Another Liberal myth exposed: Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasurey

[Sallow]

You said it had been proven over and over. Where's the over and over proof?

Oh..you want me to fetch a crap load of links you will dismiss right away because they come from the New York Times..or CNN or some other reputable news source?

Screw that.

If you want me to do work..I want reward.

I find the links..and you put in your sig "Sallow is a genius". For a month.

Sound fair?

IOW, you can't provide proof and just made up shit.

Well take up my offer then.

Simple as that.

I find links..you change your sig.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before or after the bubble imploded?Ya people still remember what happened.

Palease.. these dummies think Clinton ran a surplus... you want rationality from them?

If proper accrual accounting is used, the deficit has grown enormously for decades.

Even if you jigger the numbers to some non-standard measure, Clinton's budgets from 98 to 2000 came closer to balance than anyone else's in the past 30 years.

Correct?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why would anyone want to increase revenue to the government?

To make it even bigger?

I thought you conservatives were against big government.

We don't mind increasing revenue through economic growth. Do try and keep up Mr. Math Wiz.

 

[Sallow]

Why would anyone want to increase revenue to the government?

To make it even bigger?

I thought you conservatives were against big government.

Basically yeah.

So this is a load of crapola.

 

[boedicca]

Oh..you want me to fetch a crap load of links you will dismiss right away because they come from the New York Times..or CNN or some other reputable news source?

Screw that.

If you want me to do work..I want reward.

I find the links..and you put in your sig "Sallow is a genius". For a month.

Sound fair?

IOW, you can't provide proof and just made up shit.

Well take up my offer then.

Simple as that.

I find links..you change your sig.

Here's a little story about that: No.

It's your responsibility to substantiate what you claim.

You promised to quit the board if I proved him wrong some time ago. And yet, here you are after I did. There is no point making deals with people who have proven themselves dishonorable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You left out 9/11 but of course the prospect of war didn't have any impact in the early Bush years, did it.

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

But don't let that get in the way of your Fabian Socialist agenda.

Why are you slicing out one small set of numbers? Why are you excluding 2003 and 2008 from those numbers?

You also had 1.1 trillion in deficit spending over that time. How much tax revenue was that deficit spending responsible for creating???

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Palease.. these dummies think Clinton ran a surplus... you want rationality from them?

If proper accrual accounting is used, the deficit has grown enormously for decades.

Even if you jigger the numbers to some non-standard measure, Clinton's budgets from 98 to 2000 came closer to balance than anyone else's in the past 30 years.

Correct?

No. While yes, he ran a $17 billion deficit in 1999, in 2000 he ran a $133 billion deficit. And, he left a $5.8 trillion debt. Not to mention that most of the gains he made were at the expense of the military and through accounting tricks whereby he raided SS and other governmental funds rather than through public debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would anyone want to increase revenue to the government?

To make it even bigger?

I thought you conservatives were against big government.

We don't mind increasing revenue through economic growth. Do try and keep up Mr. Math Wiz.

Tax revenue as a percent of GDP has fallen under the Bush tax cuts. So, no, the Bush tax cuts are not increasing revenue through economic growth.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

But don't let that get in the way of your Fabian Socialist agenda.

Why are you slicing out one small set of numbers? Why are you excluding 2003 and 2008 from those numbers?

You also had 1.1 trillion in deficit spending over that time. How much tax revenue was that deficit spending responsible for creating???

This from the guy who takes one year and uses that as a basis for the premise that tax cuts cut revenue? Just pointing out that you are wrong.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Using Fabian Socialist math... tax rates at some point will reach 100%... because their answer is to always increase the rate of taxation.

 

[Sallow]

IOW, you can't provide proof and just made up shit.

Well take up my offer then.

Simple as that.

I find links..you change your sig.

Here's a little story about that: No.

It's your responsibility to substantiate what you claim.

You promised to quit the board if I proved him wrong some time ago. And yet, here you are after I did. There is no point making deals with people who have proven themselves dishonorable.

I never ever made such a promise. Now you are lying.

 

[Toro]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

It's staggering that so many Republicans believe this fairy tale. It is a perfect example of confirmation bias. GOP economists certainly don't believe its true.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html

Bruce Bartlett, former economist in the Reagan administration, explains how wrong Republicans are when arguing that cutting income taxes increases government revenues.

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”​

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.

Republicans also assert that the tax cuts of the George W. Bush years paid for themselves. On July 13, 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that there was no net revenue loss from any of the Bush tax cuts, in defense of an earlier comment by Senator John Kyl that all spending increases must be offset so as not to increase the deficit, but tax cuts need never be offset. Said McConnell:

“There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
​

This is a view not shared by economists who worked for Bush. For example, Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.” Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, also told the Post, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.” On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:

“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”

The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

● A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the actual revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

● In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the CEA during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in taxes on capital at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

● A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

As you can see, total and per capita income tax revenues adjusted for inflation were lower in 2008 than they were at the end of 2001.

tax.com: Tax Revenues: Awful, Any Way You Look at the Numbers

 

[JRK]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

This all false, fallacious, and misleading.

Revenues peaked in 2000, at just over 2 trillion dollars.

Bush revenues never reached 2 trillion dollars until 2005.

Bush deficits, however, totaled 1.2 trillion from 2002 thru 2005.

The loss of revenues from Bush's tax cuts prevented the natural increases in tax revenues - that occur when the economy is growing - from from keeping up with the government spending that was also increasing.

Historical Tables | The White House

No-one has denied that the deficit went up
no-one
If you read the link it goes into detail why

 

[JRK]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

It's staggering that so many Republicans believe this fairy tale. It is a perfect example of confirmation bias. GOP economists certainly don't believe its true.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html

Bruce Bartlett, former economist in the Reagan administration, explains how wrong Republicans are when arguing that cutting income taxes increases government revenues.

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”​

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.

Republicans also assert that the tax cuts of the George W. Bush years paid for themselves. On July 13, 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that there was no net revenue loss from any of the Bush tax cuts, in defense of an earlier comment by Senator John Kyl that all spending increases must be offset so as not to increase the deficit, but tax cuts need never be offset. Said McConnell:

“There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
​

This is a view not shared by economists who worked for Bush. For example, Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.” Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, also told the Post, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.” On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:

“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”

The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

● A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the actual revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

● In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the CEA during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in taxes on capital at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

● A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

As you can see, total and per capita income tax revenues adjusted for inflation were lower in 2008 than they were at the end of 2001.

tax.com: Tax Revenues: Awful, Any Way You Look at the Numbers

Thats income tax
it does not include all taxes
the link is accurate
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

 

[JRK]

Ryan Dwyer is a Washington lawyer and a fellow with the National Review Institute.

1. $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007,

2. median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

3. Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts

4. tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

5. income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.

6. the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax

So....you don't like the messenger, but have found no error in the message?


Sounds kind of intellectually lazy at best.
Is that the methodology taught to Liberals?

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008

‘US’ Chamber Of Commerce Hosts Seminars With Chinese Gov Officials To Teach American Firms How To Outsource

U.S. Chamber of Commerce - gives to Republicans more than 9 to 1 over Democrats

Trade you links.

your link means nothing
you know how to stop jobs going to china?
stop buying things built in china
thats not anyones fault but the ones who are buying it

and your chamber link?
there pro business

 

[JRK]

That's been proven wrong over and over.

What causes expansion is demand.

Links?

Links to what?

Simple economics?

no to the truth

 

[Rozman]

Death panels

Obamas a muslim

Obamas a socialist

Obama was born in Kenya

Obamas going to take away your guns

There is a short list of lies the right panders in and the right laps up.

Lies are a favorite tactic of the right

The Republicans wanna kill Medicare and take away Social Security....
Lies the left throw out and their followers lap up....

 

[Sallow]

Links?

Links to what?

Simple economics?

no to the truth

The truth?

Every single time the conservatives get a leading role in the US government..the US economy suffers some economic disaster.

And I am not talking about moderates..like Eisenhower..I am talking batshit crazy types like Coolidge, Hoover, Reagan and George W Bush.

 

[Toro]

Thats income tax
it does not include all taxes
the link is accurate
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

By some estimates, nearly half of the jobs created in the last decade were attributable to the Housing Bubble. You are implicitly arguing that Bush is responsible for the Housing Bubble and the Financial Crisis, an argument that I wouldn't make. But even then, job growth coming out of the last recession was the weakest since WWII, at least until this recession.

Cutting capital gains and dividend taxes help a bit on the margin but stocks have done better under Obama than they did under Bush (heck the Venezuelan stock market did better under Chavez than the American stock market under Bush), and Obama has raised taxes and is raising the maximum capital gains tax to 24%. By the estimates I've seen, Bush's capital gains tax cuts added 1 to 1.5 multiple points to the stock market, or about 5%-10% in total. So to attribute stock market gains to the cut in capital gains tax in the last decade is dubious at best.

 

[Sallow]

Death panels

Obamas a muslim

Obamas a socialist

Obama was born in Kenya

Obamas going to take away your guns

There is a short list of lies the right panders in and the right laps up.

Lies are a favorite tactic of the right

The Republicans wanna kill Medicare and take away Social Security....
Lies the left throw out and their followers lap up....

That's correct.

Completely changing a program and calling it the same thing..may provide you some cover..but camouflage only goes so far.