Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Uncle Steny Blames Bush

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gives fresh ammunition to supporters and opponents of the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush.

The CBO document released Thursday said a short-term extension of the Bush-era tax breaks would boost GDP and cut unemployment, but warned that continuing them for too long would wreak havoc on the economy.

All of the Bush-era tax cuts are slated to expire in December, setting up a showdown this fall in Congress over which tax breaks should be extended.

According to the CBO, continuing the Bush tax cuts would help boost the gross domestic product 0.6 to 1.7 percentage points in 2011 and shave the national unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.8 percent.

Democratic leaders have long argued that extending the tax cuts would add to the federal deficit and depress the economy.

On the other side of the debate, Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, argue the tax cuts should be kept in place to help the economy recover.

Shortly after the CBO released its report, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) blasted Republicans for proposing to extend Bush policies that he claims failed to rescue the economy from a historically tough recession.

“As Democrats fight for fiscal discipline and a strong economy, Republicans are advocating for a return to the exact same agenda that created enormous deficits and drove our economy into the deepest recession in a generation,” he said in prepared remarks.

“Going back to the failed Bush policies of the past is not the right direction for our country,” Hoyer added.

[Note to Uncle Steny: This year's deficit under the Democrats is the largest in US history. Bush was out riding fences on his ranch. --Editor]

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday said extending all of the Bush tax breaks is crucial to job creation.

“By extending current tax rates, Congress could go a long way toward accomplishing what the administration has been trying to do for almost two years: create jobs,” he said in prepared remarks. “So far, the Obama administration has tried to create jobs by spending money on initiatives packaged as economic ‘stimulus.’ But that approach has not worked.”

Here is more

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

democrats fight for fiscal discipline is akin to OJ searching golf courses for Nicole's murderer.

Anonymous said...

pathetic

Unknown said...

No tax increases during a recession. No complaining about deficits during a recession, either.

Anonymous said...

Tax increases won't bring you out of a recession . Lowering taxes will spurn grown and create more tax paying business resulting in more revenue for government and more jobs for the unemployed .

Anonymous said...

11:15 Sure, because that worked so well under Bush.

ef said...

DEMOS and NEWs always mention, tax tax, tax,

they NEVER mention SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING!

there is the problem. you can only spend what you TAX. duh

Concerned Retiree said...

Dems have to blame someone. They don't want to talk about Freddie and Fannie. Their pet project that contributed severly to the Countries problem.

Anonymous said...

12:38

5% unemployment
4+% Growth in GDP
Stocks around 10,000

Yup, I'd say it worked pretty good under Bush

Now with the out of control spending, they blame Bush for budget deficits...priceless.

B.T.W. Look at the revenues to the government since the dumbocrats and Obama took over. Can't blame Bush for that!

Anonymous said...

12:38 It worked under Reagan and ran all the way through Clinton . Bush who had a record breaking economy after inheriting a recession, until Democrats took over Congress and it was down hill from there. Bush warned well in advanced of an impending collapse which fell on Democrat deaf ears !

Unknown said...

The meltdown of Lehman brothers and the other Wall St. banks began in Sept.08. Obama was inaugurated in late Jan. of 09. The TARP program of bailouts began at the end of W.s admin.
During W.s admin he began 2 wars in response to 911 and prescript. drug plan but cut taxes. This resulted in a 600 billion/year deficit as the meltdown began.
Obama has tried Keynesian economics, increasing the money supply and spending govt. money to get people working. Hasn't worked.
So Obama inherited it. Employment was good because of the housing boom, which went bust and began the thing.
I've begun to suspect we may be in for unemployment that lasts several years and deflation that the Fed will keep gradual by printing money and selling bonds. We may return to an economy with one major earner and one non earner or partime per household, with more austere lives.

Anonymous said...

The tarp program was passed after Obama won the election and Bush consulted Obama on it , putting the country before politics .The housing boom was a result of Clintons regulation of the banking industry forcing high risk loans proving government intrusion into the private sector is dangerous . You fail to give Bush's economy credit and condemning Pelosi and Reeds incompetence and failed over site . Democrats are good at pointing the finger not leadership !

Unknown said...

In 1995 Clinton, with a Republican majority Congress, gave Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac tax incentives to purchase 42% of their mortgage backed securities which contained loans to subprime borrowers. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005 under W.with a Republican majority Congress. Bush wanted an "ownership society". No one "forced" anything.
Both parties participated in this. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had been privatized in 1965 under Johnson with a Democrat majority congress.
Bush's economy exchanged a tech bubble under Clinton for a housing bubble under W.
The finger is being pointed at the Democrats when both parties, private enterprise, and private citizens are to blame.
I have read Too Big To Fail, Confessions of a Subprime Lender, The Big Short, and other books about this.
Other than Fox news, cite your sources, please.

Anonymous said...

Bill said...
The meltdown of Lehman brothers and the other Wall St. banks began in Sept.08. Obama was inaugurated in late Jan. of 09. The TARP program of bailouts began at the end of W.s admin.
During W.s admin he began 2 wars in response to 911 and prescript. drug plan but cut taxes. This resulted in a 600 billion/year deficit as the meltdown began.
Obama has tried Keynesian economics, increasing the money supply and spending govt. money to get people working. Hasn't worked.
So Obama inherited it. Employment was good because of the housing boom, which went bust and began the thing.
I've begun to suspect we may be in for unemployment that lasts several years and deflation that the Fed will keep gradual by printing money and selling bonds. We may return to an economy with one major earner and one non earner or partime per household, with more austere lives.


Hey genius who has it all figured out maybe give Obama a heads up so he knows what the hell is going on....if they havent figured it out neither have you.

Anonymous said...

Bill said...
In 1995 Clinton, with a Republican majority Congress, gave Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac tax incentives to purchase 42% of their mortgage backed securities which contained loans to subprime borrowers. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005 under W.with a Republican majority Congress. Bush wanted an "ownership society". No one "forced" anything.
Both parties participated in this. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had been privatized in 1965 under Johnson with a Democrat majority congress.
Bush's economy exchanged a tech bubble under Clinton for a housing bubble under W.
The finger is being pointed at the Democrats when both parties, private enterprise, and private citizens are to blame.
I have read Too Big To Fail, Confessions of a Subprime Lender, The Big Short, and other books about this.
Other than Fox news, cite your sources, please.

Hey Bill this isnt class bud unles syour paying me money I will write what I please.

Anonymous said...

And BTW does it make you an expert because you have read 3 books...