BushAllen Tax Cuts: "99% of Americans are Net Losers"

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/12/2006 7:17:53 PM

According to a June 2006 study Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), "99% of Americans Are Net Losers Under Bush Tax and Spending Policies."  We might as well say "BushAllen," since Allen votes with Bush 97% of the time.  Wonderful, huh?

By the way, for those of you not familiar with CTJ, the group stands for such "radical" notions as:

* "Fair taxes for middle and low-income families"
* "Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share"
* "Closing corporate tax loopholes"
* "Adequately funding important government services"
* "Reducing the federal debt"
* "Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets"

In other words, CTJ's goals sound a lot like what Jim Webb has proposed and a lot like what BushAllen vehemently oppose. That is, fiscally responsible policies that balance the budget and provide tax relief to those who MOST need it, not to those who LEAST need it!
Read the entire report here, but the bottom line is this:

From 2001 to 2006, the typical middle income American has received a tax cut totaling $1,855 per family member. But that familyGÇÖs share of the added national debt burden is $8,936 per person.

This means that the net impact of the Bush fiscal policies on the middle 20 percent is an added burden of $7,081 per AmericanGÇöor $28,322 for a family of four.

[...]

Put another way, if youGÇÖre among the 99 percent of Americans who lose, then for every $1.00 in tax cuts the federal government has given you over the past six years, youGÇÖre left holding a bill for $3.74.

That's right, thanks to George Bush and George Allen, unless you make more than $1.2 million per year, you're in debt to the tune of an extra $3.74 for every $1.00 you get back because of the BushAllen tax "cuts."  If you make a million a year, you're doing great under BushAllen economics.

The bottom line is that, by running up massive amounts of debt and by making the tax code far more regressive, Bush and Allen have de facto imposed a huge new tax on almost all Americans - not to mention their children!  And for what reason?  Simply to enrich the already rich, in a bizarre, reverse Robin Hood scheme to steal from the poor (and middle class) and give to the ultra-rich.  If that's not "class warfare," I don't know what is - no matter how many lies George Allen tells you on this subject.

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.


Comments



WSJ Poll: Economists want Dems to Win (PM - 10/12/2006 7:25:38 PM)
October 12, 2006, 1:59 pm
Dem Control Might Help Economy, WSJ.com Survey Finds
Democrats wins in November might boost the economy, economist in the latest WSJ.com economists survey found.

Most economists said the economy would perform best in the coming years if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress.

http://blogs.wsj.com...


They love gridlock. (va.walter - 10/13/2006 8:56:44 AM)


I don't understand the American people (TurnVirginiaBlue - 10/12/2006 8:04:59 PM)
This was known in 2004 that the "tax cuts" didn't help 99% of the population.

Why, o why can't people figure it out?

But, I'm noticing that still to this day I see some social conservatives believing that the tax cuts were great and now even claiming "there have been poor since the beginning of time".  My response to this is, don't you realize you are poor?  That living in a trailer park is not the American dream?  That having to declare bankruptcy multiple times is not normal?

I shake my head!



Conservative parody of Fiscal Conservatism (JPTERP - 10/12/2006 10:23:56 PM)
What I find equally astounding is that many so-called conservatives reduce "Fiscal Conservatism" to simply having "tax cuts."

Of course there's the other side of "fiscal conservatism" which involves "spending restraint".  If you're a fiscal conservative you don't champion no bid contracts and you don't run up a $5 trillion dollar debt in the span of just 6 years.  You especially don't do this at the expense of the middle and working classes. 

Here's a nice 26 page run-down of newspaper editorials concerning tax-cut and spend Republicanism . . .

http://www.senate.go...



Even Some Conservatives are Fed Up (Catzmaw - 10/13/2006 12:12:55 AM)
Andrew Sullivan, conservative who runs a web site, was on Larry King tonight talking about the borrow and spend mess we're in and saying the current crop of Republicans is violating every cherished notion of fiscal conservatism.  Someone should try to get it onto Youtube.  I was listening on the radio and don't get most cable, so don't look at me.


Richard Vigurie (sp) (Newport News Dem - 10/13/2006 10:39:17 AM)
was on The Al Franken Show wanting the Democrats to win big this November.

His reasoning is only by purging these neocon bastards (my word)will the GOP return to its true conservative roots.



Tax cuts (libra - 10/12/2006 11:06:22 PM)
"I don't understand the American people  (4.00 / 2)
This was known in 2004 that the "tax cuts" didn't help 99% of the population.

Why, o why can't people figure it out?" -- TurnVirginiaBlue

Simple :)

What we *knew*, was that Bush's (and, in extensio, Allen's) tax cuts profited the top one percent (1%) of the US population.

a)I'm bad at math, but Republigoons are worse; I doubt they even know that 100% is the whole pie, and that 99+1=100
b) Krugman (at NYTimes) may have been pounding the 1% message for 2 yrs, but 1% isn't as eye-catching as 99% and nobody -- not even Krugman -- ever bothered to "look at clouds from both sides now". We didn't, because it seemed obvious that, if only 1% profited, 99% *had to be loosers, by default. The Republigoons didn't, because... Take your pick of many, many reasons (math isn't my strong suit. Why should I bother counting; I left school years ago and have never been happier. The Preznit *said* it was good for me, and he's a cute guy I'd like to have a beer with. Taxes are bad, so it stands to reason that cutting taxes is good. Etc, et bloody caetera...) :)



We know that Allen is bad at math... (Loudoun County Dem - 10/13/2006 9:13:39 AM)
...when he was supposed to ask A SINGLE question to Jim Webb he didn't know the difference between 1 and 2... Allen apparently can't tell time either...


George Allen and George Bush: Two rotten apples (vote-left - 10/12/2006 11:07:34 PM)
George Allen and George Bush: Two rotten apples

When you speak of Bush, you pretty much have to speak of Allen, since Allen has voted with the Bush agenda 95-99 percent of the time, depending on the source you read.

So, while Bush and Allen publicly claim our economy is just humming along, how many Americans know that when Bush was elected, 17 percent of American children were living in poverty, but today 18.5 percent of our children live in poverty?

The U.S. now has more children living in poverty than any developed nation in the world. That is the Bush-Allen legacy.

The war in Iraq has been a convenient smoke screen for Bush and Allen while they carry out their elitist agenda.

Federal spending on education is at a decade low, all while Bush brags about his commitment to education.

Our federal deficit is higher than any intelligent American would've believed it could be.



Wes Clark in 2004 (Newport News Dem - 10/13/2006 12:51:28 PM)
proposed an overhaul of the tax code that provided the first $50,000 of income free from income taxes. Other areas were changed to reflect a revenue neutral proposal.

That is the kind of tax policy that makes sense. Jim should polish off this type of plan and present it! It would take the Allen lie and shove it right past his soft teeth and down his lying whining throat.