To start with bushes tax cuts created 7 million jobs in 5 years, in addition

[KissMy]

Revenues collapsed?
2007-2.67 trillion
2009-2.7 trillion
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You liberals have to start doing your DD
you got to stop electing these people on lies
PLEASE
and by the way the GWB 1/2 of tarp
we got back
GM/UAW/Chrysler/GMAC/GE/teachers etc...?
thats Obama's tarp
we got little of it back
and what the fuck is recession-related countercyclical spending.

Recession-related countercyclical spending is likely Unemployment, Food-stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, etc. Basically paying people not to work which is one of the many reasons why increased Government spending increases unemployment. That is why my chart looks the way it does.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do I need to say how? No one is proving how the Bush tax cuts created jobs.

I'm providing exactly as much substantiation as they are.

Except you are making a claim that you aren't proving. I am not making the claim that the Bush tax cuts create jobs ergo I do not have to prove it.

Is that Liberal blind
GWB tax cuts are working right now, and in 2003 when they started, well lets take a look
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
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Clinton, 9-11, Enron, Nasdaq bubble bursting
2002 was 2 million jobs less than 2000
by 08 where back 7 million
What proof do you want?

We want proof that the Bush tax cuts created the jobs, to eliminate the likelihood they were created by other factors.

Starting with the BUSINESS CYCLE.

 

[8537]

Except you are making a claim that you aren't proving. I am not making the claim that the Bush tax cuts create jobs ergo I do not have to prove it.

Is that Liberal blind
GWB tax cuts are working right now, and in 2003 when they started, well lets take a look
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
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Clinton, 9-11, Enron, Nasdaq bubble bursting
2002 was 2 million jobs less than 2000
by 08 where back 7 million
What proof do you want?

We want proof that the Bush tax cuts created the jobs, to eliminate the likelihood they were created by other factors.

Starting with the BUSINESS CYCLE.

During the Clinton years, 22M jobs were created.

Those jobs were created thanks to the 1993 tax hike that Gingrich promised would destroy the economy and Republicans called the biggest tax hike ever.

See how easy that is?

 

[JFK_USA]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

No kidding.

I mean Rich people just don't create jobs with nobody buying. The best way to stimulate the economy is to give 200 people a $1,000 tax break than giving 1 guy a $200,000 tax break.

Its Math!!!

 

[RachelMadcow]

Didnt Obama and Democrats give tax breaks to billionaires?


After they Bailed Out Wall St?


After they gave billions to European banks?

After they bailed out Goldman Sachs?





Republicans are the Fat cat Wall St Party!!!! My Rights!!!


Free Libya!!!






Democrats simply are not bright

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that Liberal blind
GWB tax cuts are working right now, and in 2003 when they started, well lets take a look
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
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Clinton, 9-11, Enron, Nasdaq bubble bursting
2002 was 2 million jobs less than 2000
by 08 where back 7 million
What proof do you want?

We want proof that the Bush tax cuts created the jobs, to eliminate the likelihood they were created by other factors.

Starting with the BUSINESS CYCLE.

During the Clinton years, 22M jobs were created.

Those jobs were created thanks to the 1993 tax hike that Gingrich promised would destroy the economy and Republicans called the biggest tax hike ever.

See how easy that is?

Yes, when I said the Clinton tax hike created 22 million jobs, they demanded proof, somehow not being able to realize that THEY weren't giving any proof for their Bush claim.

 

[Toro]

40 of the 96 months Bush was President, non-farm payrolls declined.

Fewer jobs were created in the eight years under Bush than any under any two term President since the Depression.

I'm not going to blame President Bush for this. I believe that the economic forces were far beyond his control.

But if we are going to make this a political pissing match, then we should be well schooled in what has happened in the past.

 

[uscitizen]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Cart, meet horse.

And now I'm sure you'll neg rep me again. Oh the shame!

<hint: automatic stabilizers always lead to government spending increasing during a recession, while declining incomes associated with a recession always lead to lower revenues = bigger deficits as a % of GDP. My gawd there's nothing the Spectator won't publish.>

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life
I am going to say this again when it comes to spending
in 2007 the deficit was 150 billion
in 2009 the deficit was 1.4 trillion
what changed?
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

The 2007 defecit did not include supplemental war spending either.

 

[JRK]

Cart, meet horse.

And now I'm sure you'll neg rep me again. Oh the shame!

<hint: automatic stabilizers always lead to government spending increasing during a recession, while declining incomes associated with a recession always lead to lower revenues = bigger deficits as a % of GDP. My gawd there's nothing the Spectator won't publish.>

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life
I am going to say this again when it comes to spending
in 2007 the deficit was 150 billion
in 2009 the deficit was 1.4 trillion
what changed?
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

The 2007 defecit did not include supplemental war spending either.

I have a thread called liberal myths
Thats one of the biggest ones
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
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 declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. Bush responded with TARP (the toxic asset recovery program). This was done because $550 billion was pulled out of our financial and investment systems in ONE hour on September 18, 2008. The situation was dire and there was no longer a firewall between the banks and the stock market. There was $40 trillion in outstanding Credit Default Swaps, and most of it turned out to be worthless. That’s more than the GDP of the entire United States for three years.

 

[editec]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

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
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

Other than priming the pump of the construction industry as they build MAC MANSIONS for the nouveau riche, you mean?

I do not think that the tax cuts for billionaires had much to do with the Bankster's meltdown.

If any POTUS needs to take the lions share of responsibility for the economic meltdown?

It's William J Clinton, who was POTUS when it was decided NOT to regulate derivatives.

Of course he is hardly solely responsible for the entire problem, but the interconnective nature of share the risk dereivatives were largely the problem that so exacerbated the many problems stemming from the RE collapse.

 

[JRK]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

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
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

Other than priming the pump of the construction industry as they build MAC MANSIONS for the nouveau riche, you mean?

I do not think that the tax cuts for billionaires had much to do with the Bankster's meltdown.

If any POTUS needs to take the lions share of responsibility for the economic meltdown?

It's William J Clinton, who was POTUS when it was decided NOT to regulate derivatives.

Of course he is hardly solely responsible for the entire problem, but the interconnective nature of share the risk dereivatives were largely the problem that so exacerbated the many problems stemming from the RE collapse.

I think that covers the middle class also
It made about 3,000-4,000 a year difference in mine and I am no where near rich