Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
|
You may be correct, but your statement is vague. I made several posts in that thread and expressed some opinions, ask questions and presented some facts. Maybe you did get through to me on something.
Quote:
|
...you're posting the same opinion now...it flies in the face of the facts....
|
The vagueness continues. What did I write that flies in the face of facts?
Quote:
Bush's tax policies transferred the revenue that formerly mitigated a higher deficit, back into the pockets of those who formerly paid the the highest progressive tax rate...the wealthiest ten percent who already owned 70 percent of all assets in the US....and another year of data is in....it supports my argument:
ace, in 2000, Social Security (SSI) taxes collected were $652.9 billion, and the $236 billion "surplus in 2000, was that money...the surplus in SSI taxes vs. payments to recipients.
In 2006, SSI taxes collected were $837.8 billion.... Bush's budget ran a deficit of $248 billion, plus....all of the SSI surplus of 2006. The amount of that 2006 SSI surplus was part of the $500 billion US Treasury Debt increase of 2006...it is carried on the books as "debt held by the public".
|
I do not dispute the numbers you posted. I don't dispute spending being out of control. I don't dispute there was a surplus during the Clinton administration.
I don't even dispute your understanding of SSI being in surplus. However, looking at Social Security as being in surplus without taking into consideration the long-term liability being created is an error in my opinion. I see Social Security as the biggest fiscal crisis facing this nation because future liabilities will consume bigger and bigger shares of our national income. To measure the inflows today against the outflows to day is an error.
The Bush deficit, if you agree is made up of three components (discretionary spending, non-discretionary, spending, off-budget spending) and then compared to tax collections, you have to then consider what would have happened to the deficit assuming no tax cuts for your argument to make sense that the tax cuts are the reason for the deficit. I don't see how deficit spending could have been avoided with or without the tax cuts. Then add in the costs of the war and deficit spending would be even worse with or without the tax cuts. But history shows temporary deficts are generally not a long term problem. The SS problem is different.
Regardless of the tax cuts, taxes collected (if you agree there is a correlation to GDP, all other things being equal), would have shown a peak in 2000 during the "dot com bubble bursting" and the economy going into recession. Both events where triggered before Bush took office. Assuming no Bush tax cuts, taxes collected would have declined. No one with specificity can give exact numbers on the impact of the Bush tax cuts, good or bad. However, based on the numbers you posted, after the recession tax dollars collect went up, the economy grew, jobs were created, incomes increased. All evidence of good things resulting from the tax cuts.
Quote:
|
Bush and the republican congress...for six years, transferred the tax burden from the top ten percent, to a massively increased debt burden to the other 90 percent, who own just 30 percent of the country's total wealth. Real populists...these "folks" you advocate for....ace!
|
I know how you love IBD, but you can verify the numbers against your own source, but your comment above is misleading.
Quote:
|
In 2005, the latest full year for data, the top 1% of earners accounted for 21.2% of all income, but paid 39.4% of all federal taxes. The top 5% earned 35.8% of all income and paid 60% of the taxes. That's right: The top 5% paid more in income taxes than the remaining 95% combined.
|
Quote:
|
The bottom 50% in income in the U.S. — including, by definition, half of those who are middle class — paid just 3% of all income taxes in 2005. That's right: The top 50% in income paid 97%.
|
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...76821557506429