Found It! Bush Tax Cuts Worth Only $98 Billion in 2011

[matt0611]

You don't ask, 'why is defending the amount for the rich pushed so hard by the right'?

In the context of fixing the budget deficit?
The left acts like this is an actual solution to help fix it, 40 billion?
Come on...
There are so many other places to look for spending decreases and revenue increases other than raising rates.

 

[Fern]

military industrial complex and medical insurance companies via single payer healthcare.

Medical insurance companies?

WTH does that have to with a deficit?

They, and their workers pay income taxes. Blowing a hole in revenue to balance the budget?

And, really WTH? Medicare drains money from the General Fund thus increasing our deficit/debt. Extending Medicare, as it currently exists would cost us many more billions in our budget. Increasing costs to balance the budget?

And if the fed govt took over HI, how much are they gonna have to pay to reimburse all the shareholders/pensions plans for the lost value in billions of $'s of stock equity?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Fern

 

[etrigan420]

In the context of fixing the budget deficit?
The left acts like this is an actual solution to fixing it, 40 billion?
Come on...
There are so many other places to look for spending decreases and revenue increases other than raising rates.

Yeah, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood...see what I did there?

Fucking conservatives wanted to bitch and moan over discretionary spending during the "Near Government Shutdown of '11", but call 40 billion small potatoes.

"Come on" indeed.

 

[Craig234]

In the context of fixing the budget deficit?
The left acts like this is an actual solution to fixing it, 40 billion?
Come on...
There are so many other places to look for spending decreases and revenue increases other than raising rates.

You can't show me one liberal commentator saying that that one thing will 'fix the deficit'.

You're making things up.

And again, you don't say the right is 'acting like raising taxes one cent, eliminating one cent of tax loopholes, is such a disaster it's worth threatening the global economy over'.

 

[matt0611]

You can't show me one liberal commentator saying that that one thing will 'fix the deficit'.

You're making things up.

And again, you don't say the right is 'acting like raising taxes one cent, eliminating one cent of tax loopholes, is such a disaster it's worth threatening the global economy over'.

No I'm not, it was touted as one of the solutions to help fix the deficit. Revenue increases were clearly something the left wanted.
People say it all the time on this very forum that we need to raise taxes on the rich to bring down the deficit.

I never said "liberal commentator" , stop making things up.

 

[Craig234]

No I'm not, it was touted as one of the solutions to help fix the deficit. Revenue increases were clearly something the left wanted.
People say it all the time on this very forum that we need to raise taxes on the rich to bring down the deficit.

Your whole statement was how "the left" is saying this alone will fix the deficit when it won't, and when you are called on that not being true, you just change it to this will "help".

Well, it will "help". That's not what you said and not what I called you on.

Let's review what you said:

"The left acts like this is an actual solution to fixing it"

I never said "liberal commentator" , stop making things up.

What the hell is wrong with you? You make a false accusation of being misrepresented, because your statement 'the left says' I say, 'show me one liberal commentator who did'?

When you say 'the left says something', who does that mean if not a 'liberal commentator'?

It can be me, it can be a liberal writer, it can be a liberal political leader, how do you reach the crazy conclusion that you were misrepresented there?

When you say 'the left says', who did you mean says it that's not a liberal commentator?

Seems to me you are just trying to make a false attack to pretend you have a point when you don't, which is obnoxious.

Meanwhile, you dodge the issue three times in a row of how you fail to say a word about the right DEFENDING every penny for the rich so hard, while attacking the left for pursuing revenue.

Really, wasting my time - you can either do better or have the last word.

 

[matt0611]

Yeah, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood...see what I did there?

Fucking conservatives wanted to bitch and moan over discretionary spending during the "Near Government Shutdown of '11", but call 40 billion small potatoes.

"Come on" indeed.

They're good ideas to do. Not priority number 1 though as far as fixing the deficit concerned. Still good to do though.

 

[BoberFett]

Medical insurance companies?

WTH does that have to with a deficit?

They, and their workers pay income taxes. Blowing a hole in revenue to balance the budget?

And, really WTH? Medicare drains money from the General Fund thus increasing our deficit/debt. Extending Medicare, as it currently exists would cost us many more billions in our budget. Increasing costs to balance the budget?

And if the fed govt took over HI, how much are they gonna have to pay to reimburse all the shareholders/pensions plans for the lost value in billions of $'s of stock equity?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Fern

Democrats live in some kind of bizarro world where the answer to everything is UHC. While there are many benefits to UHC, they seem to utterly fail to see that there are pros and cons to everything. Somehow chopping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy (the savings they hope to have) will somehow result in higher tax revenues. Truly insane.

 

[Craig234]

They're good ideas to do. Not priority number 1 though as far as fixing the deficit concerned. Still good to do though.

Why yes, good ideas because we don't need any public-interest television, only corporate content, and women's health, who cares?

 

[matt0611]

Why yes, good ideas because we don't need any public-interest television, only corporate content, and women's health, who cares?

Ah, the old "if you don't support the government doing something you must be against that thing in entirety" argument.

Don't want the government running healthcare? "You must be anti-health, anti-poor"
Don't want the government running schools? "You must be anti-education"
Don't want the government making cell phones? "You must be anti-cell phones"
...

 

[matt0611]

Your whole statement was how "the left" is saying this alone will fix the deficit when it won't, and when you are called on that not being true, you just change it to this will "help".

Well, it will "help". That's not what you said and not what I called you on.

Let's review what you said:

"The left acts like this is an actual solution to fixing it"



What the hell is wrong with you? You make a false accusation of being misrepresented, because your statement 'the left says' I say, 'show me one liberal commentator who did'?

When you say 'the left says something', who does that mean if not a 'liberal commentator'?

It can be me, it can be a liberal writer, it can be a liberal political leader, how do you reach the crazy conclusion that you were misrepresented there?

When you say 'the left says', who did you mean says it that's not a liberal commentator?

Seems to me you are just trying to make a false attack to pretend you have a point when you don't, which is obnoxious.

Meanwhile, you dodge the issue three times in a row of how you fail to say a word about the right DEFENDING every penny for the rich so hard, while attacking the left for pursuing revenue.

Really, wasting my time - you can either do better or have the last word.

I never said that anyone said that "this alone" will fix the deficit.

I'll edit it to "help fix" the deficit if it makes you feel better, because that's more accurate to what I meant.

I don't listen to any liberal commentators, so I wouldn't know.
I only know what private citizens say, like on this forum, and democrat ("left") congressman. The democrats in congress pushed for tax increases as part of this deal to help fix the deficit but didn't get it.

And I don't even know what you're trying to say talking about a "penny" tax increase. I don't understand the question.

 

[werepossum]

Craig, you're wrong as usual. It's so G@D D@mned easy to find on google I really thought it unnecessary, hadn't taken you into account.

Here's a source that cites both amounts.

Now, they're worth about $36-40B, in better economic times, it'd be $70B.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html



Here's another source:



http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...x-Cuts-Could-Have-Huge-Debt-Impact.aspx#page1

Fern

In Craig's defense, he's usually so outrageously wrong that being factually off by a mere seventy-five percent is almost like he's right.

 

[sandorski]

Increasing Revenues is not an option. Spending Cuts alone will fail.

 

[Craig234]

Ah, the old "if you don't support the government doing something you must be against that thing in entirety" argument.

Don't want the government running healthcare? "You must be anti-health, anti-poor"
Don't want the government running schools? "You must be anti-education"
Don't want the government making cell phones? "You must be anti-cell phones"
...

That's a fallacy.

Too bad it has nothing to do with my post, which didn't say what you claim.

 

[Craig234]

I never said that anyone said that "this alone" will fix the deficit.

I'll edit it to "help fix" the deficit if it makes you feel better, because that's more accurate to what I meant.

That solves a larger problem, and leaves another - the fact that revenue increase ARE important to deficit reduction.

The amount of money alone is significant; and the help of reducing the concentration of wealth, and providing a slightly less unbalanced tax burden, helps also.

Read any credible economist, and they'll tell you revenues are important for deficit reduction.

I don't listen to any liberal commentators, so I wouldn't know.
I only know what private citizens say, like on this forum, and democrat ("left") congressman. The democrats in congress pushed for tax increases as part of this deal to help fix the deficit but didn't get it.

Yes, I agree the liberal position is that revenues from the rich, who have had so many shifts of wealth in their favor for decades, 'will help' with deficit reduction.

And I don't even know what you're trying to say talking about a "penny" tax increase. I don't understand the question.

What I'm saying is, you are attacking Democrats for going after revenue - but not saying a word about Republicans who are defending the rich just as hard or harder, saying that they will not agree to one penny of revenue increases from any tax increase, from any closing of any loophole, out of the countless loopholes passed for the benefit of the rich, which I saw recently it's estimated only 4% of Americans use - and they say they oppose one penny of taxes so much they'll vote to cause a global economic crash over it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood...see what I did there?

Fucking conservatives wanted to bitch and moan over discretionary spending during the "Near Government Shutdown of '11", but call 40 billion small potatoes.

"Come on" indeed.

I'd love to make you a deal. Repeal Obamacare and you can have that $40 billion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like others I don't buy your premise.

That's completely unsurprising. It's true, but you won't buy it anyway.

And are you saying there's no way for the patient to get their medicine and be reimbursed? How often does this happen in both systems?

They are certainly welcome to buy their medications out of their own pocket. If they can't afford it, then they have the consolation of belonging to an efficient system. As to if or when they are reimbursed, it depends. They might be paid within the year or as often happens they'll be told "you had no authorization to purchase medications under these conditions so it's on you."

But more importantly, you are saying this is justification for throwing away many billions of dollars per year to support the totally unnecessary private insurance industry?

This could be looked at as you aren't willing to let people have their medications so you can do away to with private insurance. The losses are acceptable- to you.

Many of them routinely deny claims and long periods of wasted money are spent as collectors re-file claims - under the private system. How often under 'Medicare for all'?

Government claims are usually more problematic of the two. Private insurance can be a cluster, but having to file separate claims for washing hair vs brushing teeth? That's ridiculous. Dealing with government red tape and requirements means more time is spent with dealing with payment issues and less money for care. That means your savings are at least in part is illusory. Someone has to take care of their incompetence. That's everyone else in health care. Regarding how often this happens it's a few times a week. That's one provider of course. How often does it get fixed right away? I remember one time it took three days to get a claim taken care which should have been paid right away. In about the last 5 years I've seen it happen so it takes private insurance more than a day perhaps half a dozen times. Medicare D? It always takes at least several days but that's getting longer. As I said it's roughly two weeks now. How often? Every time of course because that's how the government requires it be handled.

Your issue in the face of the amount of money involved is just ridiculous as an objection to saving this kind of money. Those pills must cost over a million dollars each?

Now you are being stupid. You complain about there Republicans and businesses, yet you are ready to harm people in real ways. No those pills don't cost a million but sometimes they cost far far more than people can afford which is why they have insurance to begin with.

You haven't any idea about this subject, but you sure are glad to let people suffer and die for money. How corporatist of you.

BTW, you being an expert in health care and all, why don't you tell the younger folks who believe what you are dishing out that their premiums are going to skyrocket to pay for the Boomers?

You must know what I'm talking about because you act as if you have this all down.

 

[dca221]

If you dig into the numbers, you'd see your view is all wrong. The national debts increase during Reagan and Bush (Sr. and 43) years had little to do with tax cuts, but more to do with spending increase. In fact, Tax revenue INCREASED during Reagan years after the tax cut. It is the crazy spending with all the useless program that's causing this debt situation.

First, the revenue thing is really hard to say, since Reagan presided over the LARGEST TAX INCREASES as well as his original massive tax cuts. Republicans do want to forget that part of Reagan's legacy, but unfortunately for them, it is what Reagan did!

Second, here is what the data say on revenue and spending as percent GDP during the 80s (I know you are a conservative, you don't like seeing facts and data, but please humor me):

Year GDP Rev as % Spending as
1980 2,724.2 19.0 21.7
1981 3,057.0 19.6 22.2
1982 3,223.7 19.2 23.1
1983 3,440.7 17.5 23.5
1984 3,844.4 17.3 22.2
1985 4,146.3 17.7 22.8
1986 4,403.9 17.5 22.5
1987 4,651.4 18.4 21.6
1988 5,008.5 18.2 21.3
1989 5,399.5 18.4 21.2
1990 5,734.5 18.0 21.9

At the beginning of the 80s, Revenue is 19.0% of GDP; at the end, it is 18.0%!!! And mid-80s don't even crack 18%!!! So much for "tax cuts increasing revenue". Perhaps it was Reagan's tax increases that killed the revenue explosion that Laffer curve zealots expected

Spending, on the other hand, is lower as %GDP at the end of the 80s than the beginning of the 80s: 1980 was 21.7%, 87-89 were lower than that! 90 was just 0.2% higher, which is still lower than 1981.

Sorry dude, saint Ronny's voodoo economics didn't bring the revenues you are brain washed to believe it did

Most economist would agree that long term effect of tax increase is highly unpredictable, it is as likely to hurt tax receipt as help.

Source please, I'd like to see who these "most" economists are, unless you are purely making shit up. Perhaps they are the same ones that never told you Reagan increased taxes or his tax cuts didn't really grow revenues. Are those "economists" called Hannity or Limbaugh by any chance?

All these revoking tax cut/increasing tax for the rich are not based on factual data, it's purely political ideology.

Take your own medicine much?

For good comparison, here are the 90s:

1991 5,930.5 17.8 22.3
1992 6,242.0 17.5 22.1
1993 6,587.3 17.5 21.4
1994 6,976.6 18.0 21.0
1995 7,341.1 18.4 20.6
1996 7,718.3 18.8 20.2
1997 8,211.7 19.2 19.5
1998 8,663.0 19.9 19.1
1999 9,208.4 19.8 18.5
2000 9,821.0 20.6 18.2

Didn't evil sexual deviant Clinton raise taxes? Seems like revenue went up constantly every year after 1993! (little blip in 99). And that tax-and-spend liberal's spending is 4% lower! at the end of his term. It must be the Newt Gingrich revolution really reigning in the spend and showing Clinton the way -- too bad those good Republicans lost their way in the 2000s, with W's and Rove's compassionate conservatism and borrow-and-spend logic


I am sorry if I am giving you too many facts and data. I know conservatives are allergic to facts, and I don't mean to make your brain-washed head explode. I hope you learned something today, though: don't make shit up if it can be looked up easily

 

[Jhhnn]

First, the revenue thing is really hard to say, since Reagan presided over the LARGEST TAX INCREASES as well as his original massive tax cuts. Republicans do want to forget that part of Reagan's legacy, but unfortunately for them, it is what Reagan did!

Pure fluffery. Effective rates, particularly on the wealthy, were lower when he left office than when he entered. Everything else is just shuck&jive.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The biggest tax increase under Reagan was the regressive tax increase of SS contributions.

I'll agree pretty much with the rest of what you've offered... but Ronnie didn't become a man of myth & legend, the idol of the Rich, by raising their taxes, bet on that.

 

[ElFenix]

Year GDP Rev as % Spending as
1980 2,724.2 19.0 21.7
1981 3,057.0 19.6 22.2
1982 3,223.7 19.2 23.1
1983 3,440.7 17.5 23.5
1984 3,844.4 17.3 22.2
1985 4,146.3 17.7 22.8
1986 4,403.9 17.5 22.5
1987 4,651.4 18.4 21.6
1988 5,008.5 18.2 21.3
1989 5,399.5 18.4 21.2
1990 5,734.5 18.0 21.9

At the beginning of the 80s, Revenue is 19.0% of GDP; at the end, it is 18.0%!!! And mid-80s don't even crack 18%!!! So much for "tax cuts increasing revenue".

so in 1980 when revenue was 517 billion that's less than in 1984 when revenue was 665 billion?

 

[Jhhnn]

so in 1980 when revenue was 517 billion that's less than in 1984 when revenue was 665 billion?

The economy was deliberately depressed by the FRB in 1980 to tame inflation. The prime rate was over 20%. It fell to 11% by the end of 1984, not to mention the then enormous deficits pumping money into the economy.

Complex situations don't have simple ontological answers, at all.

 

[Corn]

In Craig's defense, he's usually so outrageously wrong that being factually off by a mere seventy-five percent is almost like he's right.

You win best post of the day!

 

[sarsipias1234]

Like others I don't buy your premise. And are you saying there's no way for the patient to get their medicine and be reimbursed? How often does this happen in both systems?

But more importantly, you are saying this is justification for throwing away many billions of dollars per year to support the totally unnecessary private insurance industry?

Many of them routinely deny claims and long periods of wasted money are spent as collectors re-file claims - under the private system. How often under 'Medicare for all'?

Your issue in the face of the amount of money involved is just ridiculous as an objection to saving this kind of money. Those pills must cost over a million dollars each?

I just spent the last ten years of my life being a care giver for my mom.

Over that decade I was personal eye witness to my mom being defrauded of nearly $100,000 dollars in hospital bills from hospitals overcharging people with assets to recover losses from emergency room visits by the poor and uninsured.

Sutter Health hospitals was sued for this practice of shifting the burden of the poor.

Sutter Health settled for $275 million dollars even when there is clear evidence the overcharging was in the billions of dollars.

Here's a link to the settlement. Of course we declined the settlement in the interest of the poor. My mom felt bad for those that had nothing while she had a lot.

http://www.legalradar.com/2006/08/hospital-chain-settles-overcharging-suit-for-275-million.html


Even the federal government thinks the health care industry is the most corrupt and we all know that the federal government is corrupt, so for the government to say the health care industry is corrupt says a lot.

Doctor's greed for ever higher salaries are soley responsible for this corruption.

Doctor's have too much power and the power has corrupted them absolutely.

 

[JSt0rm]

Doctor's greed for ever higher salaries are soley responsible for this corruption.

Doctor's have too much power and the power has corrupted them absolutely.

So we a private for profit bureaucracy to keep the evil doctors at bay? why didnt i see this before.

 

[sarsipias1234]

So we a private for profit bureaucracy to keep the evil doctors at bay? why didnt i see this before.

what?


“All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, Lord Acton

Doctors are endowed by the public the authority to declare death in a human being.

Is this not the ultimate or absolute power?

The power to decide life or death.

My point is that history repeats so look to the past for guidance in such genius quotes from people like Lord Acton!