Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: kcballer on April 19, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
-
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf)
;D 333 economics phD please refute this in your own words
The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the
House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal
Detailed Figures in Appendix
Newly revised estimates from Citizens for Tax Justice show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost
$2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010).1 Preliminary estimates from the
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats’ health care reform legislation
is projected to cost $1 trillion over the decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019)
And yet, 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. 3
Their own voting record demonstrates that health care
reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.
It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.
Details on the Bush Tax Cuts
The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results
directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the
national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
This figure also includes the cost of adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to prevent
millions of additional taxpayers from being affected by it, as would otherwise have happened as a
result of the Bush tax cuts.4
Reason for Revisions
The projected cost of the Bush tax cuts is slightly less than we projected previously.5 This is mainly
because of the economic downturn, which has reduced incomes. The projected distribution of the
tax cuts has also changed slightly. Also, we no longer project the effects of the Bush tax cuts without
AMT adjustments, since it is clear that Congress will continue to adjust the AMT to limit the number
of people it affects.
Stark Contrast Between Congress’s Approach to Health Care Reform and Approach to Bush Tax Cuts
Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three
committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One
committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of
the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)
The chairmen of the three House committees have explicitly stated that their goal is a final bill that
is deficit-neutral in the decade following enactment. It’s unclear if they have accomplished this yet,
since the Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued final cost estimates of the bills, and the
legislation is likely to change before the full House votes on a final bill. But President Obama and
Democratic leaders have also committed to ensuring that health care reform will not increase the
budget deficit.
Under the House bills, roughly half of the costs would be offset with savings in our existing health
care programs, while the other half would be offset with a surcharge on the incomes of wealthy
taxpayers.6 A previous analysis by CTJ has shown that this surcharge is a reasonable approach to
financing health care reform and would only affect 1.3 percent of taxpayers.7 Another CTJ analysis
concludes that the surcharge will likely have no significant impact on small businesses, despite some
of the misinformation that has surrounded this topic.8
In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue
lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased
the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.
Health Care Reform: A Matter of Priorities, Not Costs
These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House
health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that
showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future
generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that
cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it
doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.
-
The Bush tax resulted in 54 consecutive months of job growth and incresed revenues to the government.The health care bill will completely utterly babnkrupt the country for good AND destroy the health care system.
-
lol. Yes, refute a cut and paste link in your own words 33.
-
The Bush tax resulted in 54 consecutive months of job growth and incresed revenues to the government.The health care bill will completely utterly babnkrupt the country for good AND destroy the health care system.
Hey Billy i'm looking at the numbers here. Read through it, 2.5 trillion it what it cost the government all those months of job growth (that you attribute to tax cuts) didn't stop us from stepping off the ledge into the recession. Just think what that 2.5 trillion more could have done for the government in this economy we are in. Compare that with 1 trillion and ask yourself which is the more fiscally responsible move?
-
lol. Yes, refute a cut and paste link in your own words 33.
Hey i'm posting it up for all to interpret. 333 has a way of ALWAYS disputing anything posted that goes against his so called economic "genius" ::) he doesn't source his 'evidence' to back up his claims and instead posted links to books he has read to show why he is smarter than the writers of the material posted. All i'm asking him to do is to use his own words and sources to back up his claims. If he posted a link to an economist he agreed with who disputed it, that's fine, but fact is he rarely does. Instead he posts some talking point nonsense he's fallen for hook line and sinker (case in point socialist president).
-
Hey i'm posting it up for all to interpret. 333 has a way of ALWAYS disputing anything posted that goes against his so called economic "genius" ::) he doesn't source his 'evidence' to back up his claims and instead posted links to books he has read to show why he is smarter than the writers of the material posted. All i'm asking him to do is to use his own words and sources to back up his claims. If he posted a link to an economist he agreed with who disputed it, that's fine, but fact is he rarely does. Instead he posts some talking point nonsense he's fallen for hook line and sinker (case in point socialist president).
Understood. Asking him to use his own words "and sources" is different.
-
Understood. Asking him to use his own words "and sources" is different.
When you say it "cost" the govt, you are talking about anticipated revenues the govt would have gotten had nothing been done. However, the economy when bush came in was going down as a result of the dot com meltdown.
The fact of the matter is that after the bush tax cuts were implemented, the govt saw records revenues.
The issue where bush screwed up, and also the congress of both parties was the spending side. The revenue side was fine, it was the speding side that blew up the debt etc.
-
Hey Billy i'm looking at the numbers here. Read through it, 2.5 trillion it what it cost the government all those months of job growth (that you attribute to tax cuts) didn't stop us from stepping off the ledge into the recession. Just think what that 2.5 trillion more could have done for the government in this economy we are in. Compare that with 1 trillion and ask yourself which is the more fiscally responsible move?
Hmmm,Obama spent a trillion on the stimulus and lost over 4 million jobs SINCE he passed it.Imagine if he would have spent two trillion maybe we could have lost 8 million jobs.
Revenues to the government increased after the tax cuts.Libs want to avoid this.
-
When you say it "cost" the govt, you are talking about anticipated revenues the govt would have gotten had nothing been done. However, the economy when bush came in was going down as a result of the dot com meltdown.
The fact of the matter is that after the bush tax cuts were implemented, the govt saw records revenues.
The issue where bush screwed up, and also the congress of both parties was the spending side. The revenue side was fine, it was the speding side that blew up the debt etc.
That's actually a pretty good explanation. The "cost" of the tax cuts is nebulous because there isn't any concrete evidence. It is all projected revenues and such. You can't point t a balance sheet and show everyone the "cost" of the tax cuts. That and tax revenue was at historic levels pretty much voids the argument.
Entitlement programs actual have real costs to them. And it usually turns out to be several orders of magnitude higher than originally anticipated. See Medicare/Medicaid.