The Bush Tax

[MonstaThrilla]

There goes that crazy Howard Dean again...

BushTax.com

George Bush never told us about the Bush Tax
Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. That?s the Bush Tax.

Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. That?s the Bush Tax.

State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. That?s the Bush Tax.

States and local government have cut vital services. That?s the Bush Tax.

We?re all having to pay more for less. That?s the Bush Tax.

Even worse, our children and grandchildren will be paying the Bush Tax. Bush promised, "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." Yet as a direct consequence of his tax policy, over six years an American family of four will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That?s the Bush Tax.

Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ?A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.? As a result, states have struggled to close deficits that have totaled approximately $190 billion over the past three years.

Bush has shifted health costs to states and failed to own up to his responsibility to pay for homeland security, election reform, and education.

The Bush Tax is huge ? many times greater than most people?s tax refunds. And it?ll be here for a long time to come. We?ll be paying the Bush Tax for decades, and most likely, so will our children and grandchildren.

As President, Howard Dean will repeal the Bush Tax. He will provide genuine relief to the states though his Fund to Restore America and restore sound fiscal management of the nation's finances.

The question is, will Dean, if nominated, be able to frame the debate on taxes in this manner? Its quite ridiculous, but so ridiculous that it might just work...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Its quite ridiculous

That's all you needed to say

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The Dean Tax

[snips]
the nearly 12 years Dean was governor, property taxes that support local schools in Vermont nearly doubled. Those that pay for municipal government went up by nearly half to make up for less money from the state.
...
From 1990, the year before Dean took office, to his last year as governor ? 2002 ? property taxes to support local schools rose 87 percent, according to statistics compiled by the League of Cities and Towns. Property taxes to pay for municipal government, including state-assisted town road maintenance, increased 56 percent. The consumer price index for those years rose just 38 percent.
...
"During the time that school property taxes were going up by 87 percent, during the Dean years the (state) general fund support for education only went up 23 percent, less than a third," he said.
[snips]

Hmmm....

CkG

 

[sandorski]

He's got a point, especially concerning how long the tax will take to pay.

 

[Gravity]

Has he acknowledged that predictions for 2004 are now saying that it's the largest economic growth expected EVER? I guess tax revenues will be up then and the repayment of the tax cut will be much faster than he is espousing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting article, CkG, in that "no real numbers" kind of style... Property tax went up by xyz% & etc...

Which all sounds good, except that the actual mil levies and comparisons to other states are omitted, as are any comparisons of the overall tax structure, spending, and revenue gathering methods of Vermont....

I don't doubt that every word is true, but that doesn't give it any real meaning...

Like it or not, fiscal responsibility for most states and definitely at the the federal level entails tax increases. If we want schools, roads, police and fire protection, along with a myriad of other services, we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. Very straightforward. If that's not accomplished at a higher level, then it will be at a lower one, often in regressive ways, at the expense of those who benefit the least.

With Dean as governor, Vermonters found a way to achieve that fiscal integrity, obviously with a lot of bickering and compromise. And that's fine, just so long as it works for them, as it obviously does.

Having achieved total control of the budget strings in Washington, the folks who pounded Clinton to achieve a balanced budget are now racking up unprecedented debts in an orgy of fatcat tax cuts and corporate/military pork. And Bush claims to have a plan to half the annual deficit in 5 years, after increasing the total debt by ~$1.5T dollars- maybe, if all the rosy economic predictions come true and congress can somehow restrain itself, refrain from more self-serving tax cuts and corporate giveaways concealed as benefits to somebody. And that's just a promise to slow the bleeding, folks, not to stop it...

 

[DealMonkey]

As an example, CA cities and municipalities were prepared to sue Sacramento after Gov Schwollenpecker killed the car tax. You know why? Because that car tax funded fire departments and police departments at the local level. When you cut taxes at the state level, it sucks funds from the local level. When you cut taxes at the federal level, money going to the states dries up. There's a hidden cost to Bush's tax cuts and it shows up via increases in fees at the state/local level.

 

[charrison]

I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

 

[LunarRay]

If Bush created 1,000,000 jobs net of lost jobs in the next year and those jobs averaged $30,000 a year the multiplier effect and economic assumptions associated might produce as much as $15 billion in tax revenue and cost reduction in the year. Maybe even $20 billion. But, it seems to me the need is more on the order of $500 billion per year and growing.
The economic stimuli of 2003 was on this order. Wouldn't you think if that $ was used to create jobs directly we would have better made use of those funds? Would it not have jump started the economy and have been a reasonably sustainable endeavor? Public service projects that have payback use features like high speed rail and other infrastructure scenarios. Perhaps even some protective legislation aimed at the out sourcing problem. We consumers (arguably) don't benefit from this out sourcing nor does it increase our export potential to any significant degree.
The 'Bush tax' simply passes more directly to the consumer the cost of their consumption thus negating any positive affect of the general tax reduction (stimulus) to the masses. To them it is a net loss. To the rich it is an enormous gain.
When the blinders come off we see the simple reality. The poor use what they can not afford to use anymore. Brilliant cost cutting scheme. This should give rise to another across the board tax cut followed by another round of Federal Cost shifting.
Bleat, Bleat... Happily, I clop clop toward my destiny... A rug or seat cover is not a career move...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

Yeah - 200Billion in cuts would be a good start.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

Yeah - 200Billion in cuts would be a good start.

CkG

The cost of invading Iraq? Sadly, that money was already flushed down the drain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

Yeah - 200Billion in cuts would be a good start.

CkG

The cost of invading Iraq? Sadly, that money was already flushed down the drain.

The war is a one time expense - the budget is yearly. Nice try though.

CkG

 

[EXman]

As a conservative I relish the thought of Dean as the Dems Guy.

Dean says silly stuff every week reminds me of Dan Quayle.

 

[Jhhnn]

The war is a one time expense - the budget is yearly. Nice try though.

With no exit strategy other than prayer, the Iraqi adventure promises to be an annual expense, as does Afghanistan and anyplace else the Bushies decide to invade... Not to mention the senior drug program to subsidize the pharma industry, or farm pork, or energy pork, or Defense industry pork, AKA NMD...

Nice try, indeed...

As the economy improves and, God willing, we escape the Iraqi quagmire, it'll be time for, you guessed it, another taxcut to benefit those at the top... Huge deficits are good for Republican cronyism. When we finally wake up, it'll be too late, we'll be wearing a financial straightjacket and they'll be richer than ever before...

Meanwhile, monies for states and munis are drying up, so they're forced to raise a variety of taxes- property, sales, income, you name it. Those few hundred in your pocket from the taxcuts are peanuts compared to what you'll end up spending to allow the financial elite the freedom they crave- freedom to buy influence in the govt, freedom from taxes, freedom to move your jobs overseas, freedom to ease us into a third world distribution of income and wealth...

Nice article on the psychology of Bush support- hey, if it hurts your eyes, don't read it...

Blue Collar

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

The war is a one time expense - the budget is yearly. Nice try though.

With no exit strategy other than prayer, the Iraqi adventure promises to be an annual expense, as does Afghanistan and anyplace else the Bushies decide to invade... Not to mention the senior drug program to subsidize the pharma industry, or farm pork, or energy pork, or Defense industry pork, AKA NMD...

Actually the ~150Billion has been over 2 years and our expenses will lessen. However - our other gov't expenses continue to rise year after year. A 200Billion/year cut across the board in spending is just a start. Yes the other things you mentioned are problems - and I've stated such before(don't forget that some thought the drug bill didn't spend enough). We need to audit ALL of our spending but a straight cut in spending would most definately be a short-term solution while we audit and comb throught the pile of expenditures.

CkG

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
There goes that crazy Howard Dean again...

BushTax.com

George Bush never told us about the Bush Tax
Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. That?s the Bush Tax.

Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. That?s the Bush Tax.

State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. That?s the Bush Tax.

States and local government have cut vital services. That?s the Bush Tax.

We?re all having to pay more for less. That?s the Bush Tax.

Even worse, our children and grandchildren will be paying the Bush Tax. Bush promised, "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." Yet as a direct consequence of his tax policy, over six years an American family of four will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That?s the Bush Tax.

Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ?A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.? As a result, states have struggled to close deficits that have totaled approximately $190 billion over the past three years.

Bush has shifted health costs to states and failed to own up to his responsibility to pay for homeland security, election reform, and education.

The Bush Tax is huge ? many times greater than most people?s tax refunds. And it?ll be here for a long time to come. We?ll be paying the Bush Tax for decades, and most likely, so will our children and grandchildren.

As President, Howard Dean will repeal the Bush Tax. He will provide genuine relief to the states though his Fund to Restore America and restore sound fiscal management of the nation's finances.

The question is, will Dean, if nominated, be able to frame the debate on taxes in this manner? Its quite ridiculous, but so ridiculous that it might just work...

LOL you are such a PUD. This has been going on for some time. Where have you been? The Clinton admin was very good at this sort of thing.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The Dean Tax

[snips]
the nearly 12 years Dean was governor, property taxes that support local schools in Vermont nearly doubled. Those that pay for municipal government went up by nearly half to make up for less money from the state.
...
From 1990, the year before Dean took office, to his last year as governor ? 2002 ? property taxes to support local schools rose 87 percent, according to statistics compiled by the League of Cities and Towns. Property taxes to pay for municipal government, including state-assisted town road maintenance, increased 56 percent. The consumer price index for those years rose just 38 percent.
...
"During the time that school property taxes were going up by 87 percent, during the Dean years the (state) general fund support for education only went up 23 percent, less than a third," he said.
[snips]

Hmmm....

CkG

I thought you rightwingers liked local control of the government.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

Yeah - 200Billion in cuts would be a good start.

CkG

The cost of invading Iraq? Sadly, that money was already flushed down the drain.

The war is a one time expense - the budget is yearly. Nice try though.

CkG

You mean there aren't going to be any appropriations for Iraq in the coming year?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I looked at the taxes that were raised on the state of texas. None of the raised taxes had anything to do with cutting of federal funding.

This website seems to be deceptive at best.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps TX is feeling ripple effects from Bush's tenure as governor? Takes a while for his economic policies to kick in. 3 years sounds about right.

Or maybe perhaps texas is experiencing the same ripple of lost tax revenue that can be attributed to the economic downturn that occured after the bubble.

Kudos to the texas leg for cutting spending before even thinking about raising taxes. THey started off with a 10% spending cut.

Shame we cant get congress to do that.

Yeah - 200Billion in cuts would be a good start.

CkG

The cost of invading Iraq? Sadly, that money was already flushed down the drain.

The war is a one time expense - the budget is yearly. Nice try though.

CkG

You mean there aren't going to be any appropriations for Iraq in the coming year?

Since you seemed to have missed my reply to Jhhnn - I'll copy/paste it. The answer to your question is in here.
*************
Actually the ~150Billion has been over 2 years and our expenses will lessen. However - our other gov't expenses continue to rise year after year. A 200Billion/year cut across the board in spending is just a start. Yes the other things you mentioned are problems - and I've stated such before(don't forget that some thought the drug bill didn't spend enough). We need to audit ALL of our spending but a straight cut in spending would most definately be a short-term solution while we audit and comb throught the pile of expenditures.
*************
CkG

 

[TheSavage]

Can you say "Line Item Veto"? Best defense against Pork Barrel Politics and the spending associated with it.