Did you know the Bush tax cuts cost more the twice as much as the Dems' Health-Care bill?

Update:

By the way... I do wish the website wasn't called "crooks and liars". I'm not trying to piss anyone off with this evidence only hoping it might help a few people realize things they might not of known.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I agree with the distasteful website name but lets face reality here, we are talking about politicians here and they all are crooks and liars.

    I suppose that if you equate the loss of income due to the Bush tax cuts (which is what the web site states) but if you consider that the only money really spent due to these cuts is the amount of interest that we paid on the national debt this is the real cost of the cuts. The additional money spent.

    Keeping this in mind we will spend $895 billion (last estimate that I have heard) plus we will have the additional interest expense on the current national debt (today's) plus the additional interest on the $895 billion that will hit the debt with the implementation of the health care bill

    Likewise I am not trying to piss you off, I just want to give you a look from a different perspective. I.E. money that you are not collecting any longer is not the same as money being spent.

    I agree that without the tax cuts we would have more money to spend in paying off the national debt, this makes perfect sense to me.

    It is my hope that you also see that spending more money that is added to the national debt also will increase the amount of money that needs to be paid in both principal and interest/

    Thanks for sharing the link and the information.

    Note to dems_cry:

    All the asker is doing is providing a link to a website where the information exists. How exactly is he making this crap up ?

    Note to Sir Studley Smugley:

    Regarding Bill Clinton's surplus and also to avoid confusion to others.

    When Bill Clinton left office he left with a *budget* surplus, we still had a national debt of around $5 trillion. A budget surplus means that the government collected more money than they had budged to spend. When you consider that you don't budget for wars you budget for defense hoping that you never have to go to war.

    Part of Clinton's budget surplus came in the form of closing military bases in several states, additional money came from the sale of the US Naval Oil reserves in Elk Hills, California

    (see link below).

    Elk Hills was sold to Occidental Petroleum where vice president Al Gore's father was a VP of Occidental

    (don't get me wrong all politicians are crooks and liars)

    Finally Clinton can not spend money without congressional approval. The constitution give spending authority to congress. During the time of Clinton's surplus the republicans controlled both the house and the senate.

    In 2006 democrats regained control, look back and see how fast the national debt has climbed since then - Thanks

    Note to sageand scholar

    Thanks for the link, it is indeed interesting to see.

    I am aware that the President makes the budget, however congress is not required to accept it, if they disagree they can trash his and implement their own version.

    I would also like to correct myself , surprise many liberals that a conservative (though an Independent) would ever do such a thing.

    I was under the impression that when Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in August 1993 that this bill was passed through congress with a majority of Republican votes. Further research reveals that this bill was passed through without a single republican vote, i.e. before the Republicans took control of the house and the senate in January 1995.

    The Omnibus act included spending restraints and a balanced budget over a number of years.

    It seems to me that I owe Sir Studley Smugley an apology for inferring that the Clinton Budget surplus was due to the republicans. Clearly I was wrong.

    Now let's temporarily forget the Bush Tax cuts. The tax cuts are not the reason we are in this mess. We are in this mess because of the war in Iraq and the reason for that is we do not include war in our budgets, maybe we should include it in budgets and place the money in an area from which we could pay for the war as we go rather than add it to the national debt.

    You can place blame for the cost of the war on congress. Why ? Easy most of the military contracts are awarded without benefit of competitive bidding. You can blame both sides of the political parties because they are equally at fault.

    What we end up with is a very over priced piece of equipment that would sell for as much as 75% less to the commercial products.

    I used to work in the Semiconductor industry, we made IC's for both commercial and military usage. One simple device was the 74LS04 (Hex inverter) commercial cost was $0.11 each the military version $1.09. Admittedly there were tighter tests in the military version and the package was ceramic rather than plastic. Our costs on these devices was $0.06 for the commercial and $0.42.

    What we really need though in this tough economic time is spending restraint, rather than continued deficit spending we need to pay off our debt and for go any new spending.

    If that means ending the Bush tax cuts so be it but use that additional money to pay down our debt.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Paul
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    This is no revelation~Obama heath bill is not going to pass muster

    it will be watered down without *Public Option* and in the end it won't

    take place until 2014~~and the point the Democrats don't say is that

    they will be collecting *taxes* for this Health Care reform for five years

    before the country gets Health Care reform~~and then the Democrats

    expect even more money as they already know this will be short of what

    is needed

    Gool luck to the people that come after the Baby Boomers

    The Baby Boomers are the last group of real American who will be able

    to retire~~word on the street

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Tax cuts do not cost the tax payers any money what-so-ever, they are by definition, allowing tax payers to keep more of their own hard earned money then they would have if the tax cuts hadn't been passed.

    The latest health care bill is an additional entitlement that will cost the tax payers more of their hard earned money.

    As to the site crooks and liars, does it mention the fact that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the left wing Obama-fanatics media elites repeatedly claim that this stimulus package(that isn't working) is ONLY costing the American people 787 Billion dollars when in reality while the bill only spends 787 Billion dollars on projects, they are ignoring the fact that the total cost of the program is 1.43 TRILLION dollars because the US government does not actually have the ability to pay for these programs, so they took out their American Express card and CHARGED IT! Unfortunately, American Express would have only charged about 22% interest on the loan, the chinese and the other creditors that are buying are debt are charging us nearly 75% interest.

    How is that for a big lie by big government and big media?

    whale

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yep. It's kind of hypocritical of Repugnicons to start yelling about "fiscal responsibility" when their boy Bush ran up such a huge deficit, and now even more money has to be spent to repair the huge sinkhole that Bush and Company created.

    There are some people who'd rather give 20% of their paycheck to some private insurer who will suck them dry and then weasel out of paying as soon as the insured person shows signs of being sick, citing a "preexisting condition," than having the government insure them.

    The average worker's insurance rates went up 5% last year, when the economy actually experienced a slight deflation. They also forget that Bush signed an $800 billion prescription drug plan, which was nothing more than a huge tax giveaway to the drug companies, who were already making huge profits. You won't hear about that big wealth transfer from the GOP, though.

    Reagan racked up huge deficits as well. It was only Clinton among the last few Presidents that actually showed any responsibility with tax revenues and showed a surplus.

    The only reason the Repugs are bleating about deficits is because it looks good to their base. It gets them elected, and then they couldn't care less about the debt until the next election cycle. It's all smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately, there are some gullible people out there who actually believe that the GOP will be responsible with their tax money. The last 3 Repugnicon Presidents have proved that to be a pile of BS.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Dems cry - he has given a source (which is more than I have ever seen you do)- so clearly he didn't make it up.

    Justgetit - while the two points you make about the Clinton surplus (that it happened under a Republican congress and that Congress has to pass the budget) are technically true - they grossly oversimplify the situation.

    While congress does pass the budget, it is the White House that prepares it. The budgets Clinton sent to congress each year reduced the deficit and eventually created the budget. The inference that Republicans try to make that a Republican congress put a stop to wasteful Clinton spending is completely untrue.

    Also the claim that it happened under a Republican congress. Indeed it did - only after the Democrat congress and Clinton worked together to slash the deficit in the first two years, and after Clinton made a commitment to continue to work towards a surplus.

    Source(s): Those who question the source - fair enough - here is a better one. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1018 Those saying the tax cuts stimulated the economy. Perhaps they can explain why growth over the Bush administration was only 1.97% per annum (Q2 2001 to Q1 2009) while poverty grew and median wages fell and unemployment remained higher than the level Bush inherited for the entire 8 years? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Grow... http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes and have even heard this on a few tv shows, too bad it isn't being broadcast night and day. And I just LOVE the idiots on here insisting it doesn't cost anyone any money - talk about total denial, who do they think makes up that tax money that isn't going into the coffers - the middle class, who pays for everyone and is getting screwed royally.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You're quoting a biased commentator (not a journalist) who set out to prove a point instead of reporting cold hard facts. Where did her numbers come from? I could make up anything and say "The health care bill will be 100 trillion dollars" but that doesn't make it true. The reality is that the tax cuts cost the govt money but it stimulated the economy which caused more people to spend which caused more taxes to be paid to the government. But your partisan little source doesn't bother with the WHOLE story, just what she wants YOU to know. Typical lib.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Tax cuts don't "cost" anything. They simply allow people to keep more of the money they worked for. Sure government revenue experiences some decline, but then the government should reduce its budget.

    But the Dems' Health Care Bill will add billions to the budget, which will require either taxes to cover, or additional borrowing to create new depths of national debt. Both are harmful to economic growth, which is what we need right now.

    You don't get it, do you? The money people earn doesn't belong to the government or anybody else. How can it "cost" anything when it wasn't the government's money to begin with?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Sam
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Republicans taking care of the rich, I'm shocked.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the health care bill hasnt been passed yet , so how do we know the cost of it?

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.