10 Years Later, How Bush-Era Tax Cuts Changed America
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
You think Republicans are not socialists? Reality does not exist, so anything is possible.
At this point the reality is that any one president can't fix the problem in a single term or in two terms. The debt problem is so big it will take a generation to fix.
The Bush tax cuts really haven't changed much of anything.
One of the CBO reports issued in 2010 (I think it was August) showed that the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% accounted for 15% of the debt accumulated over the previous ten years. About 20% of the debt resulted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 65% of the debt came from increases in social program spending. That is, 85% of the accumulated debt over the previous decade came from sources other than tax cuts for the wealthy. And that makes sense. The recent annual budget deficits have been in the trillions per year and the tax cuts for the top 2% are about $70B per year (less than 5% of the total in 2011).
If you take that $70B per year and divide it among the other 98% of the population it comes to about $233 per person per year. If the tax cuts never happened, either our national debt would be 15% less, or social program spending could have been implemented in the amount of $233 per person per year (about $20 per month), hardly enough to radically change anybody's life.
People try to make the case that if the tax cuts for the wealthy never happened, the United States would be in great financial shape and there would be a much smaller gap between the rich and the poor. The numbers don't support that theory simply because the tax cuts for the wealthy represent such a small percentage of our total economy. Tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% have not had the huge impact that people claim they have.
One of the CBO reports issued in 2010 (I think it was August) showed that the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% accounted for 15% of the debt accumulated over the previous ten years. About 20% of the debt resulted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 65% of the debt came from increases in social program spending. That is, 85% of the accumulated debt over the previous decade came from sources other than tax cuts for the wealthy. And that makes sense. The recent annual budget deficits have been in the trillions per year and the tax cuts for the top 2% are about $70B per year (less than 5% of the total in 2011).
If you take that $70B per year and divide it among the other 98% of the population it comes to about $233 per person per year. If the tax cuts never happened, either our national debt would be 15% less, or social program spending could have been implemented in the amount of $233 per person per year (about $20 per month), hardly enough to radically change anybody's life.
People try to make the case that if the tax cuts for the wealthy never happened, the United States would be in great financial shape and there would be a much smaller gap between the rich and the poor. The numbers don't support that theory simply because the tax cuts for the wealthy represent such a small percentage of our total economy. Tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% have not had the huge impact that people claim they have.
I have to do my own research on his numbers and I don't always agree with him but I have the utmost respect for Mr Tom Davis as a poster .One of ET's best
does it matter that he is wrong?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html
Ten years ago today, the first round of Bush tax cuts became law. But what if they hadnât? What would our fiscal situation look like if history had been different in just one respect: if weâd never implemented President George W. Bushâs eponymous tax policies? The short answer is that the debate over federal debt levels would be entirely different. In that alternate world, total debt as a share of GDP would be under 50 percent this yearâinstead of pushing 70 percentâand it would be expected to stay under 60 percent for the rest of the decade. (see chart) Thatâs well below the levels causing such great consternation in Washington.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html