Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   5 dirty little secrets about the Bush tax cuts   (news.investors.com) divider line 115
    More: Interesting, President Bush, Bush Tax Cuts, Tax Foundation, tax cuts, child tax credit  
•       •       •

5512 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 07:44:02 AM  
the best way to shill for trickle-down economics is to point out that the most wealthy saw themselves pay 6% more in taxes without mentioning their share of the pot actually went up 23% and reflected a 17% decline in relative tax burden.

Next, you have to point out how 90% of the population only pays somewhere around 40% of the tax burden, but you have to ensure that you neglect to mention the fact that they control 10% or less of the overall wealth.
 
2012-11-29 07:58:01 AM  

dr_blasto: the best way to shill for trickle-down economics is to point out that the most wealthy saw themselves pay 6% more in taxes without mentioning their share of the pot actually went up 23% and reflected a 17% decline in relative tax burden.


i see this is already taken care of.
 
2012-11-29 08:16:43 AM  
Thanks for the insight, dr_blasto. I was surprised how the article poo-pooed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, blamed the Afghan War and the 2001 recession for Bush deficits, didn't mention the Iraq War, and blamed everything on the Great Recession and President Obama's "vast new spending programs."

Creative revisionist spin, IMHO. Sounds like Investors doesn't like the idea of restoring capital gains taxes to 35%.

Article's author in color below.

www.aim.org
 
2012-11-29 08:19:21 AM  

doublesecretprobation: i see this is already taken care of.


I just can't see any halfway reasonable person reading this article without seeing the glaringly obvious fact the author omits. And this is supposed to be some sort of respectable financial site?
 
2012-11-29 08:24:35 AM  

AirForceVet: Article's author in color below.


Oh Christ, the "Accuracy in Media" group. Yet another in a long line of right-wing groups whose name is the exact opposite of what it actually does. Even if the author is merely speaking at an AIM event and not part of the group, it's enough to make me disbelieve any claim he makes.
 
2012-11-29 08:35:08 AM  

dickfreckle: doublesecretprobation: i see this is already taken care of.

I just can't see any halfway reasonable person reading this article without seeing the glaringly obvious fact the author omits. And this is supposed to be some sort of respectable financial site?


I know absolutely nothing about economics and it was obvious even to me

/all it took was a functional bullsh*t detector
 
2012-11-29 08:36:24 AM  

dickfreckle: doublesecretprobation: i see this is already taken care of.

I just can't see any halfway reasonable person reading this article without seeing the glaringly obvious fact the author omits. And this is supposed to be some sort of respectable financial site?


Isn't this the site that claimed if Stephen Hawking had been under the British Health Care system he'd have died a long time ago?
 
2012-11-29 08:45:56 AM  

dr_blasto: the best way to shill for trickle-down economics is to point out that the most wealthy saw themselves pay 6% more in taxes without mentioning their share of the pot actually went up 23% and reflected a 17% decline in relative tax burden.

Next, you have to point out how 90% of the population only pays somewhere around 40% of the tax burden, but you have to ensure that you neglect to mention the fact that they control 10% or less of the overall wealth.


I'm too lazy to go searching for the citations, but my dad just posted this same crap link on Facebook. Anyone got links to these stats handy?
 
2012-11-29 08:49:05 AM  

AirForceVet: Sounds like Investors doesn't like the idea of restoring capital gains taxes to 35%.


It's shiatty policy based not on revenue but "fairness" whateverthefark that's supposed to accomplish.
 
2012-11-29 08:52:23 AM  

Lansydyr: dr_blasto: the best way to shill for trickle-down economics is to point out that the most wealthy saw themselves pay 6% more in taxes without mentioning their share of the pot actually went up 23% and reflected a 17% decline in relative tax burden.

Next, you have to point out how 90% of the population only pays somewhere around 40% of the tax burden, but you have to ensure that you neglect to mention the fact that they control 10% or less of the overall wealth.

I'm too lazy to go searching for the citations, but my dad just posted this same crap link on Facebook. Anyone got links to these stats handy?


Every now and then these discussions heat up and someone will post the graph showing income distribution changes, I just can't remember the actual exact numbers nor the source. More coffee and all that.
 
2012-11-29 08:57:59 AM  
Hey look, more spinning about how we must suck the cocks of the wealthy for supply-side glory.
 
2012-11-29 09:16:04 AM  
Another dishonest article by a lying GOP shill? Color me shocked!
 
2012-11-29 09:16:25 AM  
media.theunderstatement.com
 
2012-11-29 09:25:57 AM  
Simply for the sake of being contrarian. Certainly not because it is ethical, productive, useful, or any of those other adjectives that people use about opinions.
 
2012-11-29 09:28:56 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: It's shiatty policy based not on revenue but "fairness" whateverthefark that's supposed to accomplish.


Why is it bad policy there, Dancin_In_Anson? I found it both offensive and poor fiscal policy that Mitt Romney pays taxes at a lower overall percentage rate than I do.

Difficulty: No Fox News spin points.
 
2012-11-29 09:34:02 AM  

AirForceVet: Dancin_In_Anson: It's shiatty policy based not on revenue but "fairness" whateverthefark that's supposed to accomplish.

Why is it bad policy there, Dancin_In_Anson? I found it both offensive and poor fiscal policy that Mitt Romney pays taxes at a lower overall percentage rate than I do.

Difficulty: No Fox News spin points.


All taxes are on the right side of the Laffer curve.
 
2012-11-29 09:41:41 AM  
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
 
2012-11-29 09:45:40 AM  
Another way to look at it: By 2007 - the peak year before the recession - federal revenues as a share of GDP had risen to 18.5%.

Risen! Like Lazarus!

--Federal tax revenue fell from 20.6% of GDP in FY2000 (the last year of the 1991-2000 expansion and reflective of Clinton-era tax rates) to 18.5% of GDP in FY2007 (the last year of the Bush economic expansion and reflective of Bush-era tax rates). Link, .pdf

But sure, let's look at things up until 2007. Let's pretend the crash didn't even happen.

--Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

Well that's bad. Historically bad.

They didn't cause the income gap to increase. Given all the talk about Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich, you might also think that his tax cuts contributed to a widening of the income gap. Except that didn't happen, either. According to the Census Bureau, the "gini index" of income inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in.

See what the author did here? After using 2007 as the end year of analysis (gee I wonder why?) SIX times in the article, he moved the goalposts from 2007 to "when Bush left office". That way, if you include the crash which hit the top earners very hard because of where most of their money is, the gini index is the same! See! It's just as tough out there for the wealthy! They're really hurting too! We're all in this together guys!

If history and reality makes your policies look bad, just alter them. A blog and some bandwidth is all that's required to become a Very Serious Person.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:51 AM  

AirForceVet: Why is it bad policy there


Well, the goal is to raise revenue right? In the case of the capital gains tax raising it has done just the opposite and the man you voted for has admitted this and stated that his desire to raise the capital gains tax is based not on increased revenues but on the concept of "fairness." Hell of an economic policy right there.
 
2012-11-29 09:50:41 AM  
The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect. In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 - that's a 23% increase - even though their average tax rate went down.

That's because the RICH GOT HUGE RAISES during this time while EVERYONE ELSE GOT shiat, you feckless moran.
 
2012-11-29 09:57:01 AM  
Bookmarking this until I can make some popcorn.
 
2012-11-29 10:06:59 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Another way to look at it: By 2007 - the peak year before the recession - federal revenues as a share of GDP had risen to 18.5%.

Risen! Like Lazarus!

--Federal tax revenue fell from 20.6% of GDP in FY2000 (the last year of the 1991-2000 expansion and reflective of Clinton-era tax rates) to 18.5% of GDP in FY2007 (the last year of the Bush economic expansion and reflective of Bush-era tax rates). Link, .pdf

But sure, let's look at things up until 2007. Let's pretend the crash didn't even happen.

--Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

Well that's bad. Historically bad.

They didn't cause the income gap to increase. Given all the talk about Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich, you might also think that his tax cuts contributed to a widening of the income gap. Except that didn't happen, either. According to the Census Bureau, the "gini index" of income inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in.

See what the author did here? After using 2007 as the end year of analysis (gee I wonder why?) SIX times in the article, he moved the goalposts from 2007 to "when Bush left office". That way, if you include the crash which hit the top earners very hard because of where most of their money is, the gini index is the same! See! It's just as tough out there for the wealthy! They're really hurting too! We're all in this together guys!

If history and reality makes your policies look bad, just alter them. A blog and some bandwidth is all that's required to become a Very Serious Person.


this is what i came in her to point out. so much smirking dishonesty in that article.
 
2012-11-29 10:17:17 AM  

thomps: Dusk-You-n-Me: Another way to look at it: By 2007 - the peak year before the recession - federal revenues as a share of GDP had risen to 18.5%.

Risen! Like Lazarus!

--Federal tax revenue fell from 20.6% of GDP in FY2000 (the last year of the 1991-2000 expansion and reflective of Clinton-era tax rates) to 18.5% of GDP in FY2007 (the last year of the Bush economic expansion and reflective of Bush-era tax rates). Link, .pdf

But sure, let's look at things up until 2007. Let's pretend the crash didn't even happen.

--Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

Well that's bad. Historically bad.

They didn't cause the income gap to increase. Given all the talk about Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich, you might also think that his tax cuts contributed to a widening of the income gap. Except that didn't happen, either. According to the Census Bureau, the "gini index" of income inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in.

See what the author did here? After using 2007 as the end year of analysis (gee I wonder why?) SIX times in the article, he moved the goalposts from 2007 to "when Bush left office". That way, if you include the crash which hit the top earners very hard because of where most of their money is, the gini index is the same! See! It's just as tough out there for the wealthy! They're really hurting too! We're all in this together guys!

If history and reality makes your policies look bad, just alter them. A blog and some bandwidth is all that's required to become a Very Serious Person.

this is what i came in her to point out. so much smirking dishonesty in that article.


What an excellent typo
 
2012-11-29 10:20:52 AM  

mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]


If Stephen Hawking lived in the UK, he would have to pay a 42.5% tax rate!
 
2012-11-29 10:21:20 AM  

colonel0sanders: What an excellent typo


she's gotta learn, and i only know so many ways to teach.
 
2012-11-29 10:25:18 AM  

mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]


I've seen you post this before. What exactly is your point?
 
2012-11-29 10:26:59 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]

I've seen you post this before. What exactly is your point?


That the "source" of TFA makes Fox News actually look fair and balanced.
 
2012-11-29 10:27:05 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect. In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 - that's a 23% increase - even though their average tax rate went down.

That's because the RICH GOT HUGE RAISES during this time while EVERYONE ELSE GOT shiat PAY CUTS AND/OR LOST THEIR JOBS , you feckless moran.


ftfy
 
2012-11-29 10:27:48 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]

I've seen you post this before. What exactly is your point?


it's meant to point out how untrustworthy and partisan this news source is. i mean, they call stephen hawking a "brilliant man" even though he claimed that a higgs boson particle would never be found. WHAT AN IDIOT.
 
2012-11-29 10:29:54 AM  

thomps: Three Crooked Squirrels: mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]

I've seen you post this before. What exactly is your point?

it's meant to point out how untrustworthy and partisan this news source is. i mean, they call stephen hawking a "brilliant man" even though he claimed that a higgs boson particle would never be found. WHAT AN IDIOT.


Not only is he an idiot, he thinks he's too smart to do manual labor. Wat an asshat.
 
2012-11-29 10:30:22 AM  

doyner: That the "source" of TFA makes Fox News actually look fair and balanced.


thomps: it's meant to point out how untrustworthy and partisan this news source is. i mean, they call stephen hawking a "brilliant man" even though he claimed that a higgs boson particle would never be found. WHAT AN IDIOT.


Got it. Thanks.
 
2012-11-29 10:41:55 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect. In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 - that's a 23% increase - even though their average tax rate went down.

That's because the RICH GOT HUGE RAISES during this time while EVERYONE ELSE GOT shiat, you feckless moran.


They're just making sure the middle and lower class are paying less in taxes overall. They have our best interests in mind, you know....
 
2012-11-29 10:42:56 AM  

doyner: Three Crooked Squirrels: mrshowrules: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]

I've seen you post this before. What exactly is your point?

That the "source" of TFA makes Fox News actually look fair and balanced.


To be fair, the author did cite the CBO. However, like someone else here mentioned, he cherrypicked and moved the goalposts.

Pretty slick.
 
2012-11-29 10:46:58 AM  
Interesting. FTFA: Over the next decade, for example, the middle class tax cuts that Obama wants to keep will cost $3.7 trillion, according to the CBO .

The author links to a CBO document. The very first chart shows the historical % of GDP that the federal debt has reached. It was over 110% around WWII (no surprise). Even if our debt continues to grow, we're STILL well under the peak back in the 40s.

So, what's the doom and gloom about, again?
 
2012-11-29 10:47:19 AM  
Wow. So you're rich. You got richer. All projections are telling you that you will continue to get even richer, not only absolute wealth wise but relative to the rest of the population wise. That's cool. But what kind of giant douche do you have to be to look at your situation and then say you should pay less in taxes?
 
2012-11-29 10:49:16 AM  

xanadian: So, what's the doom and gloom about, again?


(D) in the White House.
 
2012-11-29 10:50:28 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: dickfreckle: doublesecretprobation: i see this is already taken care of.

I just can't see any halfway reasonable person reading this article without seeing the glaringly obvious fact the author omits. And this is supposed to be some sort of respectable financial site?

I know absolutely nothing about economics and it was obvious even to me

/all it took was a functional bullsh*t detector


That's the thing - I also know next to nothing about economics beyond a cursory course when I was a college freshman. It's why I'll passionately argue in the politics tab, but know when to stand down when the big dogs start talking harder economics. It's not just not an area of expertise.

And yet even I called bullsh*t within the first 15 seconds of reading this article.
 
2012-11-29 10:52:19 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: That's because the RICH GOT HUGE RAISES during this time while EVERYONE ELSE GOT shiat, you feckless moran.


Yep and the Reagan Bush trickle down years started the huge raises:

"An April 2004 CBO study showed that between 1979 and 2001 (the last year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by 139 percent ($409,000) after adjusting for inflation, compared to a 17-percent ($6,300) increase for the middle fifth of households and an 8-percent ($1,100) increase for the bottom fifth."

After a pause with Clinton, GWBush kept the trickle down scam going.
 
2012-11-29 10:53:33 AM  
Also, note that if we DO drive off the fiscal cliff, according to the CBO, by 2022 we'll be in BETTER shape--debt-wise and GDP growth--than if going off the fiscal cliff does not happen. However, the next year or so will suck major ass.

Link

However, the CBO makes a lot of other assumptions, too.

...

On that note, I wonder just how "nopartisan" the CBO really is. I always get a little suspicious when any source has to claim it's "nonpartisan."
 
2012-11-29 10:59:54 AM  

xanadian: I wonder just how "nopartisan" the CBO really is. I always get a little suspicious when any source has to claim it's "nonpartisan."


They're the number crunchers the government always uses, no matter which party sits in the WH. We have to have some minimal level of trust in our institutions. Which isn't to say that can't be inaccurate, just that they won't be inaccurate for partisan reasons.
 
2012-11-29 11:14:25 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: AirForceVet: Why is it bad policy there

Well, the goal is to raise revenue right? In the case of the capital gains tax raising it has done just the opposite and the man you voted for has admitted this and stated that his desire to raise the capital gains tax is based not on increased revenues but on the concept of "fairness." Hell of an economic policy right there.


Where is this evident? When have we raised capital gains tax and experienced a related (that is, not an existing economic problem) drop in overall revenue? When did we last raise capital gains taxes?
 
2012-11-29 11:56:38 AM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-29 12:14:03 PM  
Well, that article was pretty up there on the list of stupidest farking things I've read all week.
 
2012-11-29 12:15:00 PM  
Article about how good for the country those Bush tax cuts were brought to you by
www.linkcoworking.com

Which is like reading about how those good segregation laws were from the Stormfront newsletter.
 
2012-11-29 12:15:25 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Well, that article was pretty up there on the list of stupidest farking things I've read all week.


What did you expect? This is the same publication that said British citizen Stephen Hawking would not be alive today if he were a British citizen.
 
2012-11-29 12:15:50 PM  
Repealing the Bush tax cuts will kill Stephen Hawking!

/ Not going to RTFA, so I'll just assume that's what it says.
 
2012-11-29 12:18:21 PM  
But wait, there's no talk about income distri

dr_blasto: the best way to shill for trickle-down economics is to point out that the most wealthy saw themselves pay 6% more in taxes without mentioning their share of the pot actually went up 23% and reflected a 17% decline in relative tax burden.

Next, you have to point out how 90% of the population only pays somewhere around 40% of the tax burden, but you have to ensure that you neglect to mention the fact that they control 10% or less of the overall wealth.


--oh. This has already been handled. Carry on, then.
 
2012-11-29 12:18:33 PM  
In August 2001, after the first round of the Bush tax cuts were in place, the CBO projected a surplus of $176 billion in fiscal year 2002, with surpluses continuing to grow in the following years.

And liberals who have screamed "nonpartisan" CBO office all the time when it says something they like can like up over there.

Repeat after me: If I tout what the CBO says as if it is indisputable I must admit that the Bush tax cuts, based on the August 2001 projection, would have created a surplus.

You can either admit to that or come over here with me and say that the CBO can only make these projections based on what information you give them. If you give them a bill that states the United States will magically find a trillion dollars in gold under the White House, they must calculate that in regardless of whether or not it will happen. While you were running around trying to tell everyone how much money ObamaCare would save... Including businesses by the way... The CBO was all but saying "This is NEVER going to happen like this but assuming that it did... it would save money..."

But yeah, August of 2001, I wonder might have happened just a month later that changed everything. Hrrrrmmm....
 
2012-11-29 12:19:07 PM  
The tax cuts didn't cause the massive deficits. Critics routinely blame the Bush tax cuts for turning surpluses late in the Clinton administration to huge deficits under Bush. Not true.


How scientific.
 
2012-11-29 12:19:27 PM  
And despite all of that bullshiat, they still managed to take advantage of the situation and expand their holdings, while the lower, middle, and only partly-upper class either ended up worse off.... or stagnated.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report