Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

[midcan5]

Another day, the same old failed ideas from the right wingnuts...aaaaggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


The rich get rich because of their merit.


Reagan raised taxes.

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

 

[DiamondDave]

Another day... another bunch of links to winger sites by midcan

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Maybe they saw the CBO estimate that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add roughly 3 trillion to the deficit from 2011 to 2020.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11048/02-24-RyanLetter.pdf

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

The Democraps prevented it from happening.

Maybe now after seeing the Democraps founder even though they have a huge majority, you finally understand that everything isn't so cut a dried. There was too much opposition to it so it never happened.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It was Democratic greed and arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pork that killed the bill when the Dems had the supermajority.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Maybe they saw the CBO estimate that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add roughly 3 trillion to the deficit from 2011 to 2020.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11048/02-24-RyanLetter.pdf

Tax-cuts cannot add to the deficit. Only spending can. A tax-cut cannot move you into the red unless you do one simple thing....overspend.

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Maybe they saw the CBO estimate that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add roughly 3 trillion to the deficit from 2011 to 2020.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11048/02-24-RyanLetter.pdf

Tax-cuts cannot add to the deficit. Only spending can. A tax-cut cannot move you into the red unless you do one simple thing....overspend.

Yeah but overspending seems to be a constant in the USA.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most of the GOP claim to hate the Negro people........do you believe that too ?

I believe you're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Maybe they saw the CBO estimate that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add roughly 3 trillion to the deficit from 2011 to 2020.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11048/02-24-RyanLetter.pdf

Tax-cuts cannot add to the deficit. Only spending can. A tax-cut cannot move you into the red unless you do one simple thing....overspend.

Spending cannot add to the deficit unless you don't keep taxes sufficient to pay for it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Most of the GOP claim to hate the Negro people........do you believe that too ?

I believe you're an idiot.

 

[beowolfe]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

When Dubya took office in January 2000, the umemployment rate was 4.8%. When he left office in January 2009, it was 7.7%. When he took office the GDP was $9.255 trillion; when he left it was $14.2 trillion. So, let's see. So, from bookend to bookend, in Dubya's administration, the unemployment rate went up, the GDP went up.

I would think that if you looked deeper, you'd find those at the high end of the income scale increased their take, while those in the middle and at the bottom, lost ground. So, if this is not a case of the 'rich getting richer', then what would be?

 

[uscitizen]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

When Dubya took office in January 2000, the umemployment rate was 4.8%. When he left office in January 2009, it was 7.7%. When he took office the GDP was $9.255 trillion; when he left it was $14.2 trillion. So, let's see. So, from bookend to bookend, in Dubya's administration, the unemployment rate went up, the GDP went up.

I would think that if you looked deeper, you'd find those at the high end of the income scale increased their take, while those in the middle and at the bottom, lost ground. So, if this is not a case of the 'rich getting richer', then what would be?

It it the trickle down, suck up economics theory.

 

[The Rabbi]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

When Dubya took office in January 2000, the umemployment rate was 4.8%. When he left office in January 2009, it was 7.7%. When he took office the GDP was $9.255 trillion; when he left it was $14.2 trillion. So, let's see. So, from bookend to bookend, in Dubya's administration, the unemployment rate went up, the GDP went up.

I would think that if you looked deeper, you'd find those at the high end of the income scale increased their take, while those in the middle and at the bottom, lost ground. So, if this is not a case of the 'rich getting richer', then what would be?

Actually when he took office the rate was 4.2%. When Democrats took control of Congress the rate was 4.6%, down from the recession's high of 6.1% (remember the news media screaming about Bush's "jobless recovery"??). The unemployment rate rose thereafter to our present over 10% rate.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
GDP rose nearly 50% during his tenure, despite a recession at the beginning.
I would think you would find that the middle class rose up into the wealthy and the poor saw their incomes rise.
If this is not a case of "Republicans benefit the economy, Democrats destroy it" then what would it be?

 

[Truthmatters]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Not saying right or wong, but if I were running and in charge I dont think I would let the enemy know exactly where I stand until ... otherwise they (and this admin especially) would put a spin on it and use it.

The enemy, this is how the republicans see half of the american people.

This may be a very big clue into why our country is so fucked up right now.

Party over country.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh we created many retail sales jobs and such under the Bush presidency.
And 1/4 million contractor jobs in Iraq.

 

[Truthmatters]

Another day, the same old failed ideas from the right wingnuts...aaaaggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


The rich get rich because of their merit.


Reagan raised taxes.

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

How I wish facts meant something to the right.

They will merely ignore any of the facts you presented here.

 

[uscitizen]

That stuff happened over 1 year ago, the republicans do not even remember it.
They just believe what their pundits tell them to.

 

[Truthmatters]

I talked to a republican in a store the other day and he said the economy was Obamas fault.

I asked him if he remembered Bush standing in front of cameras and annoucing if we did not bail out the Banks the economy would collapse. The fool denied it ever happened.

They rewrite history every day.

 

[The Rabbi]

I talk to Democrats here every day. Unlike you, I known they are Democrats because they describe themselves this way.
They want to blame Bush for everything and take no responsibility for anything. Then they want to talk about what a great job they do governing. Or would do if Republicans didnt stymie them, despite having serious majorities in both houses.
Democrats are a joke. They are the perpetual opposition party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Maybe they saw the CBO estimate that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add roughly 3 trillion to the deficit from 2011 to 2020.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11048/02-24-RyanLetter.pdf

Tax-cuts cannot add to the deficit. Only spending can. A tax-cut cannot move you into the red unless you do one simple thing....overspend.

Actually the CBO estimate is based on leaving everything else the same.