Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill
Citizens for Tax Justice point out what I was saying just the other day: We only hear all this crying and moaning about the deficit when it's something for regular working people, and not a powerful lobby. And of course, the Republican'ts are right out there in front of the Hypocrisy Parade:
And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is “too costly” are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts.
Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.
It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.
President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.
The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
trillion over the 2001-2010 period.
This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
[...] Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)
The chairmen of the three House committees have explicitly stated that their goal is a final bill that
is deficit-neutral in the decade following enactment.
It’s unclear if they have accomplished this yet, since the Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued final cost estimates of the bills, and the legislation is likely to change before the full House votes on a final bill. But President Obama and
Democratic leaders have also committed to ensuring that health care reform will not increase the budget deficit.
Under the House bills, roughly half of the costs would be offset with savings in our existing health care programs, while the other half would be offset with a surcharge on the incomes of wealthy taxpayers.
In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.
These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.
to demonstrate US military invincibility and the futility of opposition. And transform Arabs and Muslims in other countries into Democrats and Republicans in the name of "Enduring Freedom".
Those people need “us” to show them how to be civilized right?
borrowed money, in essence, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, and you stated, "That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have..." Really? I wish that were true.
health insurance industry cost each year? Do you know? I am thinking that if they are put out of business, that would free up much money. I thought you might have that figure available. Anyone?
The Bush taxcuts were and still are Welfare for Quadrillionaires.
The Health Reform proposals are and will be Welfare for Billionaires. Not as expensive but the same idea. Hand the money over to the Fat Cats.
HR 676 is the minimum answer.
As for the Fat Cats:
Ben (barfffff) Stein on Warren (barffffff) Buffet here
Buffet with his income from dividends and capital gains paid less a percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. What a wondrous thing the Bush tax cuts must be for a cat so endowed with fat.
Of this Buffet said:
But then, of course, the financial geniuses blew themselves up, along with the world's economies.
How do I know they are geniuses when they appear to have been so stupid as to blow themselves up.
Because they gave the Washington critters a few tens of millions in campaign and lobbying money and got trillions in return.
Much of which they gave themselves in bonuses for being so !@#$ing brilliant.
That is genius.
And without the beacoup de bailout billions, for which he lobbied, Warren Buffet would have been wiped out, Rolf Winkler here
The Zero Master talks about the wage gap here
Some of the other Masters, the Masters of the Universe, make more than 400 times their lowest paid employee.
The Zero Master talks about the future of the multi quadrillionaires here
----
Andrew Cuomo may be set to perp walk one of the Masters of the Universe before the hoosegow, Zero Master here
Let us hope this is the beginning of a trend
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
that Ken Lewis will end up just like Ken Lay....on a faraway island after having his photo taken while pretending to be a corpse.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
I noted your sage observation in my last column. Glad to see this follow-up.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
I'm shocked!
I remember the wonders the Reagan tax cuts did for the deficit.
Who'da thunk that the Bush cuts wouldn't work.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
The Bush tax cuts did work.
Just not for you and me.
What? You don't feel trickled down on?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Nope. I feel dumped on.
Well...you're obviously a bad American. Why do you continue to badmouth Bush! How can you disparage the President that protected us!
If you're suffering economically you simply are not religious, so god is punishing you...and you are a lazy sloth unwilling to work to better himself.
Ok...snark off. ;o)
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I was busy pulling myself up by my bootstraps but they broke and I can't afford new ones.
You peasants don't understand voodoo economics?
We can all just eat cake, no?
Oh,, they are too busy pushing the negative lies out of the repub camp...Email this to all the MSM outlets...
Who doesn't know that the Reslugs and Dumbya truelly screwed up this country and now we are paying for their absolute greed.
That dumb fuck just did as he was told.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So doesn't that mean by rolling back the health cuts for the top 5% will pay for much of the health care reform?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The Bush tax cuts did two things- it "starves the Beast" and it gave tax cuts to the his rich supporters so they did not not care about its affects on the Budget. Also, this talk of the Wealthy will invest the tax savings and thus raise everyone else's properity is a modified version of of Reagan's "Trickle down Theory". And we all know how that turned out for everyone. I think we should finance part of health by taxing those foods that we can agree make us less healthy- trans fats, fructose corn syrup, foods containing sugar over 3 teaspoons per serving etc.
you can't say that it didn't trickle down. Chinese have millions of new jobs and we have been trickled on. Yellow rain, yellow rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pIQhiGbx8
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
American suburban middle class that now finds itself financially, agriculturally, geographically, and psychologically dependent on the US’s high energy wasting techno social grid also.
So...you admit that the strategy worked!!!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So...you admit that the strategy worked!!!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Taxing those unhealthy foods disproportionately affects the less wealthy in our population. While I understand your sentiment, doing this would just put more of a burden on those who can least afford it.
The type 2 diabetes epidemic in this country isn't costing any money, is it? Not to mention lives.
.
I hate Monsanto. They are suing people who criticize them. Like I said, I hate Monsanto.
I'll dip my "teabag" in some Roundup so they can get a taste of home!
but that would be, in effect, a tax on the poor and middle class.
health care should be financed by drastically increasing the tax on the top .01% of americans (incl hedge funds), shutting down corporate welfare/tax loopholes, etc
We should return to pre-Reagan tax rates. That's when we had a thriving middle class. Now all we have is welfare for the wealthy.
called "sin tax?"
"Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion."
OMG!!! a trillion dollars over the next decade!! *gasp*
that is $100 billion per year!!! as a country we could never, ever, never, ever afford such luxuries as the proposed health reforms.
just don't think about the $663.7 billion pentagon budget for 2010 (including Military Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – $130 billion/yr)
the utter bullshit that we can afford tax cuts for the rich, and a bloated-to-the-maxx pentagon budget, and NOT afford real health reform is a true injustice sponsored by the political elite.
slash the pentagon budget and tax the rich at nixonian levels, then give us our god damned single payer health care.
And the Congress will always will give priority to the Military.
1- Fear of Communism.
2- Fear of terrorism.
We have to admit those NEOCON-PNAC warmonguers are very smart.
PR WORKS!
Plus, I might add that I wouldn't mind seeing Cheney/Bush et al
in orange suits behind some nice steel bars.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
The fact that Bush pushed through these tax cuts during a time of War makes it that much more obscene.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
is secretly knowing that preserving our current way of life (unsustainable consumption) requires war.
Actually it requires the total wiping out of competing industries, as happened after WWII, and America was rolling in the cash.
The period between 1948--1973 was an aberration in history.
However Defense Contracts is a way of government made work that conservaturds endorse.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
is secretly knowing that preserving our current way of life (unsustainable consumption) requires war.
this is simply incorrect, there is a peace dividend there is no war dividend
war costs money with nothing left to show for it, social projects cost money but you are left with hard infrastructure
the notion that we are a "war economy" is propaganda marketed by those war profiteers
During WWII we armed in record time from no standing army to fully armed, because businesses had recovered enough from the Depression, due to FDR, but also because a car manufacturer could turn on a dime and start producing jeeps, and then turn again afterwards and return to car making.
Now our equipment if far too specialized and it in effect requires specialists to make them. So there's no transferablility of war costs to support the economy. As you said it's the war mongers who use that argument, particularly to argue it'll mean new jobs.
The last major innovations to come from war to have a favoriable impact on civilians was the creation of M.A.S.H units in Korea, that became the prototypes for trauma centers, and the development under Eisenhower of an extensive satellite surveillance system, that has become the basis for cellular phones, satellite TV and wireless gewgaws.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
yet, i agree with evet, our (dysfunctional) economy is currently and has been historically dependent on war and a militarized foreign policy.
sustainability, justice, common sense, aside--the american imperial project is dependent on projecting military power, like the roman proconsuls, across the globe to defend "US" interests (thru rigging elections, overthrowing popular leaders, assasinations, arming factions, and invasion).
Imperialism is somewhat different than a permanent war-like stance, although it can lead to war-like outcomes, as per Gen. Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket.
Rigging elections, the overthowing of leaders, and arming factions is more along the lines of undercutting, rather than an outright attack; the latter's more honest. However if it's our own troops overthrowing the leader (and not only supporting a rival), and assasinations I would agree with you. Arming factions as counter-intuitive as it might seem could fall under both foreign policy (since it's the bulk of our foreign aid), and domestic policy, by creating work for the home-front. That's exporting war, but not necessarily being at war, and also gives plausible deniability.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I will say this though, with imperialism one either uses their own troops to support the imperialists interests or indigenous troops of someone whose either a puppet or perhaps a coopted leader. Since there's always a pocket of the population being made much wealthier and wish to preserve the status quo, even at every one else's expense in their country.
And in some of these countries, being a soldier is a way out of grinding poverty.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
supply drones and toilet bowl washers. We are more civilized than some.
I was realizing the irony of that statement whilst I wrote it, but in such countries it's more blindingly obvious than in our own.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
good point. one thing a lot of people look past in addressing US foreign policy/corporate interests is the acceptance and active participation of foreign domination by the ruling classes in many third world countries, as they are rewarded for their assistance by an allowance to retain their elevated positions in said country.
i think bolivia was (prior to evo) one of the best examples of this.
No matter how pristine we might think we all are, we're probably only six degrees of seperation from some dehumanizing institution like the military. But that's not the same as saying the military supports our economy.
Unless our own casualties are high enough to therefore lead to less competition for jobs and services.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
i don't think that the 'military supports the economy'. no, i believe that the 'strength'* of america's economy was/is/will be based on war and an agressive, militarized foreign policy.
[*'strength' as compared to other economies, not the well being of the majority americans in the economy]
Somebody...Please forward this column to that idiot Joe Scarborough who constantly points to the deficits that Obama is adding. Was he screeching this loudly when Bush passed this travesty? The Dems should also hammer this fact home and shove it into the faces of every Blue Dog! I hope that Keith or Rachel will point this out in the days ahead!
"President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years."
It didn't work for ronnie, it jumped up and bit pappy bush in the butt and w just screwed the nation with it. Politics as usual for the republican'ts (I love that, can we use it from time to time? Its a lot better than some of the other names used.).
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill
it's far worse then this headline;
those tax cuts not only didn't "stimulate the economy" they were counter productive, actually creating a negative effect on the economy since those tax cuts were funded by programs that create jobs and infrastructure which could no longer be serviced
that means those cuts slowed the economy
the health care will stimulate the economy since it will free middle class assets that will go toward spending
giving the upper class tax cuts does NOT "trickle down", they have more money then they can spend, giving them more money does nothing
true health care reform will save money not cost money, tax cuts to the wealthy costs much more then you cut
..which to me is putting the cart before the horse. After all, its a good theory: free large sums of money up for new jobs, new businesses, etc. that employ people who pay taxes, who buy things and so forth. The problem is not enough of that money made it down to the masses (Although I'm sure bernie madoff made off with some of it!). Too much money went to China and we borrowed too much from China. The Tax Cuts would have worked better if they were tied to JOB PRODUCTION! Create Jobs, get tax breaks!
I guess that wouldn't have please w's masters, actually producing something for something in return.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
After all, its a good theory: free large sums of money up for new jobs, new businesses, etc. that employ people who pay taxes, who buy things and so forth
that's not good theory it's ponzi theory
profits moves up not down, you have to first make the product and then have profit not the other way around
the first person did not have wealth and then hire somebody to make stuff, someone made something and traded it for profit
so it can never trickle down it migrates up
your point is right, these "supply siders" are in fact putting the cart before the horse but the thing is they know it, they held their breath that reagan tried the ponzi marketing scheme again, they could not believe we actually fell for it
but fall for it we did
.
..I'll get to why I disagree with you in a minute. I should've added something about GREED. If the wealthy enjoying the tax breaks would've done what they were supposed to do with the additional wealth, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They squirreled away whatever new found wealth they gained, thanked w and said "Screw you!" to the rest of us.
Also, I work in Manufacturing. We started small and grew. We increased the number of jobs through new product development. That is what I meant about the tax breaks working for America. I believe strongly in tax incentives for job creation. Municipalities have often used this strategy to woo industry into a particular region. But the tax relief has to be tied to something concrete. And much of what w did, did not allow for accountability by anyone for anything. Even when w pssed away Clinton's budget surplus; paying off debt was counter-productive but we weren't forced to buy appliances even though that pittance would've been better put to use elsewhere by the government, spending it, not paying down debt was its intention.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
The Tax Cuts would have worked better if they were tied to JOB PRODUCTION! Create Jobs, get tax breaks!
I guess that wouldn't have please w's masters, actually producing something for something in return.________________
One of the ways you get tax breaks when you are in business is by creating jobs, they are a tax deduction, don't you KNOW that?
We had a humming economy under George Bush with the stock market over 14000 for the first time in history, then we got a democratic congress in two years ago and it has been downhill ever since. Don't blame Bush, after 911 he steered us to one of the strongest economies in history. Obama has tanked us with his war on capitalism. No one is hiring now.
the health care will stimulate the economy since it will free middle class assets that will go toward spending _________________
NO it won't, the massive tax increase you will have to pay will wipe that out.
giving the upper class tax cuts does NOT "trickle down", they have more money then they can spend, giving them more money does nothing___
Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, one of the richest women in the world, whom you support, her husband makes his fortune dealing with China, which she plows the road so he can do, impoverishing you to do it.
true health care reform will save money not cost money, tax cuts to the wealthy costs much more then you cut_______________
True health care reform will cost everybody additional taxes, punish doctors, cause massive rationing and people's lives plus drive the deficit up beyond where we can ever repay it, but we are there already. That's why China and other economies will soon be unpinning from the dollar and the dollar will be as worthless as the mark in the Weimar Republic. Obama vowed to remake America and he is doing it. Hope you like your change.
thank jebus you didn't use any Thug TPs.
Anyway, when you can no longer afford aria's health care because you were laid off, or you see a close friend or family member, who through no fault of their own, becomes ill, and can't afford private insurance, weigh in then. Your opinion will actually mean something then, selfish.
Here's a bit of insight into my experience laden post.
Couldn't afford health care, worked in an industry that didn't pay for it, couldn't afford cancer screening. Guess what? Instead of finding the cancer early, it was nearly too late. Instead of getting treatment that cost maybe 10k, my treatment was in the hundreds of thousands probably close to 1m by now, and instead of being able to return to work I am now disabled. See how well that works? thanks for thinking ahead.
me-oww!
Most of the free world can clearly see(and is laughing like hell at America) that the Teabaggers are racist, zero information, angry white folk.
in Phoenix and sacrificed the skinny dude to the beefy union thugs in St. Louis. They know they have an image problem and Colinb and Condi are too uppity for tea party duty.
"We need to defend the morality of a system in American that says you are free to take risks, to make money, to create jobs and to do it however you want to so long as it's legal."
Paul "Vouchers" Ryan
if yew add under educated to the mix
.
The teabaggers are protesting runaway spending by this administration which is tanking the economy. It has nothing to do with racism, and includes all races and political parties. At the one on April 15th we had people from all across the spectrum, young and old, dem and repub, and every race you can name.
He started it. It's very disingenuous of the teabaggers to decry 'outrageous spending' when GWB went apeshit w/ the country's purse strings, you
said nothingcheered him on, called anyone who disagreed with him 'Traitors.'This is why it will probably be impossible for you selfish racist bastards to see why you ARE racist. You don't see no reason to blame this whole bucket of crap, the one Aria will inherit started with your boy.
When a white guy did it it was ok.
When a white guy can hardly speak even with a teleprompter, hey teabagger pass "Quit calling our dry drunk president stupid! Support his immoral illeagal COSTLY war."
When a black guy uses the same technology all Presidents have used since its inception, it's all "He can't even SPEAK w/o a teleprompter!" which is, as we all know just another lie from the MINORITY.
You are small minded racists, whether you think you are or not. Actions speak louder than words. Aria will pick up on that, dumbass.
me-oww!
This chart is not nearly as clear as the images of Mussolini on NBC HQ nor as pernicious as the unaccountable Czars run amok in our children's classrooms.
"We need to defend the morality of a system in American that says you are free to take risks, to make money, to create jobs and to do it however you want to so long as it's legal."
Paul "Vouchers" Ryan
Stuff just costs more these days!
/snark off
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
...Yes, but they were for a good cause.
C'mon, be serious.
What sane person would argue that ensuring affordable health care for all Americans is even one tenth as important as making rich people richer, and really, really rich people, much, much richer?
The American system is designed to make it possible for a small number of people to become fabulously wealthy. It was never meant to provide health insurance to poor people. And the middle class? Well, they're simply people in transition to being either rich or poor.
Middle class? We don't need no steenking [sic] middle class.
The middle class is needed to pay for the poor. The uber rich went too far when they put all their eggs in a big basket of stupid.
the middleclass want fair wages and benefits for work/services provided. the corporations don't want to pay so they move/outsource to the likes of china. the BUSH tax cuts went to the top 5%. that demographic is heavily invested in china. it's about power and profit. wages in this country have been stagnant for 5 yrs. the financial elite/oligarchs are leveling the playing field in the global economy.
They are wages of the rich whose only job is to manipulate the market.
They complain about Medicare being broke. 'Going' broke is more accurate, but why is this happening.
1. They siphoned off 'excess contributions' into the General Fund for decades. That needs to b paid back.
2. Private Insurance unabashedly raises premiums when profits sink and investors complain about dividends. Medicare needs to raise rates to stay even.
3. Providers who accept Medicare get paid 80% of service, the other 20% provided by patient or secondary insurance, who normally charge 6x what Medicare charges to pay for the 20%. Medicare should pay 100% taking some of the premium that supplemental insurance charges. This will benefit the insured
4. Social Security needs to have the cap eliminated.
5. Taxes need to revert back to the Clinton era rates to create a surplus to pay down the National Debt (or for the next repug congress to distribute to the already filthy rich).
6. Tax cuts to any business, small medium or large do not cause them to hire people, more customers will do that, and tax cuts to the rich will not help the economy, they already spend whatever they want. Money to the lower and middle class will put the money back into the economy and stimulate businesses.
7. My health is not a commodity to be traded on the commodity market, it is a service I may require.
8, Tax credits or assistance to help buy insurance is just a vehicle to give 30% of that amount to insurance companies. Talk about redistribution of wealth - taxpayer to company, executive pay and investors.
Def: Commodity: 'an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.'
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
I am always amazed at people who decry "tax cuts for the rich." They employ everybody else, California is broke because businesses can't employ people and pay the enormous taxes, it's one or the other. Unemployment is the result.
People that earn money should be able to keep it. The government TAKING less from earners isn't "costing the government" anything. The underlying assumption in that logic is that government programs should always expand and never end.
We've spent over a trillion dollars on the war on poverty and people are still "poor". Why? We constantly redefine poverty baselines and we've taught millions to be dependent on the Gubmint for "their check".
The problem is that the people in the government truly believe they are entitled to our wages so they can be frittered away on electorially useful White Elephants.
Many years ago, the human race learned an important lesson: if a person doesn't work, s/he shouldn't eat.
Comments are closed on this entry