Bush tax cuts 2.5 times cost of health care

**shadowalk** · September 9th, 2009, 02:49 PM

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

So here is the cost of Bush tax cuts, discuss.

"The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased
the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained."

**mudfisher** · September 9th, 2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

The Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as the House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

Nice wording.

I read this as the government wasn't able to squeeze out extra cash from the American People thanks to Bush. But obviously the author believes the government was robbed of 2.11 trillion dollars by the thief Bush.

Quote:

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.

Another way of wording this is the tax cuts saved the American People from paying the government $2.11 trillion dollars.

Really the government should of cut spending to account for the lower tax revenue. Instead they continued to borrow more and more cash from overseas.

But spending 900 billion(borrowing more cash and increased taxes) to pay for this healthcare is ok. These same people would rather spend the 2.5 trillion and then spend another 900 billion to top it off.

OddManRush · September 9th, 2009, 03:37 PM

What part of the phrase "deficit financed" is giving you trouble mudfisher?

Also, Bush and the Republican Congress was the government. When you say that Bush saved the American people 2.11 Trillion and then say the government should have cut spending to compensate (for a deficit financed! tax cut), you're not thinking very clearly.

**mudfisher** · September 9th, 2009, 03:58 PM

No wonder I failed economics. My unionized econ teacher failed to indocrinate me properly. I guess his tenure saved him.

OddManRush · September 9th, 2009, 04:01 PM

Professors aren't unionized.

Vicarious · September 9th, 2009, 04:03 PM

We need another chart to show the cost of the Iran Iraq war--which should be laid onto the Republicans.

Going back to Reagan, the Pubs have run up huge bills on the deficit. The US never repaid the money lost when Reagan dereg'd the S&L industry. I think I recall that was a 200 to 400 billion F'up. That is, if they had KEPT the S&L rules in place, it would have saved the US taxpayer that much $.

Anyone interested can look up the details about the Keating 5, John McCain being one of them, and Jim Wright.

**PuckMonkey** · September 9th, 2009, 04:06 PM

I sense a moronic attempt at humor by way of cut-and-paste Photoshop imagery in the very near future of this thread...

**deaderhead** · September 9th, 2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OddManRush

Professors aren't unionized.

Could have fooled me!

Quote:

Is this a surprise to anybody else? Apparently college profs have it better because they’re unionized. As such, they’re paid more and enjoy better benefits than their peers at university. Plus, college instructors apparently aren’t under the same pressure to publish academic work.

Community College Professors Earn More Than University Professors