NP Rank:
Majority of Americans want to end Bush Tax cuts for the rich
A major campaign issue for Republicans as we head into this Novembers election are the Bush/Republican Tax cuts that are set to expire this coming January.
Republicans argue that while the current economy is still in a recovery mode after the economic policies put in place by them, congress needs to extend the tax cuts that were in acted in 2001 and 2003, not let them expire.
They argue that the tax cuts for the rich, if extended, will help to create jobs, but data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) proves them wrong.
The nonpartisan website PolitiFact did some fact checking after they heard Sen. Sherrod Brown talking about the number of jobs created by Bush vs. Clinton while appearing on MSNBC last month.
Number of jobs as of January, 1993, a week before Clinton took office: 109.725 million. Number of jobs as of Jan. 2001, a week before Clinton left office: 132.469 million. Net Gain under Clinton: 22.7 million jobs.
Now for Bush, who succeeded Clinton in the White House. As already noted, the nation had 132.469 million jobs as he was taking office. Number of jobs on Jan. 12, 2009, a week before Bush left office: 133.549 million. Net gain under Bush: 1.08 million jobs.
So now you see that the Tax cuts for the rich did not create very many job, but it did create more money for the rich while creating a bigger divided between Wall Street and Main Street.
Now lets look at the Republicans other economic argument regarding the Tax cuts, they say that the Bush /Republican tax cuts did not add to our deficit.
An article in the Washington Post earlier this month using data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), shows that the Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 added $2.3 trillion over the last 10 years to our deficit.
Excerpt from Washington Post article:
The "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.
By allowing the Tax cut for the rich to expire, President Obama said that he would revert our tax policies back to where they were under former President Bill Clinton who created 22.7 million jobs with his tax rates.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Democrats upon their return from their August break, plan to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts for middle-class Americans earning less than $200,000, but let the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans expire when they end in January.
And 69 percent of Americans agree with ending the Bush/Republican tax policies. Since it appears that most proposed legislation is driven by popularity and polls these days, maybe this will help them with their decision.
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
David-Phillips
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Recommendations (4)
-
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States -
nanute
New York, United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 00:06 on August 21st, 2010
Non-partisan analysis indicates that extending the cuts to that 2% of wealthiest Americans will cost around 700 billion over the next ten year, and extending those cuts will not have a stimulative effect on the economy. Furthermore, recent reports show: 58% of Real Income Growth Since 1976 Went to Top 1% (and Why That Matters)
at 06:17 on August 21st, 2010
It is interesting that those pushing tax cuts for the rich continue to say it will be stimulative.
Unlike most folks that get their hands on a little extra money, the rich invest in getting richer instead of spending.
at 02:43 on August 21st, 2010
When government decides to raise taxes or give tax breaks it should be done across the board and ought not to single out any economical strata of society. It can be argued that the top 5% don't need more money but, in all fairness they do pay 50% of the tax load. Not that anyone ever said the system of taxation was ever fair. In 1993 Clinton raised the top marginal rate from 31% to 39.6%. In 2001 George W. Bush with congressional approval temporarily lowered the top marginal tax rate to 35% with a sunset clause to expire in 2011 and return to Clinton era levels. The Bush tax break is going to expire in January but not for the 69% that may be in favor of not extending the tax break to the top 2%. Their opinion on the subject is immaterial... now if they too were going back to Clinton era taxation rates their input would have some weight. As for using job creation figures over two different economic periods to slag one or praise another is a mugs game. It can't be done. G.W. Bush came into office during an economic down turn and 1.7 million jobs were lost during his first year. Clinton had it easy, was in office during an economic upturn, and raised taxes 8.6%. Raising the tax base did not create any jobs as it is being suggested. Obama is sitting on a 12% unemployment rate and if he is lucky enough to be re-elected... during his eight years the economy will have turned around. First though, those with money, and I mean all around the world, are going to have to feel that some measure of success lies in investing their capital in job creation. So far it doesn't seem to be the case. Small and medium business has taken a hit proportionally greater than that of GM or the Wall Street. Which primarily is where that 12% unemployed initially came from.
at 23:26 on August 21st, 2010
While it is true that the top 5 percent pay 55 percent of all taxes, it is also true that the top 5 percent have 85 percent of all the money. Also the 69 percent of Americans that want the rich to pay their fair share do not have 85 percent of the money.
at 04:24 on August 22nd, 2010
2% paying 50% isn't fair enough. LOL. their fair share. just because these people have money does not mean they owe more than you do to the system. your sense of entitlement to other peoples money is overwhelming.
at 13:47 on August 22nd, 2010
You have Hedge fund managers paying 15%, making millions, their secretaries who may make 70k pay 35%...THAT YOU CALL FAIR...
You call it FAIR to have the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the rich that go straight to our deficit by borrowing from China, then having your grand kids pay for it in the future...But for you that is Fair and Good, because the rich already pay their fair share...Guess what the rich do not pay their fair share...
at 16:35 on August 22nd, 2010
And don't forget, David, all the billions hidden in offshore bank accounts overseas, also to avoid paying their fair share.
at 15:22 on August 22nd, 2010
david you have a very simplistic understanding of the tax system or how money works. that 15% is a capital gains tax and is only applicable to the carried interest. it cost money simply to invest money, there is investment fees, that money is taxed and so is any monies acquired from that investment, if any money is acquired!! then there is the licencing, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, tariffs and payroll taxes, legal fees and accounting costs that have to be paid. you know the old adage: it takes money to make money. well today any return is substantially reduce by the many hands out to grab "their fair share" of the money the government taxes at every opportunity. tell me in your world of entitlement do the 5% you acknowledge who pay 50% of all taxes collected use 50% of all the services leaving only the other 50% of services for others? do they even use 5% of all the services they pay 50% of the support? i don't have any real money david but, i do no what is fair. and it is unfair to abuse the very people who pay for the services you or i can not with out their help. it is also really really dumb to create the circumstances where those people feel more comfortable investing in less hostile climes and keeping their money offshore. i'm sure you will find that the people who generate wealth firmly believe you are getting your fair share of their hard earned money and that they don't owe you or me a f!@#ing thing. especially when you never never share in their losses and only have your hands out when they come home a winner.