight. I'd always figured it was some kind of spin.





    edit:



    no wait. The heading says table two is "shares of family income and taxes paid by income category." That would still indicate that they're paying 64% of their income, no? Not 64% of the total taxes collected at teh federal level.
Sign In or Register to comment.