A promise?

[sburnsey931]

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And why would the President and his party do this?Ask yourself that.

Btw you re-enforce my point.Your statement:"They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%."

To all reading notice sburnsey used these words:raised everyones SS payroll tax.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

All of the so called Bush tax cuts were temporary also. They were never "intended" to be permanent either. The President had to extend the during his first term. They were made permanent at the insistance of the President and the Democratic Party. They chose to not include the SS 2% in the legislation. They chose to let it expire and raised everyones SS payroll tax from 4.2% to 6.2%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush and the Republicans wanted his tax cuts to be permanent, they had to agree to the Democrats' insistence on a sunset expiration in order to get them passed. Giving Obama and the Democrat Party credit for making them permanent is a twist. It wasn't as if Republicans opposed Obama and the Democrats allowing them to be extended during his first term--the Republicans were absolutely in favor of extending them. They were the ones who originally created them and wanted them originally to be permanent, against the wishes of the Democrats. That the Democrats agreed to extend them testifies to how important the tax cuts were to prevent economic decline, and makes apparent the lie that they were the cause of the recession.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Bush and the Republicans wanted his tax cuts to be permanent, they had to agree to the Democrats' insistence on a sunset expiration in order to get them passed. Giving Obama and the Democrat Party credit for making them permanent is a twist. It wasn't as if Republicans opposed Obama and the Democrats allowing them to be extended during his first term--the Republicans were absolutely in favor of extending them. They were the ones who originally created them and wanted them originally to be permanent, against the wishes of the Democrats. That the Democrats agreed to extend them testifies to how important the tax cuts were to prevent economic decline, and makes apparent the lie that they were the cause of the recession.

The reason for the 10 year sunset was to keep the net cost projection artificially low in an effort to gain support...that's the white elephant in the room...the Bush tax cuts were with borrowed money in an effort to create long-term growth. Instead we got two wars and a credit bubble.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The reason for the 10 year sunset was to keep the net cost projection artificially low in an effort to gain support...that's the white elephant in the room...the Bush tax cuts were with borrowed money in an effort to create long-term growth. Instead we got two wars and a credit bubble.

-spence

Right, "in an effort to gain support." The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts. They have apparently changed their minds. The Repubs, in spite of the sunset provision wanted the cuts to be permanent and avoided the "Byrd rule" by sunsetting them. They assumed that nobody would have the courage to let them expire when the sunset provision came due. It appears they were right. But politics, being the game that it is, allows the Dems to get "credit" for making them permanent on 99.4% of the tax paying public. But those are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes, so the revenue impact by raising the taxes on the "rich" is insignificant. But it makes the Dems look like Robin Hood in the eyes of the half-blind public.

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

that was a beauty wasn't it?...yikes.....

I don't think anyone has suggested that tax cuts alone "do" work ...except for Spence setting up yet another straw man...beyond meaningful spending reductions which are almost always included in discussions of tax cuts but are seldom included in the final conclusion except as down the road intentions, tax cuts are the last and probably best way to starve the beast and to try to keep money in the private sector where it can grow the economy rather than growing the governement bureaucracy....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?

Well played, sir. And I see that as usual, Spence chose to ignore this, and he refused to address your obviously salient point.

Log on, lob a few insults, log off and hide.

Those tax cuts are now the "Obama tax cuts".