What, exactly were the Bush Tax Cuts supposed to accomplish?

Question

In May of 2003 the so called Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to usher in a new period of economic growth. Primarily the argument back then was, if you cut taxes for the rich they will create more jobs. Wel that was a pretty good idea.

In Jan 2001, unemployment was at 4.2%, and in May of 2003 it had climbed to 6.1%. After the tax cut, it took FOUR years, but the unemployment rate climbed down to 4.4%. Now however, the unemployment rate has climbed back to 5.5% and is projected to hit 6% by the end of the year.

In January of 2001, we had a budget surplus. This is significant because it was the FIRST time that the US had a surplus in a long long time. When Clinton took office, the Budget deficit was approximately 68% of the GNP, and through the "Pay as You Go" program that his administration implemented the budget deficit was reduced to approximately 58% of the GNP. Since GWB took office, and the tax cuts became effective the budget deficit has again risen to almost 70% of the GNP.

Answer 1

The economy was doing great when Bush took office, and he should have left well enough alone.  He caved in to the far right elements of his party and gave our country away to special interests - namely big agribusiness and defense.

The result was the bankrupting of the Federal Treasury, which had just been balanced for the first time EVER since World War II, and now we are having the resulting inflation and bank failures.

Thanks a lot, you vacuuous moron.

Answer 2

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to free assets from citizens so that they could either consume more or invest more (consumption could be considered investment as well).  Increased investment typically leads to increased growth, and therefore more jobs.  Unfortunately the housing market collapsed, that represents a lot of lost investment, pretty much nullifying any gains that Bush's economic plans could have created.  Note that regardless of which economic model or who was serving in office, the collapse of the housing industry was bound to spell doom for the economy.

In January of 2001 we had a PROJECTED budget surplus assuming spending would stay the same, rate of taxation would stay the same, and no major problems would happen.  The US treasury has not been in the black for over a century.

Answer 3

Exactly what they did accomplish: leave more of folks' earned income in THEIR pockets instead of in the pockets of our betters in Washington, D.C.

You know, not to make too fine a point here, but you can always GIVE more money to the US Treasury than you owe; they WILL accept it. So, for those of you who feel your taxes are not high enough, feel free to contribute to Uncle Sam just like you would the charity of your choice. It won't be tax deductible, though!

Hugs 'n Kisses!!! '08

Answer 4

To give back to Americans some money that was stolen from them by the gov't.   Machiavelli would be proud.

Answer 5

You forgot that the projected deficit does not include several minor little things like the "war" in Iraq etc.  It was to keep the economy going.  That had about as much validity as Reagan's trickle down theory which didn't trickle down.

Answer 6

Well look what happened, they opened the borders hoping illegal immigrants would drive up big business profits, they cut taxes, declared war in 2 Middle Eastern countries (against the United Nations - war crime?), and the lit goes on. Did any of this have a positive impact on the economy? Maybe conservatives need to go back to the drawing board and figure out why your such intelligent ideas of free trade big business failed. I'm glad walmart owns almost 2% of this countries GDP, probably having more political and economic power than some states do now. We've destroyed this country and it's going to be a long haul to get back on track.