Why didn't the Republicans make the Bush tax cuts permanent?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
They had 4 years, didn't they?

Did they not do it out of love for govt revenue?

I think the blame should fall completely on the Republicans for this shit since they're always so bipartisan/compromising.
 
feralkid

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,852
4,963
136
pancake%282%29.jpg
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,659
9,964
136
Democrats weren't' stupid, they had filibusterer control of the Senate just as Republicans do now. Reps got passed what they could, knowing it's all they could.

Why? Because this country is ungovernable.
 
KB

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
They didn't make them permenant because if a Democrat got elected, he would be unlikely to renew them, thus the GOP could claim that the Democrat "raised" taxes, something their base just hates. Party politics means putting your party ahead of the country, something both are good at doing.
 
Pr0d1gy

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
I just saw a report on the news this morning on her show:

5221021113_0c2dd39690_z.jpg


that said they Republicans were asking for a slight reduction in Social Security and the example they gave showed that someone receiving 1306 a month would now receive 1276 or so, don't remember the exact numbers. Anyhow, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. As someone who voted for Obama and who received SS since my childrens' mother died, I could certainly get behind that small cut if it would help our nation.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the tax rates are already way too low on the top earners. Most people in this country, especially on the right, are COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the fact that the top earners in this country were paying 70% income tax before Reagan got into office and whored our country out to corporate interests. They should raise the dividends tax and get rid of all loopholes that aren't family based, other than business loopholes for bringing jobs back to America.
 
A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Jaskalas said:
Democrats weren't' stupid, they had filibusterer control of the Senate just as Republicans do now. Reps got passed what they could, knowing it's all they could. Why? Because this country is ungovernable.
Click to expand...
The filibuster isn't all powerful though, the most they could've done was hold it up. The Democrats didn't filibuster Medicare Part D. Bush signed every bill into law that came to him in his first term and he raised taxes anyway in 05-06 when he took away some loopholes.

It's just like how the Republicans could've balanced the last budget, but they choose not to do so.
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Something like tax cuts can only be made permanent if they're budget neutral (some act somewhere made this the case). And since when making the tax cuts, not increased revenue stream or spending cuts were made permanent alongside, it was not possible to make them permanent. This is also why one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit is the Bush tax cuts, because they were very much NOT budget neutral and tax cuts do not magically increase tax receipts like Republicans somehow believe.
 
Thump553

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,624
136
thraashman said:
Something like tax cuts can only be made permanent if they're budget neutral (some act somewhere made this the case). And since when making the tax cuts, not increased revenue stream or spending cuts were made permanent alongside, it was not possible to make them permanent. This is also why one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit is the Bush tax cuts, because they were very much NOT budget neutral and tax cuts do not magically increase tax receipts like Republicans somehow believe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure at all where you got the impression that this was the law. Back in the 90's there was a bipartisan agreement that (extremely loose paraphrasing by me) provided no bill could be passed unless it was revenue neutral or already provided for it the budget. That agreement disappeared the moment GWB took office, especially when he started two major wars "off the budget" purportedly because they were emergencies.

My reading of why the GWB tax cuts were not permanent-there was a very healthy skepticism among Democrats AND among GOP budget hawks that the GWB tax cuts would not generate enough new economic activity to raise additional revenue to offset the lost revenue caused by the tax cuts. Turns out the skeptics were totally correct, the GWB tax cuts horrendously drove up the deficit.
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Thump553 said:
I'm not sure at all where you got the impression that this was the law. Back in the 90's there was a bipartisan agreement that (extremely loose paraphrasing by me) provided no bill could be passed unless it was revenue neutral or already provided for it the budget. That agreement disappeared the moment GWB took office, especially when he started two major wars "off the budget" purportedly because they were emergencies.

My reading of why the GWB tax cuts were not permanent-there was a very healthy skepticism among Democrats AND among GOP budget hawks that the GWB tax cuts would not generate enough new economic activity to raise additional revenue to offset the lost revenue caused by the tax cuts. Turns out the skeptics were totally correct, the GWB tax cuts horrendously drove up the deficit.
Click to expand...

Actually it was a provision in budget law, but upon looking it up it expired in 2002 the year before the Bush tax cuts were enacted. I've read somewhere that permanency still requires deficit neutral but I can't remember where or find reference to it.
 
Fern

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I already explained this to in another thread where you raised this question:

The Repubs had to use the Budget Reconciliation process to pass the tax cuts. There are no Senate filibusters allowed in the Budget Reconciliation process.

The Reconciliation process requires that bills be limited to 10 yrs maximum. This 10 yr limit was part of the Bryd rule.

Fern
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So what you are saying is you want taxes to go up because it is OK to steal from Rich People? I just want to make sure what you are saying. At some point the average American is just suppose to give in and go along with the rich president in the White House.

The Republicans could all just abstain from voting or vote some against it, so that to pass the bill every Democrat has to vote for it. Some of these politicians might want to get reelected in 2 years. Might make things more difficult asking for contributions if you just voted to raise everyone's taxes that has the money to make donations.
 
blankslate

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,794
568
126
I'm pretty sure that the only way that they could get it past democratic opposition was to pass them using procedures that required a sunset or expiration date on the tax cuts.
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Ausm said:
They knew they were irresponsible in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then why do the Democrats want to continue them? Oh right, you just want to continue the irresponsible cuts that win you votes.

Taxing the rich will only get you so far. There's still a massive deficit that will require large tax increases on everyone.

Feel the pain bitches, Americans are getting the government we wanted...
 
A

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
BoberFett said:
Then why do the Democrats want to continue them? Oh right, you just want to continue the irresponsible cuts that win you votes.

Taxing the rich will only get you so far. There's still a massive deficit that will require large tax increases on everyone.

Feel the pain bitches, Americans are getting the government we wanted...
Click to expand...

Last time I checked they were going up on the top 2% but carried over for one more year for the 98% due to a still shaky economy.
 
Last edited:
Pr0d1gy

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
BoberFett said:
Then why do the Democrats want to continue them? Oh right, you just want to continue the irresponsible cuts that win you votes.

Taxing the rich will only get you so far. There's still a massive deficit that will require large tax increases on everyone.

Feel the pain bitches, Americans are getting the government we wanted...
Click to expand...

So what? People used to pay taxes upwards of 70% in this country back when it was great. Now we pay 20% and it is a shithole. Give us the government we wanted since the private sector has proven they will not give us the capitalist economy we wanted.
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Ausm said:
Last time I checked they were going up on the top 2% but carried over for one more year for the 98% due to a still shaky economy.
Click to expand...

I repeat: Taxing the rich will only get you so far. Democrats are playing the vote buying game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom