BUSH tax cuts cost 2x health care reform

[punked]

There is a nice little image to display what a great job republicans have done over the years as well.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

[August1991]

Yes, but the Bush tax cuts meant that Americans had the money and they could do what they wanted with it.

Obama's health care plan will take the money and do God knows what with it.

----

Since this thread concerns health care, let me add a seemingly minor but critical point.

Canada's health care is a provincial responsibility. Each province has its own ministry of health and its own bureaucratic system. We do not as such have a federal health care system, except through financing.

If I were Obama, and I wanted to reform US health care, I would leave each State the choice of what health care system to adopt.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but the Bush tax cuts meant that Americans had the money and they could do what they wanted with it.

Obama's health care plan will take the money and do God knows what with it.

God knows what ? Huh ? Isn't the money going to be used for health care ?

[Alta4ever]

God knows what ? Huh ? Isn't the money going to be used for health care ?

government paperpushers and waiting lists aren't healthcare, neither are drug pannels or additional oversight commitees which is were most government spending is eaten up.

[Michael Hardner]

Notwithstanding, there will have to be additional services provided in the new program or the politicians who pushed this will have no credibility whatsoever.

[punked]

government paperpushers and waiting lists aren't healthcare, neither are drug pannels or additional oversight commitees which is were most government spending is eaten up.

No it wasn't, it was going to insurance paper pushers wasn't it? Seeing how government programs like Medicare have a 3% over head and insurance companies are 20-35% you really have no leg to stand on.

[Mr.Canada]

No it wasn't, it was going to insurance paper pushers wasn't it? Seeing how government programs like Medicare have a 3% over head and insurance companies are 20-35% you really have no leg to stand on.

Bus hhasn't been the President for about a year now so give it a rest already and face the facts. Your golden boy , Obama has done absolutely nothing since taking power. Except sending 30,000 more troops to the middle east. Tell me again. How he is so great?

[Michael Hardner]

Bus hhasn't been the President for about a year now so give it a rest already and face the facts. Your golden boy , Obama has done absolutely nothing since taking power. Except sending 30,000 more troops to the middle east. Tell me again. How he is so great?

Mr. Canada says he's a Christian, yet when it comes to providing evidence he demands but does not give. This is a contradiction of the Golden Rule.

[BubberMiley]

Those who identify themselves as Christians rarely are.

[blueblood]

God knows what ? Huh ? Isn't the money going to be used for health care ?

Except for the fact that America was founded because of high taxes. The founding fathers would be spinning in their grave with the amount of spending going on down there, especially with Obama.

Governments tend to waste a ridiculous amount of money, what's worse is that incompetant bureaucrats don't get fired.

Why people don't learn the lessons of the USSR one will never know...

[punked]

Except for the fact that America was founded because of high taxes. The founding fathers would be spinning in their grave with the amount of spending going on down there, especially with Obama.

Governments tend to waste a ridiculous amount of money, what's worse is that incompetant bureaucrats don't get fired.

Why people don't learn the lessons of the USSR one will never know...

The founding fathers also lived 250 years ago so they really don't get much of a say do they? I bet they would be really against Bush though.

I think the lesson of the USSR is don't fight a war with Afghanistan.

Edited December 15, 2009 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

The founding fathers also lived 250 years ago so they really don't get much of a say do they? I bet they would be really against Bush though.

Sure they do....see US Constitution.

I think the lesson of the USSR is don't fight a war with Afghanistan.

Nope....the lesson of the USSR is don't fight a war with the USA's economy.

Edited December 15, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Sure they do....see US Constitution.

Pretty sure there has been plenty added to the Constitution sense those days.

Nope....the lesson of the USSR is don't fight a war with the USA's economy.

Pretty sure it isn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty sure there has been plenty added to the Constitution sense those days.

..as provided for in the original document.

Pretty sure it isn't.

Gee...seems we can't ask the Soviets either way....they are extinct.

[punked]

..as provided for in the original document.

But it is a live document for a reason, because 2010 isn't 1800.

Gee...seems we can't ask the Soviets either way....they are extinct.

Agreed.

[blueblood]

The founding fathers also lived 250 years ago so they really don't get much of a say do they? I bet they would be really against Bush though.

I think the lesson of the USSR is don't fight a war with Afghanistan.

Your missing the point, the US was founded because the populace told the King to take his high taxes and shove it. American's enjoy low taxes and they get to keep more of what they earn than we do in Canada. There is a very large and growing opposition to Obama's ideas and he may very well not see a second term.

The lesson of the USSR is don't have a crappy system of government that punishes success. The US rewards success and which country is a superpower and which one collapsed?

[punked]

Your missing the point, the US was founded because the populace told the King to take his high taxes and shove it. American's enjoy low taxes and they get to keep more of what they earn than we do in Canada. There is a very large and growing opposition to Obama's ideas and he may very well not see a second term.

The lesson of the USSR is don't have a crappy system of government that punishes success. The US rewards success and which country is a superpower and which one collapsed?

No the US was founded because they were taxed with out representation or the rights to change things. They have those now they get to vote and everything. It has nothing to do with high or low taxes and everything to do with having taxed imposed on them. There was large opposition to Bush's second term, and Reagan's, and Clintons. What is your point?

No the Lesson in the USSR is don't spend money fighting a war you can't win.

[blueblood]

No the US was founded because they were taxed with out representation or the rights to change things. They have those now they get to vote and everything. It has nothing to do with high or low taxes and everything to do with having taxed imposed on them. There was large opposition to Bush's second term, and Reagan's, and Clintons. What is your point?

No the Lesson in the USSR is don't spend money fighting a war you can't win.

So you think the founding fathers were socialists, and said "Golly jee darn, lets stiff the king and still tax the dickens out of everybody!" It's quite simple, taxes went up, and people said piss on it. Had the brits not let loose with all those crazy taxes, independance could very well have been delayed.

My point is that Reagan and Clinton aren't doing anything as crazy as Obama is.

The USSR had a crappy system of government, a system that can't exist in competition. All the US did was compete and the rest is history. Any system that punishes people for succeeding is laughable and proposterous and that is why the NDP will never form government at the federal level.

[punked]

So you think the founding fathers were socialists, and said "Golly jee darn, lets stiff the king and still tax the dickens out of everybody!" It's quite simple, taxes went up, and people said piss on it. Had the brits not let loose with all those crazy taxes, independance could very well have been delayed.

My point is that Reagan and Clinton aren't doing anything as crazy as Obama is.

The USSR had a crappy system of government, a system that can't exist in competition. All the US did was compete and the rest is history. Any system that punishes people for succeeding is laughable and proposterous and that is why the NDP will never form government at the federal level.

No I think almost all US government revenue came from tariff before WW1 which isn't an option in today's free market world. You can't pretend the US is in 1800 just because you don't like taxes we live in a different time.

Clinton was doing the exact samething Obama is doing right now at this point in his presidency. All you have proved is you know nothing about US history so far.

You really haven't read the NDP platform have you? They propose small bisuness tax cuts, and competition. Again ignorance is not your friend.

Edited December 15, 2009 by punked

[blueblood]

No I think almost all US government revenue came from tariff before WW1 which isn't an option in today's free market world. You can't pretend the US is in 1800 just because you don't like taxes we live in a different time.

Clinton was doing the exact samething Obama is doing right now at this point in his presidency. All you have proved is you know nothing about US history so far.

You really haven't read the NDP platform have you? They propose small bisuness tax cuts, and competition. Again ignorance is not your friend.

Do you really believe that American's like taxes? Why oh why do so many more immigrants book it to the US instead of Canada? If you think Americans are going to want to pay similar taxes as we have up here your living in candy land on the corner of gumdrop lane.

Last time I checked, there was no massive hundreds of billions of dollars of health care reform bill being voted on at this stage in the game during Clinton's tenure. His wife tried to stir up health care reform, but it got slammed down rather quickly.

The NDP plans to hike up the corporate rate up to 22%. That in itself will put the kibosh on many small business's including mine that chose to go this route. Why would I go from my business paying 15% corporate tax with just about everything I spend on going to business expenses to vote for a party that will charge my business 22%? What logical business owner would vote for that nonsense? The sooner the fact that the NDP realize its not 1968 and that government interference hinders businesses not encourages them the better.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you really believe that American's like taxes? Why oh why do so many more immigrants book it to the US instead of Canada? If you think Americans are going to want to pay similar taxes as we have up here your living in candy land on the corner of gumdrop lane.

Last time I checked, there was no massive hundreds of billions of dollars of health care reform bill being voted on at this stage in the game during Clinton's tenure. His wife tried to stir up health care reform, but it got slammed down rather quickly.

The NDP plans to hike up the corporate rate up to 22%. That in itself will put the kibosh on many small business's including mine that chose to go this route. Why would I go from my business paying 15% corporate tax with just about everything I spend on going to business expenses to vote for a party that will charge my business 22%? What logical business owner would vote for that nonsense? The sooner the fact that the NDP realize its not 1968 and that government interference hinders businesses not encourages them the better.

Check your facts. Taxes have continually been rolled back for years now. The corporate tax rate in 1997 was 28%

The NDP is far more right-wing than they ever have been.

[Pliny]

The NDP is far more right-wing than they ever have been.

"Come on in!", said the serpent to the mouse.

[Michael Hardner]

"Come on in!", said the serpent to the mouse.

It's important for things to be discussed realistically. Proposing a 22% tax rate, even 20 years ago, would have seemed very right-wing. So let's be sure that we're talking about relatives and not absolutes. Otherwise, this board will descend into the hyperbolic domain of the Lictors and Mr. Canadas.

[Pliny]

I'd like to comment on the OP.

This discussion is based upon an article from the website "Crooksandliars".

When I look at the graph they posted the claim from the author is that Republicans spend like drunken sailors.

While I agree that Republicans spend far too much the graph paints a rather distorted picture. The Republicans are seen to be the big spenders leaving massive deficits behind them but an inconvenient fact is left out. The taxation of the Democrats coupled with their spending produced economic slowdowns under Carter and Clinton. One has to look at the whole of the body politic in America if he is to understand what is being said in theis article. It is blatantly partisan.

Republican spending under Reagan did rise, without doubt, his tax cuts then produced the graph that is in the article. We have to remember that Reagan did also try to cut the size of government and the budget but Congress was under the control of the Democrats and would tolerate no cuts to programs or budgets.

So it appears from the graph that Democrats are fiscally responsible and Republicans aren't. But with high taxation the graph of the deficit looks much better for the Democrats even though their economies didn't do better. Carter was an economic train wreck. The graph doesn't show that. Now Clinton was more moderate but increased taxes overall - the graph shows that.

He didn't just cut spending. He had the Y2K boom in his final year which in the following year became a bust. His revenues increased it appears, which could be for either of two reasons. One, The economy was doing well so there were revenues and 2 there were tax increases. I think both contributed to the drop in the deficit. Government did unquestionably grow.

Bush was not a leader and not Presidential material, in my opinion. I formthat opinion because I believe that intellectual appeal is a part of the job. It provides a presence but it could be replaced with other leadership qualities. Bush didn't have them.

In defence of Bush, he had 9/11 to deal with and dealt with it as he was advised, in my opinion. Several blunders were made, in my view, but overall what would someone else have done to protect America? We'll never know. He did display some toughness in his decisions, something the hope and change President lacks and probably a trait that the Nobel team sees as an asset.

Getting back to the thread topic, as relates to Bush. Bush was not much of an economist either. He did cut taxes but increased spending far beyond what he should have.

In concluding I would like to see Obama's first year on that deficit graph. It far surpasses anything Bush spent. Bush will have to take some of the blame for that but in the last two years of his tenure the Democrats in Congress and the Senate went wild with spending and really pushed that housing boom to a crisis. Obama will, and has been blaming Bush entirely. Last week though, he said his policies had stabilized the economy so he must now be held accountable. As for stabilizing the economy - What a dreamer!

[Pliny]

It's important for things to be discussed realistically. Proposing a 22% tax rate, even 20 years ago, would have seemed very right-wing. So let's be sure that we're talking about relatives and not absolutes. Otherwise, this board will descend into the hyperbolic domain of the Lictors and Mr. Canadas.

It is quite a shift for the NDP to be talking about Economics and adopting what is a right wing policy on Capital taxes. I don't mind the ploy. The more that the subject is brought up and discussed the more they will understand it's importance and relation to how they are governed. But I fear the more the NDP keep it in the forefront the less support they will have.

Can there be an extremist centre party?