Bush Borrows Money for Tax Cuts to the Rich

Debt limit now at $9 Trillion!

Published on March 22, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

President Bush has repeated his insistence that his tax cuts be made permanent. At the very same time OMB has estimated that the deficit in 2006 will top $425 Billion after subtracting $175 Billion in Social Security and Medicare surplus. That means Bush intends to BORROW the money to continue his tax cuts! There is no money in the budget from which these tax cuts are being paid. They are adding to the annual budget deficit by reducing the federal tax revenue. WHO in their right mind would BORROW money, pay interest on that money to grant tax cuts to people THAT DO NOT NEED THE MONEY FRON THE TAX CUTS?

In 2001 Bush told us over the next ten years there was this $5.7 Trillion projected Surplus and the American taxpayer was being OVER TAXED. Since there NEVER was ANY surplus, WHY does he insist in borrowing money so he can continue his tax cuts to a group of people that DO NOT NEED THE ADDED MONEY? It is time for Congress to say NO to any further increase in the Debt Limit. As it now stands, Bush can drive the national debt up to $9 Trillion. It was $5.7 Trillion when he took office!

Comments

DJBandit

on Mar 22, 2006

I think your problem is that you didn't fall in that category of top tem and so you don't get that tax cut so it bothers you.

COL Gene

on Mar 22, 2006

I am not in the top 10% but what bothers me is why would we BORROW money to give people THAT DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT money? All of us will be paying the interest on that borrowed money so the Rich can get wealthier. WHY? There is NO surplus from which to pay the tax cuts. Every dollar in tax cuts adds to the annual budget deficit.

DJBandit

on Mar 22, 2006

You actually took me serious? Look, I actually agree with you that this money will have to come from somewhere and that we will be paying it in the future.

COL Gene

on Mar 22, 2006

Thank You. Why do Congress and our MBA President not understand this? I too have an MBA and I wonder what Harvard was teaching their students.

on Mar 22, 2006

I guess it's a reward for voting him in office.

I agree to this. Do tax cuts only when there's an actual lot of surplus.

DJBandit

on Mar 22, 2006

Thank You. Why do Congress and our MBA President not understand this? I too have an MBA and I wonder what Harvard was teaching their students.

I can understand your position, but you already know the answer to this question. Everyone knows that those in Gov't positions are in it for their own benefit. I guess I wouldn't mind having a change in the White House, but we need someone better suited for both bringing the country back to its feet and fighting the terrorist, the problem is one can't be ignored for the other, that is why 9/11 happened. They both must share priority 1. So far the Democrats have yet to show anyone compentent enough to do either let alone both and tyhe Republicans have Bush for now which can handle at least one of the 2 issues for now.

I do, however, believe you should focus your acusations on more than just Bush. there are plenty of people to point fingures and blame as well, that is why you come across as a Bush basher and a Bush hater. You shift blame from thsoe who made the mistakes to the one funding them.

Would you blame, say, the Coca Cola company if you bought a soda in Burger King and it got you sick? Get my point? If you wanna take down those who are doing this country wrong try taking down those more directly responsible for doing the mistake and then pin that on Bush, not skip the shooter and go straight for the Gun Company.

garsgolfer

on Mar 22, 2006

He's borrowing money for a number of reasons, biggest is to support medicare and SS issues, followed by all the give away social and state programs, all the monies for relief in the SE, and Ithe war on terrorism. He's not doing the spending, it's congress and states demanding more and more based on their own priorities, regardless of established expenses. Plus, the President has to accept a variety of unwanted costly bill riders which run up the ante to get bills through.

COL, do me a favor, please attempt studying P&L statements so you have an idea what's going on, party affiliation aside. By the way, having an MBA doesn't qualify anybody to understand P&L statements, nor apply what's learned from them. I know this because I've hired a number of MBA's over the years.

COL Gene

on Mar 22, 2006

You are correct. Having and MBA does not in itself assure fiscal sanity. Bush has proven that. In my career I have successfully managed large operations in both the private and public sectors. I know what it takes to manage a large organization for the long hall. The policies of spending far more then your income year after year is not by any measure proper or a policy that will do anything but create a fiscal crises in the future. If we as a nation have an apatite to spend we MUST be willing to pay for that spending by generating tax revenue equal to the level of spending. We can not cut the federal revenue while at the same time increasing our spending. That is what Reagan did starting in 1981 and he added $3 trillion in debt. That was followed by another $1.7 Trillion during Bush 41 and the first 7 years of Clinton. Not until 2000 did we have a balanced budget WITHOUT counting the Social Security and Medicare Surplus. Starting in 2001, we returned to the same policy of cutting Federal Tax revenue while increasing spending. That has taken us from a $5.7 Trillion debt to $8.3 Trillion today and heading for $10 Trillion by the end of 2008 per the OMB budget projections.

The stated policy of Bush is only to cut the annual budget deficit in half by the end of his term. Even if he succeeded in his stated objective that will still mean we are running an annual deficit of $200 Plus Billion on top of the $10 Trillion national debt. That will require an annual interest payment of about $500 Billion EVERY year until we pay down the debt. WE can not pay down the debt if we have not even balanced the budget under the Bush policy. We need the majority of BOTH houses of Congress and the President to first BALANCE the BUDGET and then begin generating a SURPLUS that is applied directly to paying down the National Debt. At $200 Billion Surplus per year that would take 30 years to repay the current National Debt. In 2006 without reducing the annual budget debt by Social Security and Medicare we are about $600 Billion out of balance. To generate another $200 Billion to begin repaying the debt would mean we would need to have a combination of spending cuts and added federal revenue of $800 Billion per YEAR! Every year we allow the National debt to pile up we make our problem worse both in terms of the annual interest we MUST pay on the growing debt plus the eventual repayment of an ever increasing National Debt! Bush is the one pushing to make his tax cuts permanent which according to t a study completed by the Brookings Institute add yet another $2.4 Trillion in debt by 2014. THAT MAKES NO FISCAL SENSE!!!!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!