Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again, and in lay mens terms, what is specifically "false, fallacious, and misleading" about the OP?
Take as much time as you need, re-writing history is a arduous task...
The. claim. that. the. Bush. tax. cuts. CAUSED. increased. revenues.
I knew you couldn't do it, thanks for making my point, it so easy when all you do is banter about your talking points....
Let me know if you require proof.
See you dont like facts
There is a difference between subjective opinions on estimates and facts.
Let me know if you require proof.
If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.
Bush came in office riding the wave aof a Clinton surplus economy and left us with a destroyed economy. Anyone that thinks the Bush Tax cuts added to the revenue is ignorant. There might have been some short term benefit from the very liitle tax cuts to the working class but the net rusult is 55% of the national debt is from the Bush Tax cuts. And your stats,assuming they are true, don't prove your point.
"... wave aof a Clinton surplus economy ..."
Clinton presidency resulted in a 41% increase in the national debt.
It was the 1983 Reagan-Greenspan Social Security commission that provided a "lock box" the Clinton raided to perpetuate the fraud.
Let me know if you require proof.
Let me know if you require proof.
If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.
maybe we should stop treating the cbo like an all-knowing entity.
The. claim. that. the. Bush. tax. cuts. CAUSED. increased. revenues.
I knew you couldn't do it, thanks for making my point, it so easy when all you do is banter about your talking points....
Nothing in the OP or anything subsequent proved that Bush's tax cuts caused revenue increases,
therefore the thread title and the OP's claim are a lie, or wrong, or false, or ignorant, or misleading, or inaccurate, or unsubstantiated, or, ironically,
mythological.
Take your pick.
I knew you couldn't do it, thanks for making my point, it so easy when all you do is banter about your talking points....
Nothing in the OP or anything subsequent proved that Bush's tax cuts caused revenue increases,
therefore the thread title and the OP's claim are a lie, or wrong, or false, or ignorant, or misleading, or inaccurate, or unsubstantiated, or, ironically,
mythological.
Take your pick.
Stay in denial, the facts are in black & white, it does not matter to me, all you have provided is that you would argue with a fence post....
If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.
maybe we should stop treating the cbo like an all-knowing entity.
Never said they were all-knowing. Just pointing out that Bush was handed one of the rosiest scenarios ever for a President, and look what we got.
Nothing in the OP or anything subsequent proved that Bush's tax cuts caused revenue increases,
therefore the thread title and the OP's claim are a lie, or wrong, or false, or ignorant, or misleading, or inaccurate, or unsubstantiated, or, ironically,
mythological.
Take your pick.
Stay in denial, the facts are in black & white, it does not matter to me, all you have provided is that you would argue with a fence post....
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Look it up.
During the first year of Bush's term, the economy was hit with a double whammy. The first began in Clinton's last year; the second was a result of Clinton's bungling of national security.
Nothing in the OP or anything subsequent proved that Bush's tax cuts caused revenue increases,
therefore the thread title and the OP's claim are a lie, or wrong, or false, or ignorant, or misleading, or inaccurate, or unsubstantiated, or, ironically,
mythological.
Take your pick.
Stay in denial, the facts are in black & white, it does not matter to me, all you have provided is that you would argue with a fence post....
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Look it up.
Stay in denial, the facts are in black & white
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?
Naw.
Sounds pretty paltry.
Considering the Clinton Administration added over 30 million jobs.
I wonder what life would have been like without the tax cuts.
yet the economy wasn't nearly as bad then as it's been since a bunch of moonbats were elected in 2006
Stay in denial, the facts are in black & white
In 2001, Bush cut taxes and tax receipts went down.
In 2002, Bush cut taxes and tax receipts went down.
In 2003, Bush cut taxes and tax receipts went down.
In 2004, Bush did not cut taxes and tax receipts went up.
In 2005, Bush did not cut taxes and tax receipts went up.
In 2006, Bush did not cut taxes and tax receipts went up.
Facts. Black and white.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
According to your logic, really lack of, the Stock Market Crash of 2000 and 9/11 had no detrimental effects on anyone, much less policy makers.
yet the economy wasn't nearly as bad then as it's been since a bunch of moonbats were elected in 2006
I love this claim. I still have yet to see anyone point to what the Dems did in 2007, that Bush signed into law, that caused the financial crisis. But yeah, I love the claim.
Too funny.
According to your logic, really lack of, the Stock Market Crash of 2000 and 9/11 had no detrimental effects on anyone, much less policy makers.
I never said that. Didn't even hint to it. Why don't you want to talk about the issue?
The economy slowed in late 2000 and went negative in 2001 twice, but not consecutively, therefore, no recession. The 9/11 attacks obviously had an impact, but even you agree we were growing again in 2002.
So if the economy was growing, even slowly, why did tax receipts go down in 2002 and then go down AGAIN in 2003? You can't argue that they didn't go down, so if you think it was NOT due to Bush's actions, then what caused the decline?
During the first year of Bush's term, the economy was hit with a double whammy. The first began in Clinton's last year; the second was a result of Clinton's bungling of national security.
Factually incorrect on both counts. But regardless, that does not explain why it took 5 years for tax receipts to reach the levels they were in 2000.
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.
