The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

[Toddsterpatriot]

1) wars were not illegal which is why you have no evidence
2) liberals are responsible for unbridled spending and so against Balanced Budget Amendment
3) money is fungible so who cares how banks paid back government

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.
2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.
3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget and the only pay down on the debt till the GOP ramed their tax cut through in order to get us back on the debt track. You guys can't really be confused about how bad the Republican are, are you?

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget

The 1993 bill led directly to the 1999 surplus?
Weren't there at least a few Republican budgets between those two dates?

 

[GreatDay]

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.
2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.
3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget and the only pay down on the debt till the GOP ramed their tax cut through in order to get us back on the debt track. You guys can't really be confused about how bad the Republican are, are you?

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget

The 1993 bill led directly to the 1999 surplus?
Weren't there at least a few Republican budgets between those two dates?

Yep there were was a lot of line holding and vetoing that had to be done, that's for sure, but it does go to show what can be done if you get the stupid monarch loving Republicans out of the way. The King is gone, the GOP need to get it through their heads or better yet just go away….

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget and the only pay down on the debt till the GOP ramed their tax cut through in order to get us back on the debt track. You guys can't really be confused about how bad the Republican are, are you?

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget

The 1993 bill led directly to the 1999 surplus?
Weren't there at least a few Republican budgets between those two dates?

Yep there were was a lot of line holding and vetoing that had to be done, that's for sure, but it does go to show what can be done if you get the stupid monarch loving Republicans out of the way. The King is gone, the GOP need to get it through their heads or better yet just go away….

Line holding? By Clinton? On spending?
Man, you are hilarious!

 

[whitehall]

Are radical democrats in a coma? I know it's hard to grasp even now but when are they going to wake up and realize that Barry Hussein is really the president? Obama signed extensions of the Bush tax cuts into law twice. Doesn't it make them the Obama tax cuts?

 

[GreatDay]

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget

The 1993 bill led directly to the 1999 surplus?
Weren't there at least a few Republican budgets between those two dates?

Yep there were was a lot of line holding and vetoing that had to be done, that's for sure, but it does go to show what can be done if you get the stupid monarch loving Republicans out of the way. The King is gone, the GOP need to get it through their heads or better yet just go away….

Line holding? By Clinton? On spending?
Man, you are hilarious!

I guess your point being that Bush did a better job of holding down spending? If it is just let me know.

 

[GreatDay]

Are radical democrats in a coma? I know it's hard to grasp even now but when are they going to wake up and realize that Barry Hussein is really the president? Obama signed extensions of the Bush tax cuts into law twice. Doesn't it make them the Obama tax cuts?

You'd say something if you weren't a coward.

 

[GreatDay]

...The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the first 10 years was about 3 trillion...

For starters, the Bush tax cuts went into affect in '03. Nine years ago. We don't have results for next year yet.

Next, the White House says the '03 rate cut--

was followed increased revenue. Now, I don't believe everything that comes out of the WhiteHouse either, but this is a point that the Exectutive Branch has been consistant with since '03.

Finally, a tax-cut does not have a 'cost'. Taxes are a cost. A tax-cut is a cost reduction.

Why then do you think Greenspan was so wrong?

Surely he knew there would be cycles, he speaks of aging baby bombers, what could it have been, was Bin Laden that powerful or Bush that weak?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep there were was a lot of line holding and vetoing that had to be done, that's for sure, but it does go to show what can be done if you get the stupid monarch loving Republicans out of the way. The King is gone, the GOP need to get it through their heads or better yet just go away….

Line holding? By Clinton? On spending?
Man, you are hilarious!

I guess your point being that Bush did a better job of holding down spending? If it is just let me know.

No, that's not my point at all. Bush was a huge spender.
Very disappointing. Obama is worse.

 

[jillian]

Line holding? By Clinton? On spending?
Man, you are hilarious!

I guess your point being that Bush did a better job of holding down spending? If it is just let me know.

No, that's not my point at all. Bush was a huge spender.
Very disappointing. Obama is worse.

not really. if you use the CBO's numbers, this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009, which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

and just for the record, bush is the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes in time of war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess your point being that Bush did a better job of holding down spending? If it is just let me know.

No, that's not my point at all. Bush was a huge spender.
Very disappointing. Obama is worse.

not really. if you use the CBO's numbers, this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009, which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

and just for the record, bush is the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes in time of war.

this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009,

You mean after you count the TARP spending and Obama's $800 billion waste?

which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

Bush stimulus? Please explain further.

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

How much money did they keep out of the government's hands?

 

[jillian]

No, that's not my point at all. Bush was a huge spender.
Very disappointing. Obama is worse.

not really. if you use the CBO's numbers, this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009, which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

and just for the record, bush is the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes in time of war.

this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009,

You mean after you count the TARP spending and Obama's $800 billion waste?

which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

Bush stimulus? Please explain further.

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

How much money did they keep out of the government's hands?

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

 

[whitehall]

Are radical democrats in a coma? I know it's hard to grasp even now but when are they going to wake up and realize that Barry Hussein is really the president? Obama signed extensions of the Bush tax cuts into law twice. Doesn't it make them the Obama tax cuts?

You'd say something if you weren't a coward.

Why aren't they Obama tax cuts if he signed them into law ....twice?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

not really. if you use the CBO's numbers, this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009, which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

and just for the record, bush is the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes in time of war.

this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009,

You mean after you count the TARP spending and Obama's $800 billion waste?

which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

Bush stimulus? Please explain further.

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

How much money did they keep out of the government's hands?

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

No. Obama should only get blame for the TARP money he spent. Like the auto portion. Should the Obama stimulus be attributed to Bush?

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

Great. How much did the tax cuts reduce government income flow?

 

[expat_panama]

...a tax-cut does not have a 'cost'. Taxes are a cost. A tax-cut is a cost reduction.

Why then do you think Greenspan was so wrong?...

LOL, if you can show where Sir Alan ever said that lowering taxes was an increased cost, then the quote would fit nicely into a pretty big list of Greenspan's most notorious blunders. Maybe it should go before his 1996 comment that stocks showed "irrational exuberance" (three years of bull market followed) and after his 1999 worry that Y2K was a bigger problem than the DOT.COM bubble.

 

[GreatDay]

...a tax-cut does not have a 'cost'. Taxes are a cost. A tax-cut is a cost reduction.

Why then do you think Greenspan was so wrong?...

LOL, if you can show where Sir Alan ever said that lowering taxes was an increased cost, then the quote would fit nicely into a pretty big list of Greenspan's most notorious blunders. Maybe it should go before his 1996 comment that stocks showed "irrational exuberance" (three years of bull market followed) and after his 1999 worry that Y2K was a bigger problem than the DOT.COM bubble.

Could you just link to where I said a tax cut was "an increased cost"?

The question is why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be.

You may be on to something Greenspan did get a lot of stuff wrong, a common trait of encomiasts why just think of all of those that said tax cuts balance budgets, damn did they get it wrong!

Most folks say when you're in debt time to work some overtime, ie raise taxes if you're in government unless of course you think it should run like a biz and start offering health insurance and other things...

 

[jillian]

this president's spending pretty much flatlined after 2009,

You mean after you count the TARP spending and Obama's $800 billion waste?

which was when the bush stimulus went into effect.

Bush stimulus? Please explain further.

the problem is, and always has been, the intentional reduction of the government's flow of income because of the bush tax cuts.

How much money did they keep out of the government's hands?

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

No. Obama should only get blame for the TARP money he spent. Like the auto portion. Should the Obama stimulus be attributed to Bush?

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

Great. How much did the tax cuts reduce government income flow?

i think he did the right thing with the auto bailout. we got most of the money bank. the industry is thriving. and we probably saved a couple of million jobs.

i fail to see why that shouldn't get him kudo's.

according to the information i found, this is the current cost of tax cuts for the top 5%:

$1,121,871,274,753

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post
Cost of Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Americans Since 2001 | Cost of Tax Cuts

 

[Wiseacre]

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

No. Obama should only get blame for the TARP money he spent. Like the auto portion. Should the Obama stimulus be attributed to Bush?

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

Great. How much did the tax cuts reduce government income flow?

i think he did the right thing with the auto bailout. we got most of the money bank. the industry is thriving. and we probably saved a couple of million jobs.

i fail to see why that shouldn't get him kudo's.

according to the information i found, this is the current cost of tax cuts for the top 5%:

$1,121,871,274,753

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post
Cost of Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Americans Since 2001 | Cost of Tax Cuts

Top 5%? Really? According to the IRS data from 2009, that would cover people making $105,000 and up. I thought Obama pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000, are we going to honor that or not? What's next? $80,000 and up, then $60,000 and up, how low do we go?

So, we're back to about $70 billion per year of revenue from the top 1%, when are the liberals going to accept the fact that $70 billion a year ain't going to do squat to help the debt/deficit problem? And then there's this: Obama and Clinton are both on record in the past as saying that raising taxes in an economic downturn is not the right thing to do. And yet he's running for president on precisely that. Weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

No. Obama should only get blame for the TARP money he spent. Like the auto portion. Should the Obama stimulus be attributed to Bush?

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

Great. How much did the tax cuts reduce government income flow?

i think he did the right thing with the auto bailout. we got most of the money bank. the industry is thriving. and we probably saved a couple of million jobs.

i fail to see why that shouldn't get him kudo's.

according to the information i found, this is the current cost of tax cuts for the top 5%:

$1,121,871,274,753

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post
Cost of Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Americans Since 2001 | Cost of Tax Cuts

i think he did the right thing with the auto bailout. we got most of the money bank.

No, they're predicted to cost us $25 billion, after the government finally sells all the stock.

From Bad to Worse: Obama

Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

the current cost of tax cuts for the top 5%: $1,121,871,274,753

For 11 years of cuts. I'm pretty sure the debt has gone up over $10 trillion over that time.
11% doesn't seem like such a big chunk.

 

[expat_panama]

Why then do you think Greenspan was so wrong?...

LOL, if you can show where Sir Alan ever said that lowering taxes was an increased cost, then the quote would fit nicely into a pretty big list of Greenspan's most notorious blunders. Maybe it should go before his 1996 comment that stocks showed "irrational exuberance" (three years of bull market followed) and after his 1999 worry that Y2K was a bigger problem than the DOT.COM bubble.

Could you just link to where I said a tax cut was "an increased cost"?...

I'd be happy to, right after you just link to where I said you said a tax cut was "an increased cost". No wait, now you're going to slime me right back with "just link to where I said you said I said...". Not sure how we got into that rut but I vote for us getting out of it.

"...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

Huh, I must have missed that one. I'd sure like to see how Greenspan said the national debt would be paid in full by now, please tell me where you found that one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LOL, if you can show where Sir Alan ever said that lowering taxes was an increased cost, then the quote would fit nicely into a pretty big list of Greenspan's most notorious blunders. Maybe it should go before his 1996 comment that stocks showed "irrational exuberance" (three years of bull market followed) and after his 1999 worry that Y2K was a bigger problem than the DOT.COM bubble.

Could you just link to where I said a tax cut was "an increased cost"?...

I'd be happy to, right after you just link to where I said you said a tax cut was "an increased cost". No wait, now you're going to slime me right back with "just link to where I said you said I said...". Not sure how we got into that rut but I vote for us getting out of it.

"...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

Huh, I must have missed that one. I'd sure like to see how Greenspan said the national debt would be paid in full by now, please tell me where you found that one.

does it matter?? he said it before 9/11, two wars, housing depression, and a communist president.