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

[Mr. Peepers]

To start with, Bush's tax cuts didn't create jobs. And even if they were responsible for those jobs, they weren't that effective; because 5 million jobs over 8 years is a shameful record. You want to talk about real job growth?

Actually, it was 3 million. Bush's disastrous reign actually netted ZERO job growth. Don't you find it interesting that there is not ONE central entity that has counted the numbers of jobs that have been outsourced from this country - why aren't we forcing the private sector to keep these records???This information should be as public as their financials. I suspect it's that they absolutely do NOT want the American public to know the truth. Here's the only real number I can find - and this is just to China...

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008 | The Economic Populist

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're retarded, seriously.

Reagan's tax cuts produced massive deficits.

Speaking of retarded...
The spending increases caused the deficits.

Clinton's rollback of some of Reagan's tax cuts produced lower deficits and was followed by years of job growth and economic expansion.

Show causation.

Why, LOGICALLY, would you reject a fiscal policy that was followed by
1. deficit reduction
2. good economic growth
3. good job growth

Again, show causation.

 

[JRK]

Most of the current deficit is a combination of the Bush era tax cuts and the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Horesepoo.
Both, together, pale in comparison to entitlement spending.

I stand corrected.

the cost of Iraq has allot of bull shit in it to start
with
Its not much over 1 trillion, but those troops would have been paid anyway
We have a all volunteer service
hazard pay
Bechtel's/KBRs cost


this web site claims 1.1 trillion in 9 years
The Real Cost of the Iraq War | Mother Jones
thats about the same as Obama's failed stimulus (remember he got 1/2 of tarp also)
Obama's failed stimulus really more

The deficit is 14 trillion, Obama has added over 4 to it
GWB about 2.5
Clinton about 1.5
Reagan about 2.5

For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
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
Libs do your DD and vote accordingly PLEASE

 

[uscitizen]

Bullshit, You will be voting for Obama in 2012 & Obama knows it.

Obama is Bush 3 on steroids and any-one who denies it is at a level of denial that cannot be fixed
from tax policy to Gitmo to deficit spending (W had 150 billion in 07, Obama had 1.5 trillion in 09) to stimuluses (Obama 1.2 trillion for the UAW, Teachers, Etc... W for the tax payer about 200 billion) do I need to go on?
oh yea
Obama makes W look like a school child when it comes to droid attacks in Pakistan

I am not denying that Obama is Bush 3 on steroids. I am denying that uscitizen goes around saying Obama is a third Bush term. I just know that brainwashed freeloader uscitizen will vote for Obama again in 2012.

Freeloader?

LMAO.

I will not vote in 2012. so there.
At least i did not vote for Palin or 'bush.

 

[JRK]

To start with, Bush's tax cuts didn't create jobs. And even if they were responsible for those jobs, they weren't that effective; because 5 million jobs over 8 years is a shameful record. You want to talk about real job growth?

Actually, it was 3 million. Bush's disastrous reign actually netted ZERO job growth. Don't you find it interesting that there is not ONE central entity that has counted the numbers of jobs that have been outsourced from this country - why aren't we forcing the private sector to keep these records???This information should be as public as their financials. I suspect it's that they absolutely do NOT want the American public to know the truth. Here's the only real number I can find - and this is just to China...

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008 | The Economic Populist

Mr Peepers are you missing something in these numbers?
There staring you right in the face and yet you still lie
why?
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
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
I have a thread called liberal myths
I wonder why
Let me add that if you look hard you will see the recession that Clinton handed W in addition to 9-11 that job loss really was stopped in 2004

 

[KissMy]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

 

[JRK]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

How do you blame GWB for "profligate" spending?
what?
Corybantic?
You liberals do so much spinning its not even funny anymore

So GWB had a 1.2 trillion dollar failed stimulus (with BHO1/2 of tarp we will never see all back)
STOP IT

 

[8537]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

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.>

 

[JRK]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

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?

 

[kiwiman127]

If one looks at the Labor Participation charts, it hardly moved during the great era of the GWB job creations.
Also, part-time work was counted as full employment.

File:US Labor Participation Rate.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8537]

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.

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?

I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.

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?

I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

He asked:
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

Your response, in effect:
What he needed to do.

How, then is GWB to blame?

 

[8537]

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.

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?

I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

He asked:
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

Your response, in effect:
What he needed to do.

How, then is GWB to blame?

Who said GWB is to blame?

The President doesn't run the economy, and Bush and Obama didn't cause the recession which created a precipitous decline in revenues, necessitated government funds to prop up the financial sector and dramatically increased automatic stabliizer spending.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.



I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

He asked:
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

Your response, in effect:
What he needed to do.

How, then is GWB to blame?

Who said GWB is to blame?

Virtually everyone that identifies themselves as a liberal and/or a Democrat.
There are any number of them on this board, participating in this thread.

 

[8537]

He asked:
what did GWB do to add to the deficit with a Full Liberal run congress in 07-08?

Your response, in effect:
What he needed to do.

How, then is GWB to blame?

Who said GWB is to blame?

Virtually everyone that identifies themselves as a liberal and/or a Democrat.
There are any number of them on this board, participating in this thread.

Which is fine and dandy, but you were speaking to me.

 

[JRK]

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.

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?

I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who said GWB is to blame?

Virtually everyone that identifies themselves as a liberal and/or a Democrat.
There are any number of them on this board, participating in this thread.

Which is fine and dandy, but you were speaking to me.

Yes... and I told you who blames GWB.

 

[8537]

I have never seen so much spun out spam in my life

And I have never seen someone so blockheaded and immune to reality.

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?

I already answered that, twice. Just once, you'd benefit from actually reading what people write.

Revenues collapsed.
Automatic stabilizers kicked in.
The two admins commited 700B to save the financial system
The Obama administration cut taxes and increased recession-related countercyclical spending.
Revenues collapsed.

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 might want to find a source that's correct. OMB, for example:

2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,724
Historical Tables | The White House

and what the fuck is recession-related countercyclical spending.

^That tells me all I need to know. Thanks.

 

[8537]

Virtually everyone that identifies themselves as a liberal and/or a Democrat.
There are any number of them on this board, participating in this thread.

Which is fine and dandy, but you were speaking to me.

Yes... and I told you who blames GWB.

Dumb and partisan Democrats place all the blame on GWB and the Republicans
Dumb and partisan Republicans place all the blame on Obama and the Dems.

On related note, the sun rises in the east.

 

[JRK]

How?

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?