Economists Predict Consequences of Bush Tax Cuts - Republicans Learn Nothing

Even though 450 prominent economists including 10 Nobel prize winning economists published a public statement opposing the 2003 Bush tax cuts during the debate AND accurately predicted the consequences of doing so, we still have the crazy Republican Party trying to keep them in place for those who benefited most from this failed policy. Someone please tell me which one of these consequences of the Bush tax cuts didn't come true.

1) ...will increase inequality (Check)
2) ...and the budget deficit (Check)
3) ... decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services (Check)
4)... while failing to produce economic growth (Check)

Economists’ Statement Opposing The Bush Tax Cuts

The Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

 

"Republicans Learn Nothing" is being considered for "Understatement of the Year."

THAT said, I question whether or not the leaders of the Wrong believed the cuts for the wealthy would actually help the economy, and/or America in general. I'm guessing they actually do believe their ideas work, which makes it more a pathological problem than an intentional deception.

It seems to me that their repeatedly stated goals of lowering taxes (and NEVER raising them) and driving the "leeches" off of public assistance programs (programs that use "their (the Wrong's) money", taken inappropriately through taxes) is working.

To them, this should be a victory, but apparently taxes are still too high and there are still too many "leeches" using public assistance programs, so the "struggle" to make America "prosperous for all" continues without any celebration for the victories they've already achieved.

In short: They lie so much they believe themselves.

 

I love that one response to "Why did you vote for Obama?" "Because he is black."

 

Yes, Americans as characterized by the Right are the laziest slobs in the world except they can't quite explain why the American workers continue to be ranked number 1 in productivity even while they have watched their wages plummet. Hum?



View attachment 995 View attachment 996

 

Ummm, the "Bush Tax Cuts" expired, didn't they?

 

We have tweedle-dumb's take now.

View attachment 997

 

Obama tax cuts will expire soon, won't they?

 

And now we have Tweedle-Dee.
View attachment 998

 

You guys are so partisan stupid that I can't figure out how your autonomic nervous system keeps functioning without your constant mental attention.
Let me play your silly musical chair blame game for a moment. During the 2010 budget fight Republicans in congress insisted that the tax cuts be extended or they would cut off unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed people during the worst recession since The Great Depression and just before Christmas. So wouldn't those tax cuts be the Bush tax cuts and the Republican congress' tax cuts? Isn't that the game you idiots play? You either blame the Democrats in the White House or if there is a Republican in the White House, you blame the Democrats in congress. At least in this case you have the Republicans in congress on record as holding a gun to the heads of the unemployed unless the tax cuts were extended. So go ahead and be as partisan stupid as you want, you only lie to and fool yourselves. The rest of us just aren't that dumb.

 

Considering that the Democrats had the majority Senate and the presidency, why would any bill passed both houses and signed by Obama be considered anything other than a Democratic bill? After all, they had 2/3 say in the matter.

 

Yep. Racists like him who would vote for someone based on skin color certainly demonstrate that racism is very much alive, thriving and practiced by the Left. It's ugly and disgusting, but it's one of the terrible truths of the liberal mentality.

 

And yet you don't trust minorities to determine who they think the racist political party is in this country. Interesting.

 

You would not care to really think about that, would you?

 

Define "minorities", please.

 

I bet the economists were talking about the whole tax plan, not just the 20% of it that the left doesn't like. The whole thing was a bad idea then when it was supposed to expire and it is an even worse idea now that it keeps getting extended and is on the verge of being made permanent. And I am talking about all of it, not just the 20% the left wants to eliminate.

 

Bite me please....

 

Do you count Republicans as "minorities". They are, you know...

 

Why not Caucasian males. They are a minority also.

 

He conveniently avoided this one, didn't he? Hmmm....