How George W. Bush's Two Tax Cuts, 2001 and 2003 Screwed The Pooch

[mikegriffith1]

More sheer ignorance and deception from another unread liberal. The Bush tax cuts did not cause the deficit increase. Federal revenue ROSE after the Bush tax cuts (see below). The problem was that Congress then went on a reckless spending spree and jacked up spending so much that it outstripped the huge increase in federal revenue.

Here is what happened to federal revenue in the years after the Bush tax cuts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.

And before you scream that Congress was under GOP control during the spending spree, let's note that the Democrats wanted to spend even more money (just go read the Congressional Record) and that when the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007 they jacked up spending even more than the Republicans had done.

 

[Faun]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No fucking wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

Bush almost doubled the debt.

Bush's daddy was on pace to double it in his one term and not given a second term.

Reagan almost tripled it.

 

[Faun]

And this....its fun blowing up left wing propaganda...

“The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office. Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent. Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running.
Letter: National debt is out of control

From your link in post #8.

I wonder how many Clinton debts (blue column) would fit into the bush (red column).Looks to me that the bush (red column) is at least three times as large as the Clinton (blue column.

While you’re pondering that, take a peek at the BO red column and ponder how many bush red columns would fit into that.

when obama took office the debt was around 10 trillion, when he leaves it will be over 20 trillion. he will have doubled it in 8 years. Said another way, obama added more to the national debt than the previous 43 presidents, COMBINED.

post all the charts you want and try to weasel word them, but the truth cannot be denied. the debt doubled under obama.

It will not be over $20 trillion. You're fucking nuts. But then, everyone already knows that.

 

[Campbell]

Gipper,

Does this mean anything to you?

You are using Debt as figure to gauge when it was Bush who threw the bus over the cliff at start. You are blaming Obama for not pressing the brake enough but look he has drastically reduced spending compared to any predecessor.
Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion deficit and brought it to under 0.6 trillion deficit.

Compare that to the way real countries look at borrowing i.e. compared to GDP

View attachment 50714

Obama has it below average and if the GOP administrations hadn't racked up so much debt he who be a lot closer to breaking even, as most of the shortfall now is interest payments from the Reagan and two Bush administrations.

Then you have to count in a war that could have been easily avoided. You have to laugh at RWers when they talk about spending.
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

$3.7 trillion spend in a sh*t hole in the ME.. Congratulations...
Let the adults talk while you wind up for another war with Iran, again for no good f*cking reason. You played your WMD card once already.

Yeppp.

The Republican plan for healthcare is "If You Get Sick...Die Quickly!"

 

[Faun]

More sheer ignorance and deception from another unread liberal. The Bush tax cuts did not cause the deficit increase. Federal revenue ROSE after the Bush tax cuts (see below). The problem was that Congress then went on a reckless spending spree and jacked up spending so much that it outstripped the huge increase in federal revenue.

Here is what happened to federal revenue in the years after the Bush tax cuts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.

And before you scream that Congress was under GOP control during the spending spree, let's note that the Democrats wanted to spend even more money (just go read the Congressional Record) and that when the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007 they jacked up spending even more than the Republicans had done.

Holyfuckingshit!

Revenues increased those years because of the housing bubble.

 

[SwimExpert]

Tax cuts for the wealthy is OK if the country can afford them. When borrowing from foreign banks to fund them.....NOT SO MUCH!

This includes the expenditures associated with the two wars...one totally unnecessary

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

• Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
• Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
• Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966.
• Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.
• Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.
• Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

• Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
• Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children's Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President's plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs.
• Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation's fiscal discipline. The President's actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
• Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.

Twelve years later, and you still don't have anything new to talk about?

 

[Campbell]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No fucking wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

Bush almost doubled the debt.

Bush's daddy was on pace to double it in his one term and not given a second term.

Reagan almost tripled it.

A technicality but Reagan quadrupled it. It's the tax cuts guys. If they spend they should be required to tax instead of borrowing money from foreign banks:

Once More For The Teenagers:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)


09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)


09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32


09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16


09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)


09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00


09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)


09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[1treedancer]

More sheer ignorance and deception from another unread liberal. The Bush tax cuts did not cause the deficit increase. Federal revenue ROSE after the Bush tax cuts (see below). The problem was that Congress then went on a reckless spending spree and jacked up spending so much that it outstripped the huge increase in federal revenue.

Here is what happened to federal revenue in the years after the Bush tax cuts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.

And before you scream that Congress was under GOP control during the spending spree, let's note that the Democrats wanted to spend even more money (just go read the Congressional Record) and that when the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007 they jacked up spending even more than the Republicans had done.

Actually the U.S. recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.But getting to the point of my post.Do you really belive that it’s a good thing to cut taxes while starting two UNFUNDED wars?

 

[Campbell]

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

Success is not a problem, buddy. It's just not going to be given to you at some job if you're not absolutely exceptional... Or your daddy wasn't absolutely exceptional.

These charts certainly have to do with how money is being made, rather than the minor amount of tax burden clinton put on his 1% friends.

Who cares about income share! Look who really takes the burn when the economy gets hit. Who the hell do these people think they are?

I suggest you do a little checking. Reagan slashed tax rates for his buds to 50 year lows, Clinton raised taxes then after the budget was balanced with surpluses projected for the foreseeable future slow talkin' George Came along and cut tax rates twice, spent borrowed money like there was no tomorrow and doubled the debt again. It's the goddam tax cuts and nothing else.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's the goddam tax cuts and nothing else.

Actually, you just said it was spending.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

You wrote: "In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. "


What "Ordinary" CEO made over 500 times an ordinary worker?

See you obviously have never comprehend the way the MSM hypes up stories!
They take THE EXCEPTION and make it sound like it happens for EVERYONE!!!

So here is the REALITY that all you idiots that don't comprehend how to do the basic research to find the answer is regarding
CEO pay NOT 500 times the ordinary worker!

Of which there are 2,133,500 CEOs. • CEO Statistics | Statistic Brain
The below table shows that 70% of CEOs or 1,493,450 made over $100,000 and under $500,000 in annual salary.
So at $500,000 this amounts to about 5 times the Union worker. NOT 500 times!
EVEN at an average of $30,000 per employee that is still NOT EVEN CLOSE to 500 times but closer to 16 times!

What YOU and your ignorant ILK do is take the EXCEPTION! And you make it the RULE!

And remember for the average company to pay $300,000 to ONE person the total number of people on average that CEO is responsible is hundreds of employees that average 1/3 of what this ONE CEO makes!
The total compensation costs of average union worker at $46.50 per hour worked in December 2014 or $96,720.
Employer costs for union workers averaged $46.50 per hour worked in December 2014 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

According to Forbes, the typical CEO in the US is in charge of 26,000 employees and accountable for about $9 billion (US$5 billion) of annual sales, for which he was paid $1.6 million (US$932,000) in salary and bonus in 1990.
CEO Salaries in S'pore

 

[Zander]

If only we had a bigger government and higher taxes.......

 

[SwimExpert]

If only we had a bigger government and higher taxes.......

Clearly Obama wants that. That's why he continued with Bush's tax cuts. Oh wait....that was different. When a black guy does it, it's okay. It has to be okay. Otherwise, you're a racist.

 

[Iceweasel]

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

You wrote: "In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. "


What "Ordinary" CEO made over 500 times an ordinary worker?

See you obviously have never comprehend the way the MSM hypes up stories!
They take THE EXCEPTION and make it sound like it happens for EVERYONE!!!

So here is the REALITY that all you idiots that don't comprehend how to do the basic research to find the answer is regarding
CEO pay NOT 500 times the ordinary worker!

Of which there are 2,133,500 CEOs. • CEO Statistics | Statistic Brain
The below table shows that 70% of CEOs or 1,493,450 made over $100,000 and under $500,000 in annual salary.
So at $500,000 this amounts to about 5 times the Union worker. NOT 500 times!
EVEN at an average of $30,000 per employee that is still NOT EVEN CLOSE to 500 times but closer to 16 times!

What YOU and your ignorant ILK do is take the EXCEPTION! And you make it the RULE!

And remember for the average company to pay $300,000 to ONE person the total number of people on average that CEO is responsible is hundreds of employees that average 1/3 of what this ONE CEO makes!
The total compensation costs of average union worker at $46.50 per hour worked in December 2014 or $96,720.
Employer costs for union workers averaged $46.50 per hour worked in December 2014 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

According to Forbes, the typical CEO in the US is in charge of 26,000 employees and accountable for about $9 billion (US$5 billion) of annual sales, for which he was paid $1.6 million (US$932,000) in salary and bonus in 1990.
CEO Salaries in S'pore

View attachment 50742

Now there you go again trying to insert facts into an emotional issue.

 

[SwimExpert]

They take THE EXCEPTION and make it sound like it happens for EVERYONE!!!

Kinda like the welfare queen myth?

 

[Faun]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No fucking wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

Bush almost doubled the debt.

Bush's daddy was on pace to double it in his one term and not given a second term.

Reagan almost tripled it.

A technicality but Reagan quadrupled it. It's the tax cuts guys. If they spend they should be required to tax instead of borrowing money from foreign banks:

Once More For The Teenagers:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)


09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)


09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32


09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16


09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)


09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00


09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)


09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Debt when Reagan: $930b
When he left office: $2.6t
180% increase

Debt at FY1981: $1t
Debt at FY1989: $2.9t
190% increase

Whether you measure by when Reagan was in office or you measure by his fiscal years, Reagan almost tripled the debt.

 

[Campbell]

It's the goddam tax cuts and nothing else.

Actually, you just said it was spending.

Bullshit! It's tax cuts and run-a-way spending. None of them ever cut their spending but at least the Democrats don't slash tax rates like the Republicans:

 

[Campbell]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No fucking wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

Are you nuts??

Over two trillion borrowed dollars have been spent to pay interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt that Obama assumed when he took office. Do you people actually believe what you say or are you just pissing in the wind?

 

[Manonthestreet]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, you just said it was spending.

Bullshit!

*Ahem*

spent borrowed money like there was no tomorrow and doubled the debt again.

You said it, yourself. Don't blame me because you're too stupid to understand your own words.