Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill

[Sandy Eggo]

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.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

There's a link to the actual study in the article. For some reason I'm unable to pull it up.

[Henry Hawk]

and crooks and liars is completely unbiased huh?..........I cant provide similar material showing the opposite....and you would just say it is biased..

[Sandy Eggo]

and crooks and liars is completely unbiased huh?..........I cant provide similar material showing the opposite....and you would just say it is biased..

I showed you my study, now you show me yours.

[Henry Hawk]

I showed you my study, now you show me yours.

   Cutting Taxes = Increasing Revenue

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cutting-taxes-increasing-revenue

[Sandy Eggo]

Okay, I read it, but it doesn't disprove the study in my article.

[Palehorse]

To say Bush spent money like a drunken sailor is a slam on the good name of drunken sailors everywhere. Even if you remove spending for the Iraq War, Bush was one of the biggest spending presidents in modern history.

From your source Henry! 

[Henry Hawk]

From your source Henry! 

Palehorse, doggone it......what don't you understand about me....I have SAID, hundreds of times, that I was AGAINST Bush on his spending....even when he was POTUS I slammed him on this....never, ever did I say I was proud of his spending...THAT was what did him in.......IF, he (and the repubs) would have stopped the spending, along with his CUTS....he would have been known as a GREAT POTUS...they war thing would NOT have been an issue, as long as the economy is doing good.....that is a sad fact.

[Exterminator]

Cutting Taxes = Increasing Revenue

I have provided you with links to the government's own data that refute this claim over and over again and still you continue to claim that it is true.  You are a liar.

[Henry Hawk]

Okay....   go with that Ex....

again, time IS going to tell the truth here....got dem pres, dem congress...spending and raising taxes.....if you guys are right.....we will be in a fantastic economy very soon.

[Exterminator]

Okay....   go with that Ex....

Go with that hell...I have provided that information to you several times, everyone else here has seen it and you continue to make this claim.  How is that even remotely honest?

[Henry Hawk]