Bush makes $3 trillion in campaign promises

This is the sort of thing that Chicken George would be held accountable for if he held campaign stops with real people who could ask real questions. He gasses on about Kerry's promises adding up to $2 trillion, hoping no one will add up his own promises.

So if you're in favor of Big Government, vote Bush '04!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A01


The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.

And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost.

Good to see that being fiscally conservative is out the window with the Neocons.

It's funny - Bush throws a few billion here, a few billion there, and a few more billion there on things like our troops in Iraq, the Florida hurricane, halliburton, etc., but then blasts Kerry for supporting a revamped health care program where the government has to pay into it.

Maybe this will sway a few fiscal conservatives, unless they're idiots.

The difference is in the quality of the spending.

Maybe this will sway a few liberals, unless they're idiots.

This is the sort of thing that Chicken George would be held accountable for if he held campaign stops with real people who could ask real questions. He gasses on about Kerry's promises adding up to $2 trillion, hoping no one will add up his own promises.

Click to expand...

Like anybody's every asked Kerry a REAL question on one of his campaign stops. Typical. Blast the Republicans while never being critical of your own bandwagon.

Keep it up Dennis_the_menace! Maybe you'll come up with your own opinion someday.

So if you're in favor of Big Government, vote...

Funny, cause that has been the liberal motto since forever.

Old news. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention has known for quite some time both candidates are in favor of big (and getting much bigger) government. Both their records point to this and both their campaign promises do too. :x

[quote name='elprincipe']Old news. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention has known for quite some time both candidates are in favor of big (and getting much bigger) government. Both their records point to this and both their campaign promises do too. :x[/quote]

The problem is, Bush misleads the public in his campaign speeches by bashing Kerry's $2 trillion and not mentioning his own $3 trillion.

Oh, and bmulligan? That's MISTER Menace to you!

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='elprincipe']Old news. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention has known for quite some time both candidates are in favor of big (and getting much bigger) government. Both their records point to this and both their campaign promises do too. :x[/quote]

The problem is, Bush misleads the public in his campaign speeches by bashing Kerry's $2 trillion and not mentioning his own $3 trillion.[/quote]

I don't know if the $3 trillion figure is accurate, but yes, he does say that Kerry will spend so much and conveniently forgets about all his own promises. To be fair, Kerry does make similarly stupid claims when he says his tax increase on the top 1% will pay for all his promises.

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='elprincipe']Old news. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention has known for quite some time both candidates are in favor of big (and getting much bigger) government. Both their records point to this and both their campaign promises do too. :x[/quote]

The problem is, Bush misleads the public in his campaign speeches by bashing Kerry's $2 trillion and not mentioning his own $3 trillion.

Oh, and bmulligan? That's MISTER Menace to you! [/quote]



So, if you KNOW kerry is going to spend beyond our means and lie about it and Bush will spend beyond our means and lie about it, then WHY are you planning to vote for either of them ? The amount of proposed spending is irrelevent. In light of the fact that Congress proposes and approves ALL spending, campaign promises about spending is basically meaningless.

How many times do you people have to be promised a chicken in every pot until you realize you already have the chicken. The government wants to take half of it away from you, eat the breast, and pass out the wing and leg to someone else who cries the loudest ?

This article and this post/argument is flawed.

First tax cuts don't have to be "paid for" they aren't reductions in revenue. They are reductions in rates. Cutting a tax rate does not produce less revenue, it produces more. Therefore that discredits the first $1 trillion of this argument.

Next, privitizing SSI? SSI is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud perpetrated on the American people for 60+ years by both political parties. There is no account anywhere with your name on it. It is a pay/get paid as you go scam.

If I stop paying SSI that means that money is truly MINE as it should be. That means I can invest in my own future as opposed to paying into this government scam.

In the future that means no one will have to work to support me that means millions of people allowed to invest in themselves won't be telling college graduates in 30-50 years they need to pay a 60-70% tax rate to support me playing shuffleboard, going to early bird specials and the government giving me cash to buy pants that come up to my nipples, make my Cadillac payment and my Rascal go anywhere scooter.

Forget what this costs now, imagine the generations and 10's of trillions of dollars in the future this will save our dependents, grandchildren and great children. We have to do this eventually before costs spiral out of control. At least it's being talked about.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This article and this post/argument is flawed.

First tax cuts don't have to be "paid for" they aren't reductions in revenue. They are reductions in rates. Cutting a tax rate does not produce less revenue, it produces more. Therefore that discredits the first $1 trillion of this argument.

Next, privitizing SSI? SSI is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud perpetrated on the American people for 60+ years by both political parties. There is no account anywhere with your name on it. It is a pay/get paid as you go scam.

If I stop paying SSI that means that money is truly MINE as it should be. That means I can invest in my own future as opposed to paying into this government scam.

In the future that means no one will have to work to support me that means millions of people allowed to invest in themselves won't be telling college graduates in 30-50 years they need to pay a 60-70% tax rate to support me playing shuffleboard, going to early bird specials and the government giving me cash to buy pants that come up to my nipples, make my Cadillac payment and my Rascal go anywhere scooter.

Forget what this costs now, imagine the generations and 10's of trillions of dollars in the future this will save our dependents, grandchildren and great children. We have to do this eventually before costs spiral out of control. At least it's being talked about.[/quote]

I was going to say all that but I figured PAD would do it, and I was right.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This article and this post/argument is flawed.

First tax cuts don't have to be "paid for" they aren't reductions in revenue. They are reductions in rates. Cutting a tax rate does not produce less revenue, it produces more. Therefore that discredits the first $1 trillion of this argument.[/quote]

Actually, the tax cuts do need to be paid for, because they are a reduction in revenue and therefore need to be matched with a reduction in spending. But we aren't seeing that under Bush, are we? Instead he spends like a drunken sailor, leaving the bill for future generations.

All you fiscal conservatives should be running like hell from his policies.

Next, privitizing SSI? SSI is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud perpetrated on the American people for 60+ years by both political parties. There is no account anywhere with your name on it. It is a pay/get paid as you go scam.
If I stop paying SSI that means that money is truly MINE as it should be. That means I can invest in my own future as opposed to paying into this government scam.
In the future that means no one will have to work to support me that means millions of people allowed to invest in themselves won't be telling college graduates in 30-50 years they need to pay a 60-70% tax rate to support me playing shuffleboard, going to early bird specials and the government giving me cash to buy pants that come up to my nipples, make my Cadillac payment and my Rascal go anywhere scooter.
Forget what this costs now, imagine the generations and 10's of trillions of dollars in the future this will save our dependents, grandchildren and great children. We have to do this eventually before costs spiral out of control. At least it's being talked about.

Click to expand...

You are right, it is a pay/get paid system. So what do you think happens when young people opt out of paying into the system? Who pays for the Social Security of the old timers becoming eligible for benefits? The system goes bust, and God help you if you are the elderly person caught standing when the Social Security musical chairs tune stops.

This is a problem we've had for a long time, and both parties are equally complicit in sweeping it under the rug. Of course we had billions set aside to solve the problem, but Bush pissed it all away with his tax cuts. Remember all of the guffaws about Gore's "lockbox"? Well, all that money's evaporated now, and even more will fly out the window if Bush cuts taxes deeper.

So, if you KNOW kerry is going to spend beyond our means and lie about it and Bush will spend beyond our means and lie about it, then WHY are you planning to vote for either of them ? The amount of proposed spending is irrelevent. In light of the fact that Congress proposes and approves ALL spending, campaign promises about spending is basically meaningless.

How many times do you people have to be promised a chicken in every pot until you realize you already have the chicken. The government wants to take half of it away from you, eat the breast, and pass out the wing and leg to someone else who cries the loudest ?

Click to expand...

There's one big difference between the two, bmulligan -- Kerry has at least taken a stab at saying how he would pay for all of his promises, by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

I can't recall Bush ever saying how we would afford all of his policies, even partially. This is the height of irresponsibility, and if it were coming from a Democrat all you fiscal conservatives would be up in arms.

Fiscal conservatives are as rare these days as hens teeth. Well, maybe not rare but we're as visible and vocal on the national scene as a Log Cabin Republican.

Tax cuts do not need to be "paid for". By definition that money isn't the governments to begin with.

I've explained tax cuts before but basically its no different than stores having a sale. If a game isn't selling for $50 the store has no money coming in. If they drop the price to $30 and sell 5 games they have $150.

Likewise if people hide, exempt, invest money in ways that are tax free or tax deferred the government sees no revenues. If marginal tax rates are reduced the incentives that were in place to make income tax undesireable people will realize more income gains either earned income or capital gains.

Example: Farmer buys 5 pigs for $500
Farmer fattens pigs and sells them for $800
Capital gains tax rate is 35% on the $300 profit, a potential $105 tax bill.
Farmer takes that $800 and buys 8 pigs, since this is a reinvestment of capital the profit is not taxed. Taxes to government= $0

Capital gains tax rate is dropped to 25%, same transaction cycle.
Farmer buys 5 pigs= $500
Farmer fattens pigs sells them= $800
Capital gains taxes on a $300 profit= $75
Farmer spends the remaining $225 on household goods resulting in state taxes, manufacturers jobs, shipping jobs, retail jobs etc.

I'm not critical of people that don't understand how tax cuts encourage economic activity. Financial education is non-existent in public schools but when you lower rates you encourage people not to defer or seek tax exempt methods of protecting income.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Fiscal conservatives are as rare these days as hens teeth. Well, maybe not rare but we're as visible and vocal on the national scene as a Log Cabin Republican.

Tax cuts do not need to be "paid for". By definition that money isn't the governments to begin with.

I've explained tax cuts before but basically its no different than stores having a sale. If a game isn't selling for $50 the store has no money coming in. If they drop the price to $30 and sell 5 games they have $150.

Likewise if people hide, exempt, invest money in ways that are tax free or tax deferred the government sees no revenues. If marginal tax rates are reduced the incentives that were in place to make income tax undesireable people will realize more income gains either earned income or capital gains.

Example: Farmer buys 5 pigs for $500
Farmer fattens pigs and sells them for $800
Capital gains tax rate is 35% on the $300 profit, a potential $105 tax bill.
Farmer takes that $800 and buys 8 pigs, since this is a reinvestment of capital the profit is not taxed. Taxes to government= $0

Capital gains tax rate is dropped to 25%, same transaction cycle.
Farmer buys 5 pigs= $500
Farmer fattens pigs sells them= $800
Capital gains taxes on a $300 profit= $75
Farmer spends the remaining $225 on household goods resulting in state taxes, manufacturers jobs, shipping jobs, retail jobs etc.

I'm not critical of people that don't understand how tax cuts encourage economic activity. Financial education is non-existent in public schools but when you lower rates you encourage people not to defer or seek tax exempt methods of protecting income.[/quote]

This way of thinking is flawed. People will take advantage of the tax code regardless of the tax rate. The only way tax cuts will ever work is if spending is also cut. It didn't work for Reagan and it is not working for Bush.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Fiscal conservatives are as rare these days as hens teeth. Well, maybe not rare but we're as visible and vocal on the national scene as a Log Cabin Republican.

Tax cuts do not need to be "paid for". By definition that money isn't the governments to begin with.[/quote]

I think we're arguing semantics here. Tax cuts must be accounted for in the federal budget by making appropriate reductions in expenditures. That's what they call a balanced budget. Bush has thrown that right out the window.

I've explained tax cuts before but basically its no different than stores having a sale. If a game isn't selling for $50 the store has no money coming in. If they drop the price to $30 and sell 5 games they have $150.

Likewise if people hide, exempt, invest money in ways that are tax free or tax deferred the government sees no revenues. If marginal tax rates are reduced the incentives that were in place to make income tax undesireable people will realize more income gains either earned income or capital gains.

Example: Farmer buys 5 pigs for $500
Farmer fattens pigs and sells them for $800
Capital gains tax rate is 35% on the $300 profit, a potential $105 tax bill.
Farmer takes that $800 and buys 8 pigs, since this is a reinvestment of capital the profit is not taxed. Taxes to government= $0

Capital gains tax rate is dropped to 25%, same transaction cycle.
Farmer buys 5 pigs= $500
Farmer fattens pigs sells them= $800
Capital gains taxes on a $300 profit= $75
Farmer spends the remaining $225 on household goods resulting in state taxes, manufacturers jobs, shipping jobs, retail jobs etc.

I'm not critical of people that don't understand how tax cuts encourage economic activity. Financial education is non-existent in public schools but when you lower rates you encourage people not to defer or seek tax exempt methods of protecting income.

Click to expand...

If all this is true, PAD, then why are we seeing record deficits? And before you say 9/11, keep in mind that numerous research groups and think-tanks -- including the CBO -- have said that the tax cuts are a major contributor to the deficit.

Also, keep in mind that just about everyone now predicts we'll have deficits for the next decade and beyond. If the tax cuts were so great at bringing in extra revenue, that wouldn't be the case, would it?