George W. Bush: Wealth Redistributionist

July 20, 2009

What is it with this whole ‘Obama the redistributionist’ meme?  It’s ridiculous.

It was George W. Bush who redistributed wealth with his tax cuts.  He took money from lower and middle income families and gave it to the most wealthy (we ALL will have to pay for the 2 trillion we have been borrowing to cover the hole).

And for what?  Nothing was gained from it: The perceived prosperity of the Bush years turned out to be a series of dangerous bubbles (proof positive, in fact, that trickle-down is a hoax).

I understand poor Republicans enjoy handing their money to wealthy Republicans.  More power to them.  But why should the rest of us?

In fact, ideally we should now increase their taxes as much as Bush cut them, for the next eight years, so THEY pay back the debt.

That’s 44% for incomes over  373K.  How about it?

3 Responses to “George W. Bush: Wealth Redistributionist”

  1. still thinking of one Says:

    Tax cuts cannot be redistributive by definition. Every penny earned by an individual inherently belongs to that individual. The combination of taxes and spending are then used to redistribute the wealth (taking money(taxes) from some and giving(spending) money to others). If you want to make a case that Bush’s spending was redistributing wealth from middle class to rich (the poor pay no federal income taxes) then go ahead. The biggest wealth redistribution I’ve seen in my life is the bailout nation started by Bush and continued merely under Obama. The cost of that has already passed 2T. The redistribution cycle is not complete, though until somebody pays for it and I’ll be damned if that’s going to be me. If Mr.Obama continues to finger me and my fellow upper middle class persons as sacrificial lambs, I’ll go work for Goldman Sacks and steal my money back and then some.

  2. maristi Says:

    Whether progressive marginal rates amount to redistribution or simply smoothing out the impact of taxation is a separate discussion.

    My point is that Bush tax cuts changed whatever formula was in effect at the time, to the benefit of a few. And because every $1 in tax cuts resulted in $1 of borrowing, we will have to pay it back with taxes levied on ALL of us.

    We disagree on whether the bailout was necessary, so I won’t even go there. But I do think the final cost will be more like 1T+, after dividends and warrants come in (if we don’t let them steal it).

    Also let’s keep some perspective: Money spent on crisis is only 20% of debt. Obama’s stimulus and TARP about 10%. The rest is all Bush or Reagan:

    Balance on Bush start: 5.7T
    Senior Prescription Drugs: 1T
    Wars: 2T
    Tax Cuts for wealthy: 2T
    Corporation taxbreaks and loopholes: ~0.5T
    Revenue shortfall during crisis (due to gross mismanagement): ~1T so far???

  3. still thinking of one Says:

    Yes, let’s keep things in perspective: Reagan’s recession was more severe than the current one(at least so far) in terms of both the GDP decline and rate of unemployment. Reagan increased the debt in his first term by 0.65T. Translated to today’s dollars that’s 1.38T. That’s over 4 years. Obama is going to hit that number before end of his 1st year. You can blame it on ‘revenue shortfall’, of course. Of course, the last 2 years Democrats had control of Congress and thus the budget and the 700B ‘stimulus’ is new spending, not ‘shortfall’. At any rate this debate is pointless. I view money I earn as my money, strange as it may seem to some, and I will do everything in my power to protect it from whatever idiot happens to be in charge of the government at any particular point of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: