How much wealth did GWB tax rates add to your bottom line?

[NYcarbineer]

who said anything about cutting Social Security?
Bush cutting my taxes has nothing to do with those who are not contributing anything
My wars?
My wars?
what do you think we should have done after 9-11 mister?
and why is it you have an issue with "my wars" and you have no issue with the failed stimulus
they cost about the same (Iraq)
Obama's Failed Stimulus Program Cost More Than The Iraq War

Obama's Failed Stimulus Program Cost More Than The Iraq War

"The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq." As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by the political Left. The key point is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) puts the total cost at $709 billion.

To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven summarizes and highlights key points from the CBO data:

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15 percent) more.
Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2 percent of all federal spending while it lasted.
Iraq War spending was not even one-quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
Also:

Iraq War spending was not even 15 percent of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
The Iraq War accounts for less than 8 percent of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education than it did on the Iraq War

Bus if every-one was doing what i am
we would have no deficit
I am part of the solution, not the problem

There were four years in Bush's term when revenues were lower than the previous year. That is a record for any president in modern history.

The Iraq war was never paid for. The Afghan war was never paid for.

Taxes were cut in 2003 when they should have been raised.

With current revenues we would still have a deficit if we were spending at 2007 levels!!!


We DO have a revenue problem.

We have a spending problem
we would have enough revenue @ 5% UE
2007 proved that
the Iraq war is over
that excuse is gone
those years you quote had a 2 million job loss after Clinton's recession and 9-11 along with the Nasdaq bubble busting

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510

Todays revenue has 6 million less jobs than we had in 08
raisng taxes on people who have 0 income other than UE will not help

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

Quit posting jibberish, PLEASE.

Revenues for 2011 are 2.2 trillion. Spending in 2007 was 2.8 trillion. That means our revenues are so deficient that we could not even balance the budget of 5 years ago.

That is a revenue problem.

Taxes should never have been cut in 2003. There was NO reason to. We had 2 wars ongoing, and an expansion of Medicare. It is insane to cut taxes when you are faced with extraordinary expenses.

You pay for wars when they happen.

 

[JRK]

There were four years in Bush's term when revenues were lower than the previous year. That is a record for any president in modern history.

The Iraq war was never paid for. The Afghan war was never paid for.

Taxes were cut in 2003 when they should have been raised.

With current revenues we would still have a deficit if we were spending at 2007 levels!!!


We DO have a revenue problem.

We have a spending problem
we would have enough revenue @ 5% UE
2007 proved that
the Iraq war is over
that excuse is gone
those years you quote had a 2 million job loss after Clinton's recession and 9-11 along with the Nasdaq bubble busting

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510

Todays revenue has 6 million less jobs than we had in 08
raisng taxes on people who have 0 income other than UE will not help

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

Quit posting jibberish, PLEASE.

Revenues for 2011 are 2.2 trillion. Spending in 2007 was 2.8 trillion. That means our revenues are so deficient that we could not even balance the budget of 5 years ago.

That is a revenue problem.

Taxes should never have been cut in 2003. There was NO reason to. We had 2 wars ongoing, and an expansion of Medicare. It is insane to cut taxes when you are faced with extraordinary expenses.

You pay for wars when they happen.

Jibberish?
Jibberish?
what part of having 7 million fewer people working and paying taxes in 2011 than 2007 don't you understand?
those tax cuts had nothing to do with that
and as far as paying for the wars when they happen
we did!
stop lying about that damn it

The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog