| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject: Bush Tax Cuts vs Health Care |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
Enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Bush tax cuts are projected to cost about $2.1 trillion in lost revenue in the 10 years since they were first passed, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington, D.C. About $979 billion of that would have come from the richest five percent of taxpayers.
By comparison, the health care plan advocated by House Democrats is projected to cost about $1 trillion through its first decade (2010-2019), according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
The Bush tax cuts tally does not include the additional interest payments on the national debt made necessary by the deficit-financed cuts, the report noted. That figure bumps up the total cost of the tax cuts to about $2.48 trillion.
"Many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is 'too costly' are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts," the report notes. "Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities."
...
The conservative Heritage Foundation argues the Bush tax cuts spurred positive economic activity. But as a January report in The Washington Post notes, "President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Huffington Post is using junk numbers when talking about US economic performance under Bush. They are charging him the dot com recession which stared before he was president.
| Quote: |
By Peter Zeihan
Stratfor
October 4, 2005
Economists are second only to political scientists in their ability to dream up models and frameworks by which to measure and predict events. At Stratfor, we pay attention to many types of economic models but rely on none of them exclusively: The U.S. economy, let alone the global economy, is a beast that marches to its own tune. Economic forecasting is a bit of an art, particularly because growing access to capital and technology not only blurs the rules on which economies once ran, but also greatly shortens the time necessary for economies to react to stimuli. |
| Quote: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Economy: Debtors and Deficit Spending
Though it might not be obvious from watching the mainstream print and broadcast media, which have been issuing bearish reports since long before Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. economy remains red hot at the moment. For the past nine quarters, it has expanded by more than 3 percent per quarter, the fastest sustained growth since 1984-1986. Moreover, U.S. growth has been steady and stable in the longer run as well. The recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001 were the shortest and mildest in American history, and in reality amounted to only small corrections -- made necessary by the United States' no-holds-barred adoption of rafts of computer and information technology. One would have to go back to the 1980-82 period and a pair of back-to-back recessions to find the last time dispassionate observers felt the United States had serious economic difficulties. |
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/214/44137.html
I don't disagree with the rest of what you say on health care but tax cuts do help the economy , they might not be worth the extra debt but they are not a bad thing for the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cordova
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pretty clear that when commerce is taxed less, more occurs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/upload/64214_1.pdf
Sad that the O'bama marxist party would rather exploit class resentments to divide an ever shrinking pie as opposed to unleashing the economic and industrial potential of the U.S. by slashing taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Other than presenting the article itself, the only further thing I'd like to add to the thread at this point is that I think it's absolutely hilarious Cordova turned to one of the sources ridiculed as being inaccurate by the article to attempt to contradict the article. I feel very much like that's the equivalent of just going "nuh uh," regardless of whether one believe the Washington Post or the Heritage Foundation is correct on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ELGORDO
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Other than presenting the article itself, the only further thing I'd like to add to the thread at this point is that I think it's absolutely hilarious Cordova turned to one of the sources ridiculed as being inaccurate by the article to attempt to contradict the article. I feel very much like that's the equivalent of just going "nuh uh," regardless of whether one believe the Washington Post or the Heritage Foundation is correct on this matter. |
O.K., so you're the "go to" guy on all things having to do with the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bronski
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cordova wrote: |
Pretty clear that when commerce is taxed less, more occurs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/upload/64214_1.pdf
Sad that the O'bama marxist party would rather exploit class resentments to divide an ever shrinking pie as opposed to unleashing the economic and industrial potential of the U.S. by slashing taxes. |
Is that a typo, or a comment on the Irish part of Obama's ancestry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ELGORDO
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bronski wrote: |
| Cordova wrote: |
Pretty clear that when commerce is taxed less, more occurs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/upload/64214_1.pdf
Sad that the O'bama marxist party would rather exploit class resentments to divide an ever shrinking pie as opposed to unleashing the economic and industrial potential of the U.S. by slashing taxes. |
Is that a typo, or a comment on the Irish part of Obama's ancestry? |
He's a strappin lad from the county cork if I'm not mistakin'
Oh yeah, he's a halfrican... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ELGORDO wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Other than presenting the article itself, the only further thing I'd like to add to the thread at this point is that I think it's absolutely hilarious Cordova turned to one of the sources ridiculed as being inaccurate by the article to attempt to contradict the article. I feel very much like that's the equivalent of just going "nuh uh," regardless of whether one believe the Washington Post or the Heritage Foundation is correct on this matter. |
O.K., so you're the "go to" guy on all things having to do with the economy. |
Definitely not. I have at best a passing interest in economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ELGORDO
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ELGORDO wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Other than presenting the article itself, the only further thing I'd like to add to the thread at this point is that I think it's absolutely hilarious Cordova turned to one of the sources ridiculed as being inaccurate by the article to attempt to contradict the article. I feel very much like that's the equivalent of just going "nuh uh," regardless of whether one believe the Washington Post or the Heritage Foundation is correct on this matter. |
O.K., so you're the "go to" guy on all things having to do with the economy. |
Definitely not. I have at best a passing interest in economics. |
Is this a girl writing this? otherwise you must be a male ballet dancer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: Re: Bush Tax Cuts vs Health Care |
|
|
| Quote: |
Enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Bush tax cuts are projected to cost about $2.1 trillion in lost revenue in the 10 years since they were first passed, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington, D.C. About $979 billion of that would have come from the richest five percent of taxpayers.
|
I love it how it's characterized as "lost revenue." As if any money that doesn't go into the govt coffers is some how lost from the economy. Give me a break.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
as if the money that doesn't go into the hands of the extremely wealthy and corporations is somehow lost from the economy?
healthcare would circulate money through the health industry, and conversely having 2.3 trillion available to cut down the debt would curb inflation/strengthen the dollar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ELDOUCHE wrote: |
| Is this a girl writing this? otherwise you must be a male ballet dancer. |
Good point DIsbell, healthcare certainly would inject cash into the economy. And of course there would be less bankruptcies, a healthier, more productive workforce as well as more expendable income (less income spent on healthcare). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| ELDOUCHE wrote: |
| Is this a girl writing this? otherwise you must be a male ballet dancer. |
Good point DIsbell, healthcare certainly would inject cash into the economy. And of course there would be less bankruptcies, a healthier, more productive workforce as well as more expendable income (less income spent on healthcare). |
The govt never can and never has "injected money into the economy." In order for the govt to have money, it must first EXTRACT money out of the economy. Any person that asserts govt spending is good as it has benefits for some group of people is falling victim to the broken windows fallacy.
http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [quote="DIsbell"]as if the money that doesn't go into the hands of the extremely wealthy and corporations is somehow lost from the economy? |
I don't know what you are saying here, as you don't know how to write properly. Are you saying that money that goes into the hands of entrepreneurs is lost from the economy? Because if you are, you would be wrong.
| Quote: |
| healthcare would circulate money through the health industry, and conversely having 2.3 trillion available to cut down the debt would curb inflation/strengthen the dollar. |
Yes, taking money from one group and giving it to another group, whom you favor, would have benefits for that group. I'm not sure where the 2.3 trillion figure comes from or how spending it on healthcare would make it available to pay down the national debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| ELDOUCHE wrote: |
| Is this a girl writing this? otherwise you must be a male ballet dancer. |
Good point DIsbell, healthcare certainly would inject cash into the economy. And of course there would be less bankruptcies, a healthier, more productive workforce as well as more expendable income (less income spent on healthcare). |
Oh wait, wait ,wait. Were you being sarcastic? You've caught me out on that new fangled literary technique in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
