Remember when the Bush Tax Cuts were going to expand the economy and creation millions of jobs?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Deanie's article was wrong?
Please explain further.

Better yet, here's a picture, Toddster

So his article was right. Good to know.

Atta boy.......

The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue

They saved taxpayers trillions?
That's awesome!!
Glad you agree.

When you pay with a credit card, do you believe your saved that money, Toddster?

If the cuts "cost government revenue" that means they increased taxpayer revenue. Clear?

I think we should cut government by half, so you won't see me defend government over borrowing.
Glad you agree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This Bush Presidency has been ongoing for the past 16 years

I thought it was 35 years......

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Remember when Democrats forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them and collapsed the economy.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business.

All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen.

Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves.

The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.

However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

----------------------------------

Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they? Does the base feel as stupid as their policies? They don't even deny that if they get into office, they will finish the job.

And they never change what they say or do, even though it has led to disaster in the past. CHANGE, even for the better, is too scary for conservatives. They'd have to admit they were mistaken electing Bush, twice, that their economic policies caused the worst recession since the Great Depression that we are still mired in, that their foreign policy in effect let all the psychos out of the looney bin and set them on fire in the middle east, and that Bush and his cronies like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz should be in prison.

Denial IS a river that runs through the heartland of Conservative Country.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business.

All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen.

Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves.

The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.

However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

----------------------------------

Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they? Does the base feel as stupid as their policies? They don't even deny that if they get into office, they will finish the job.

And they never change what they say or do, even though it has led to disaster in the past. CHANGE, even for the better, is too scary for conservatives. They'd have to admit they were mistaken electing Bush, twice, that their economic policies caused the worst recession since the Great Depression that we are still mired in, that their foreign policy in effect let all the psychos out of the looney bin and set them on fire in the middle east, and that Bush and his cronies like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz should be in prison.

Denial IS a river that runs through the heartland of Conservative Country.

The Housing collapse is what led to the recession that was caused by Democrats.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business.

All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen.

Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves.

The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.

However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

----------------------------------

Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they? Does the base feel as stupid as their policies? They don't even deny that if they get into office, they will finish the job.

And they never change what they say or do, even though it has led to disaster in the past. CHANGE, even for the better, is too scary for conservatives. They'd have to admit they were mistaken electing Bush, twice, that their economic policies caused the worst recession since the Great Depression that we are still mired in, that their foreign policy in effect let all the psychos out of the looney bin and set them on fire in the middle east, and that Bush and his cronies like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz should be in prison.

Denial IS a river that runs through the heartland of Conservative Country.

The Housing collapse is what led to the recession that was caused by Democrats.

Riiiiigt.

 

[BlindBoo]

I do remember. He just forgot to tell you the jobs were going to be overseas and the economy that would boom was China!

 

[rdean]

They actually did because unemployment was always below 6% nationally. We can't really say that about the last eight years. We even hit 4.3% umemployment with REAL numbers and we actually counted the unemployed in it.

You do know what Bush and the GOP handed Obama? Right?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

They actually did because unemployment was always below 6% nationally. We can't really say that about the last eight years. We even hit 4.3% umemployment with REAL numbers and we actually counted the unemployed in it.

You do know what Bush and the GOP handed Obama? Right?

I seem to remember a Democrat controlled House and Senate before and after Obama's election.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The republican party didn't do a good job of eliminating the deficit which probably contributed to the lingering recission in 2001 - 200?. When the deficit was under control in the late 90s the economy skyrocketed. A lot of economist think that when the budget is balanced the ecomomy does a lot better for a lot of reasons. We haven't had a balanced buget in a generation.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Obama sends Congress record 44.1 trillion 2017 spending plan

Obama sends Congress record 44.1 trillion 2017 spending plan

Shame MSN doesn't have an editor that can read. Here is the real numbers which is alarming anyway

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is sending Congress his eighth and final budget, proposing to spend a record $4.1 trillion on a number of initiatives. They include launching a new war on cancer, combating global warming and fighting growing threats from ISIS terrorists.

You can bet with that much money, those Liberal Elite Special Interest Groups, would definitely get richer while the rest of US get much poorer.
4.1 trillion divided by 330 million people equals 12 thousand dollars of taxes each PERSON would have to pay. Just so Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Al Gore, and other elites can pad their pockets more. Maybe it is time to sharpen the pitchforks and shovels and head to Washington DC.

 

[Staidhup]

Sad to say some people are stuck in the past. What is it, 7+ years and some are still claiming its baby Bush's fault? Dam, for that mater if it hadn't been for FDR we would still have a free market economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business.

All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen.

Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves.

The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.

However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

----------------------------------

Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they? Does the base feel as stupid as their policies? They don't even deny that if they get into office, they will finish the job.

Remember when the stimulus was supposed to do the same thing?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

That's funny

 

[IsaacNewton]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

That's funny

To double-chin Walmart workers yes it is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

Let's see what Obama said it would do
The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama's Stimulus Law

First, Obama's economic advisers promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. In 2012, the unemployment rate was supposed to fall below 6 percent. The prediction was not meant to be taken lightly. In a January 2009 radio address, Obama announced he was releasing a report based on "rigorous analysis" that charted unemployment through 2013 so "the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families."

Second, Obama promised the stimulus would not only have a large impact but also an immediate impact. Said the president-elect, "I'm confident ... our 21st century investments will create jobs immediately," adding, "We've got shovel-ready projects all across the country."

Third, President Obama said in February 2009 that the stimulus would lift "2 million Americans from poverty." But since Obama took office, 6.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty.

Fourth, the "green economy," Obama vowed, would create millions of jobs. The Energy Department has handed out $35.2 billion in stimulus money to jumpstart the clean energy industry, but it's created more red ink than green jobs. Nationally, green technology accounts for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and there has been no marked boom in the industry

Finally, the fifth promise: one million electric cars. Obama promised the stimulus would put one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Last month, the Washington Post reported that "evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic" to make that pledge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

That's funny

To double-chin Walmart workers yes it is.

So Obama said it would create millions of jobs and lift millions of people out of poverty

He never said it was simply a stop gap measure to prevent a slide into a depression

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The stimulus was designed to keep the economy from falling into the Bush Great Depression rather than the Bush Great Recession.

And that is what it did.

All it did was
Warrant Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary. Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
1 in 5 children going hungry Report: 1 in 5 U.S. children at risk of hunger - CNN.com
Most Americans in poverty ever Census: Most Americans ever live in poverty
Roads and bridges falling apart Falling apart: America's neglected infrastructure
Solar companies bankrupting Forbes Welcome
More Children failing public schools Are 82 Percent Of U.S. Schools Really 'Failing'?

I can put up more accomplishments of LIBERALISM but all I have to say is, that liberalism is all about equality. When everyone is equally miserable and equally poor, then liberals have done their job. Only liberal elites will be the ones with the money.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Right wing blather, they never run out of it. But, but, Obama.

The Bush Great Recession. Own it cons, you elected that bugwit. Twice. Conservatives have this inbred need to not taje responsibility for their actions, try to blame their failures on someone else, and never admit when they were wrong.

Bush, the number one choice of conservatives. The Bush Great Recession, the result.