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

[IcebergSlim]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

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

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

 

[Political Junky]

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

The problem being that Bush Jr. didn't put the cost of the wars, he started, into the budget. Obama did.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Does this mean anything to you?

Does this mean anything to you??

You can cherry pick the data all you want.

But, the fact is Big Ears will have nearly DOUBLED the national debt when he vacates the White House in 2017.

The Shrub was a terrible POTUS who was a big progressive spender. But, your Messiah is far worse. Do you agree or not?

Not if he presides over the lowest rate of federal spending growth since Eisenhower.....

Take this to the bank....Scrub is the most fiscally reckless POTUS ever....and he will keep that crown until we are long forgotten...

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

The problem being that Bush Jr. didn't put the cost of the wars, he started, into the budget. Obama did.

And he didn't fund Medicare Part D....

 

[IcebergSlim]

these laughable left-wing losers and their charts!!!

charts wont tell you much; statistics can be what you want them to be

obama ADDED OVER $200 BILLION TO THE LAST "BUSH" BUDGET DEFICIT


Bush's highest deficits were when Democrats held the budget purse strings. Bush's lowest were when Republicans held the budget purse strings

OBAMA'S HIGHEST BUDGET DEFICITS OCCURED WHEN DEMOCRATS HELD THE BUDGET PURSE STRINGS

Obama's LOWEST budget deficits happened with REPUBLICANS HOLDING THE POWER OF THE PURSE

libs are losers who lie TO THEMSELVES

“President Bush said today that there was a benefit to the government’s fast-dwindling surplus, declaring that it will create ”a fiscal straitjacket for Congress.” He said that was ”incredibly positive news” because it would halt the growth of the federal government.


In a 45-minute news conference in a community hall next to an RV park here, Mr. Bush avoided specific answers to several questions about how he would find the money for his next big initiatives, from missile defense, to overhauling the military, to reforming Medicaid, without dipping into Social Security surpluses that both parties have declared off limits. And he made it clear he would not re-think his tax cut, saying, ”I can’t tell you how proud I am to be traveling around the country and people say, ‘Thanks for the $600.’ ”

PRESIDENT ASSERTS SHRUNKEN SURPLUS MAY CURB CONGRESS


The.....worst.....POTUS.....ever.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

This kind of codswallop betrays a complete ignorance of Structural Deficits....

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

Uh....no.....it is consistent with Keynesian theory......given the abysmal state of aggregate demand in the wake of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, providing consumers the means to spend is entirely rational...

Cutting taxes to eliminate a surplus, and then putting a 7% annual growth rate of spending on the national credit card is....well...the essence of Supply Side Idiocy...

 

[healthmyths]

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

Kinda like the welfare queen myth?

OH I agree 100% with that! Conservatives especially regarding Welfare queens do that.

The problem though is the MSM is prone to exaggerate those stories to do just what you are doing... making it a party issue.


Unlike most liberal/FFOs I support my comments with the FACTS and links to the facts.

A new poll from Harvard University’s Institute of Politics has some alarming findings about the trustworthiness of the American media. Among adults aged 18-29, the poll found that just 12 percent believe the media "do the right thing."
An even more startling 88 percent said they “sometimes” or “never” trust the media and just 2 percent of 18-29 year olds said they trust the media to do the right thing “all of the time." 39 percent said the media “never” do the right thing. -
Poll: Just 2% of Young Americans Trust Media to ‘Do the Right Thing’

So with the MSM also having donated to the Democrats 85% more then to the GOP, really who would you trust to present
a "journalistic professional" story?
85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...etwork-execs-writers-reporters/#ixzz2O598MhzN

So please you be intellectually honest and recognize FACTS over ideology OK?
FACT..... GWB had 5 cataclysmic events occur that have NEVER happened at the same time in one presidency.
That is a FACT..
1) Recession... 2) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market losses..3) 9/11 $1 trillion jobs lost, lives lost.. 4) Anthrax attacks..
5) Worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes but more years with devastating hurricanes occurred during GWB terms.
All those events COST a lot of money and lives!
YET no one seems to remember them!

 

[healthmyths]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

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

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

 

[Dad2three]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

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

What’s Driving Debt?


May 20, 2011

...showing that the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years


What’s Driving Projected Debt? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Does this mean anything to you?

 

[Dad2three]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

How about this one?

 

[Dad2three]

This should blow your left brain...it is truly amazing how EASILY Big Ears can dupe his partisan worshipers.

The truth...can you accept it?

Obama has boasted about the shrinking of the budget deficit from the more than $1 trillion seen in the first four years of his presidency. But even with that reduction, budget deficits under Obama are on track to stay higher than the highest deficit seen under President George W. Bush.

President Bush was seen by many as a big spender who squandered a rare budget surplus. But according to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush’s highest annual budget deficit was $458 billion.

That’s still $25 billion less than Obama’s lowest deficit: $483 billion in the just-finished 2014 fiscal year, and several years into what Obama himself has called an economic recovery.

So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit.

" So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit."



EXCEPT HIS LAST RIGHT?

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office


CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

 

[Faun]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

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

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Financially speaking ... combined, they all still pale in comparison to how deep the Great Recession cut.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

OH am I so glad you offered this because NOT ONE Place in your one sided diatribe did YOU mention all these things that occurred THAT if we had NOT the tax cuts or George Bush as president not only would the economy really really be bad but Americans would have been in such a total state of despair ...i.e. what would have happened if we had Obama as President WhO BLAMES Americans for everything!

But of course NOTHING else was happening in the USA from 2001 to 2008.
Just the big bad Bush not reigning in the big bad banks! YUP all that dummy Bush's fault right?
But wait... seems to me there were a few other events going on during this time. Events that had never happened in one presidency in USA history.
Just as a reminder as I've had to do numerous times because people forget!


Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs (F/F)
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%(2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program.In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled, "Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing Needs").

The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Fredde to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.



That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.

(From White House Speech archives – "President calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeowners" at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia).



Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership
LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal."
Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone.
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low income and minorities.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES

40,000 More Families (PER YEAR) Expected To Benefit From New Offerings

WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs, during which time the interest rate would be fixed. "By offering additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more homeownership opportunities," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in a speech to America’s Community Bankers. "We estimate that as many as 40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages as their way of financing their home purchase."

(HUD Press Release).

Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including closing costs).

The Administration often pointed to the huge increase in housing as one of its greatest successes.

[The Administration has] Helped Americans buy homes, expanding the homeownership rate to nearly 70 percent and the minority homeownership rate to over 51 percent nationwide. With approximately three million minorities owning a home for the first time, the Nation now has the highest minority homeownership rate in its history. Furthermore, the Administration is ahead of schedule in achieving the Presidential goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by 2010.

(From Bush Administration’s press release entitled "Expanding Home Ownership" under section entitled "Accomplishments").



FBI saw threat of loan crisis\


"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Thanks again to the Bush administration allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Obama's first F/Y budget begins:

National Debt Oct 1, 2009 $11,920,519,164,319.42 (JUST SHY OF $12 TRILLION)

 

[tyroneweaver]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

STATIC DOLLARS? UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, POPULATION OR GDP GROWTH? LOL

HINT, ECONOMISTS MEASURE IT VIA GDP, DUBYA TOOK US FROM 20% OF GDP TO UNDER 15%, KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[Dad2three]

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

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."