Bush Lies : About Taxes (1st In A Series)

[Cyrus]

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/5/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Tax relief means new jobs for Americans." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
Since Bush's first tax cut in June, 2001 the economy has shed 2.75 million jobs. - CBPP

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030905-1.html) Reference (http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
“So I’ve proposed additional measures to keep the economy on the path to greater job creation…by making permanent the tax cuts that have helped our economy.” [Source: CNN Web site]

Fact:
Since the first Bush tax cut took effect in June 2001, the U.S. economy has lost 2.75 million jobs – the unemployment rate has risen from 4.4% to 5.6%. Since the second Bush tax cut took effect in May 2003, the economy has shed 124,000 more jobs. - BLS

Reference (http://www.cnn.com/transcriptS/0310/28/se.01.html) Reference (http://www.bls.gov/)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
“I proposed and signed these [tax] measures to help individuals and help families.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The most recent CBS News/New York Times poll shows that “despite three tax cuts in as many years, only 19 percent [of Americans surveyed] said Bush's policies made their taxes go down. Forty-seven percent noticed no effect, while 29 percent perceived that their taxes have gone up.” - Washington Post, 10/7/03

“Almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President Bush’s most recent tax plan. In 2005, three-quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100.” - Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/30/03

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031009-9.html) Reference (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A53226-2003Oct6&notFound=true) Reference (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
“I twice led the Congress to pass historic tax relief for the American people. We wanted tax relief to be as broad and as fair as possible, so we reduced taxes on everyone who pays taxes.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"A new AP poll finds that almost half of all Americans 'said their overall tax burden — including federal, state and local taxes — had gone up over the past three years' - almost four times the 13% who said their overall taxes had gone down." - AP, 4/13/04

“One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help” in President Bush's tax cut. “More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty.” - Children's Defense Fund, 6/6/03

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031009-11.html) Reference (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=5&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_re_us/taxes_ap_poll)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 3/27/2001

Quote/Claim:
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus projected in January 2001, as Bush took office, is gone, supplanted with at least $5.2 trillion in deficits over the next ten years -- a fiscal decline of $10.8 trillion in just three years. - CBPP, 10/28/03

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010327-5.html) Reference (http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/surplus.html)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 3/17/2004

Quote/Claim:
"When you hear people say, we cut individual income taxes, or tax on the rich, really what you ought to put in your mind is these were taxes to help the entrepreneurial class of America. Small businesses benefit." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
Only 3.7% of small businesses are affected by the top tax rate cuts that made up the bulk of the President's income tax cuts. Most small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit." - CBPP, 5/3/01

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040316-5.html) Reference (http://www.cbpp.org/5-3-01tax2.htm)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 6/16/2003

Quote/Claim:
"So when you hear the -- hear me talk about reducing individual tax rates, the American people have got to understand, that means capital infusion into the small businesses of America." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 would severely cut loans to small businesses and reduce funding to the Small Business Administration by over 10 percent." - Washington Times, 2/3/04

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030616-2.html) Reference (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040203-124022-5670r.htm)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/18/2003

Quote/Claim:
"[The 2003 tax cut will] give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less" than the average amount the President cited, with more than half of all small business owners receiving $500 or less. - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/21/03

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030118.html) Reference (http://www.cbpp.org/1-18-03tax.htm)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Economy - Taxes

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/27/2001

Quote/Claim:
"For lower-income families, my tax plan restores basic fairness." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The data now clearly shows the Administration's tax cuts were overwhelmingly skewed towards the wealthy: By 2010, the top 1% - who make an average of $1 million - will have received more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks, and will have received over half of all the Bush tax cuts ever passed (this might explain why four in five Americans say they have felt no tax relief).

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228.html) Reference (http://www.nationalissues.com/candidates/bush_speech_to_congress.html) Reference (http://www.fcnp.com/345/feat2.htm)

----TO BE CONTINUED-----

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
(this might explain why four in five Americans say they have felt no tax relief).


[/ QUOTE ]

Since your logic is so seriously flawed in all aspects of your argument I'll juts post a brief comment on this one statement.

Just because you don't feel the relief does not mean that it hasn't occured.

[cardcounter0]

Why don't you check with the GAO's own figures about the tax cuts and get back with me? Seems that that what the majority of the people 'feel' is actually what is happening.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you check with the GAO's own figures about the tax cuts and get back with me? Seems that that what the majority of the people 'feel' is actually what is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it, a goof named cardcounter cannot even count. Is that irony or not? AndyFox where are you when we need you?

It is evident that if the GAO had anything to do with the subject and that if it verified your position you would have posted a link. Now the IRS statistics shows that 100% of American taxpayers had their tax burden reduced and even those not paying any taxes received refunds. It is a wonderful country in which we live where you can reduce taxes for more than 100% of the taxpayers.

[cardcounter0]

The New York Times headlined its story: "Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy." The Wall Street Journal: "Budget Office Says Biggest Tax Cuts Go to Richest 1%." And the Washington Post: "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle." A Friday Reuters dispatch was headlined, "CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich."

"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."

>>>>> Let's recap:

Those with incomes over $1.1 million 'felt' a 1.1% reduction in taxes.
Those with incomes over $182,000 'felt' a .9% reduction in taxes.
Joe Blow with an income of around $75,600 'felt like' his taxes increased .8%

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Those with incomes over $1.1 million 'felt' a 1.1% reduction in taxes.
Those with incomes over $182,000 'felt' a .9% reduction in taxes.
Joe Blow with an income of around $75,600 'felt like' his taxes increased .8%


[/ QUOTE ]

Question: Are you really this obtuse or do you simply enjoy twisting statistics?

As I wrote above all taxpayers payed lower taxes on the same income compared to the previous year. Find a way to dispute that!

PS: I felt like I should have won a pot last night but got sucked out on the river. Does that mean I should have won the pot?

[cardcounter0]

"Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."

[Zeno]

So how long is this series going to be? Seven 'games'. Does Bush lie in all of them?


By the way, Cyrus;

I would honestly like your input and comments on the St. Bartholomew massacre post I have initiated. I know you could contribute some meaningful and insightful thoughts. Thanks.

-Zeno

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
And the Washington Post: "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a pretty inaccurate headline. It implies that the middle class is now paying most of the taxes which is simply not true.

I can't find it now(otherwise I would have posted a link), but I read somewhere that if you don't consider medicare and social security taxes, the wealthies are actually paying a larger burden of tax now then they did prior to the Bush tax cuts.

Stu

[eLROY]

Suppose, Cyrus, that we're dumb enough (or crazy enough) to come up with a theory of how raising taxes can "create jobs" (whatever that is supposed to mean). If our theory is wrong, who pays the price? The people who pay taxes. If the theory is right who gets the benefit? The people who pay taxes. Under no circumstances, does the idiot who comes up with this theory pay any price for being wrong.

Now you tell me what the odds are of someone being right, who pays no price for being wrong? How about a poker player playing with play money (or someone else's money). Is he likely to make sound plays? Or random plays? The best aspect of leaving people with their own money, rather than taxing it away, is that they are more likely to be right, whatever their theory is.

If the voter can't separate lies from truth, and tell whether higher taxes hurt jobs or not without your help, then is there any hope for representative democracy? If the Federal government can get away with lying to the voter, then why should we expect them to ever do anything that will help jobs, when it is so much cheaper to buy TV ads simply saying they helped jobs?

Isn't the last place people should send their money, a place so remote and convoluted where they can't even tell what is happening or whom to believe? Shouldn't they keep their money closer to home, where they have a better idea who the liars are?!? Isn't the very flaw in taxes, the inability of the voters to judge how the money is being spent once it's out of their hands?

[Taxman]

I haven't read that anywhere, but I'd be happy to look at a source as long as it's credible.

[cardcounter0]

"I read somewhere that if you don't consider medicare and social security taxes, the wealthies are actually paying a larger burden of tax now then they did prior to the Bush tax cuts."

Might be true. Of course, if you don't consider all the times I put gas in my car -- it gets about 80,000 miles per gallon!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read that anywhere, but I'd be happy to look at a source as long as it's credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ground has been covered on two forums and in numerous posts in threads you participated in. Here's an old thread that is an example:

Old Post About Taxes and Who Pays Em (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=519853&page=&view=&sb =5&o=)

BTW maybe you could answer the question that I've posed, what should the distribution of income be after Federal taxes are paid. It's a straightforward question. On second thought never mind /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Stu Pidasso]

Here (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-16-Mon-2004/opinion/24535260.html) is the link.

Heres a quote from the editorial

"In fact, if Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are actually paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid without the Bush tax cuts, the CBO found."

I wonder what these other federal levies are? I any event I have to agree with the writer of this piece that money not taxed by the government gets spent or invested and thereby creates new jobs.

Although jobs have been lost under Bush, I believe that had we not had the tax cuts, many more jobs would have been lost and our economy would still be in recession.

Is a job not lost the same as a job created?

Stu

[Taxman]

Sorry for the lame pun. Ok you got me, I unfortunately have lost my photographic memory since I last posted here and I did not remember that thread. Tell me what's wrong with asking someone else to find the facts to support their (own personal) position however, and I'll admit that my post was irrelevant and a waste of time.

I know you harbor some latent resentment towards me because I used to go to extrodinary lengths to respond to your Ulysses-esque posts (and yes sometimes, I was unreasonable), but I see no reason to not have other people defend their own points, rather than have you drudge up long threads with longer articles within them that I am expected to remember word for word. I appreciate the links, but lets not start anew our cycle of disdain. Why can't we all just get along? /images/graemlins/confused.gif Maybe one of these days you'll even respond to one of my more legitimate questions as well, rather than attacking every misstep I take (ok that's an exagerration and maybe more a reference to past behavior than current. This is the first post of mine you've responded to since my return, so I couldn't really say. Does that mean my other posts were an even bigger waste of time than this one?).

The theme I get from the 28 pages or so of articles that you posted in the last thread is that because of the tax cuts the lower income brackets are paying a lower percentage of the total taxes than they were before. Well that seems pretty damn obvious. It might even be true that percentage wise, the rich are paying a higher overall percentage of taxes than they used to, but this statement is a bit misleading. While a 20% tax break seems huge, I'm sure the refund check they received was miniscule compared to the higher tax brackets. Thus while the relative percentage of taxes payed by the super rich may have risen, they still benefitted far more (in a gross income sense) than the middle and lower classes. What does this all mean? Well, the tax cuts did give money back to everyone, and if you looked purely at the total amount payed out, a greater percentage of the total $ refunds probably went to the rich (note this is not the same as saying that they got a bigger tax cut). Thus the rich may have gotten a lower tax cut, but they certainly benefitted more from theirs than did the poor. I didn't even really want to get in this argument, I just wanted someone else to support their position (which it appears he has now done).

I have stated in the past that I do not want super high taxes and I think the whole system needs to undergo serious reform (which does not mean taxes should be increased for the rich and lowered for the poor). Perhaps you could dredge those posts up since you seem to have the time. I also have come to realize that was was at times overly ideological in the past and I have clearly tried to avoid going over the top like I used to do occasionally. Obviously you know more than me in this arena. Amazingly enough, I actually think we could pay even less taxes than now and still have an efficiently and effectively run government (theoretically), but you seemed inclined to pidgeon-hole me into an anti-everything-Bush category. The Bush administration is not running an efficient government. A Kerry administration might not either, but I know the rest of the world would probably like us a bit more. Either way, that is not really the issue at hand. You were right in that the rich got a lower % tax cut, but they did receive a greater % of the total refund. What does this all mean? Not too much except that what we need is tax code reform much more than tax hikes/cuts.

[Cyrus]

"The IRS statistics shows that 100% of American taxpayers had their tax burden reduced and even those not paying any taxes received refunds."

And where, prey, is that statistic?

I expect a big chuckle either way: You hopping out silently outta this thread -or- you providing said link to source. Usually, in such cases, I get something like "Ow, do yer own legwork!" Let's see your hand.

...And notice that my post provided at least two links to sources for each demonstration that George W Bush has lied. (BTW, the post is a copy from an American progressive website. Gonna feed it slowly to you guys cause I fear for your head.)

[Cyrus]

"Is a job not lost the same as a job created?"

No.

Ask any economist. (After you cut off his hand, that is. Otherwise, he'll start giving an answer "On the one hand...")

[Cyrus]

"Suppose that we're dumb enough (or crazy enough) to come up with a theory of how raising taxes can "create jobs" (whatever that is supposed to mean). If our theory is wrong, who pays the price?"

This mighta been a good time to discuss about the use (and abuse) of the Tax System but ..it won't happen! George W Bush has rendered the issue of use (and abuse) of Taxes irrelevant!

Y'see, through Dubya's incredible spending spree, a spree that not even the most crazy "liberals" in Congress could ever wet dream about, the United States has no other options but to raise taxes down the road.

Do not, at all, listen to the hullaballoo about lowering (!) taxes. It won't happen because the math ain't there. (Someone was joking the other day on this forum about Dubya abolishing income taxes and the IRS during his 2nd term. Turned out he was serious and not joking. He is under medication ever since.)

And if you gonna fall for the mantra about "making the economy grow, instead of raising taxes", then I have a bridge to sell you. With lots of traffic too. A bargain.

[vulturesrow]

2003 tax cut assessment (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm543.cfm)

Survey results (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/1/prweb97808.htm)

2001 tax cuts make a difference (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1653.cfm)

Issues 2004-Taxes (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/taxes.cfm#TP)

[cardcounter0]

I think the general theme in these articles is that due to the tax cut, the recession and loss of jobs we have seen COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE. If not for the tax cut, the crapola would have really hit the fan. Luckily, due to Bush pushing thru tax cuts the bad isn't as bad as it could have been.

Hogwash! The real reason the recession has been so relatively mild, and that a lot more jobs have not been lost, and the dollar isn't even weaker, or the cost of oil even higher, has nothing to do with tax cuts. It is because of my magic "good times" rock I bought off an old Chinese guy.

If I didn't have this magic rock, imagine the even more terrible times we would be going thru right now!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
think the general theme in these articles is that due to the tax cut, the recession and loss of jobs we have seen COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE. If not for the tax cut, the crapola would have really hit the fan. Luckily, due to Bush pushing thru tax cuts the bad isn't as bad as it could have been.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. One essay talks about comparative growth extensively. Most of those talk about real economic indicators since the tax cuts. Why dont you try addressing the points from those essays in a rational intellectual manner instead of trotting out your already tired little magic rock schtick.

[vulturesrow]

Tax Foundation Essay (http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html)

Joint Economic Committee report (http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=1802)
Myth of Stagnant Wages (http://www.epf.org/pubs/newsletters/2004/et20040723.pdf)
Essay on CBO tax cut report misconceptions (http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=58F6973E-A0C9-D18A-0FFFE90F0B5DB5B9)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"The IRS statistics shows that 100% of American taxpayers had their tax burden reduced and even those not paying any taxes received refunds."

And where, prey, is that statistic?

I expect a big chuckle either way: You hopping out silently outta this thread -or- you providing said link to source. Usually, in such cases, I get something like "Ow, do yer own legwork!" Let's see your hand.

...And notice that my post provided at least two links to sources for each demonstration that George W Bush has lied. (BTW, the post is a copy from an American progressive website. Gonna feed it slowly to you guys cause I fear for your head.)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Cyrus, go to www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov) It is simple enough even for you. Now click on the tax table link for 2002 and compare those rates across the board to 2003. Voila, proof that all rates for all taxpayers were lower in 2003 compared to 2002 and to 2001 for that matter. Now if you are not too tired from all this work you may look at the increased earned income credit for those lazy good for nothing low income and non-workers. Their credit (see tax refund without paying any frigging tax) is higher as well.

The above substantiates my statements and by the way (not suprisingly) refutes yours. Personally I do not need biased newpaper articles nor a socialistic left-winger to tell me something untrue when the source (IRS) is so easily accessible.

[Jim Kuhn]

Vote for the Libertarians: Lbertarian Platform (http://www.lp.org/issues/)

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the IRS statistics shows that 100% of American taxpayers had their tax burden reduced and even those not paying any taxes received refunds. It is a wonderful country in which we live where you can reduce taxes for more than 100% of the taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please post a link to this information. I don't think you can support that statement with any meaningful proof.

[vulturesrow]

he did post a link..irs.gov

[Phat Mack]

the United States has no other options but to raise taxes down the road.


I think they might have another option: they can inflate the economy. If they do that, they can pay back a dollar spent today with a dollar worth twenty-five cents tomorrow. I consider inflation a tax, but most people don't.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
Vote for the Libertarians: Libertarian Platform (http://www.lp.org/issues/)

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U


[/ QUOTE ]

The government does not need to raise taxes. They need to cut wasteful spending. Please take a look at the Libertarian Platform.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[ACPlayer]

Why is it that guys like Wake Up and Stu, the exact demographic getting shafted by higher taxes from the Bush policies support it?

You and I of course, use our tax accountants and bank accounts in the bahamas to never pay taxes anyway. Of course we did not see a tax cut!