Bush Crashed the Economy and other lame excuses

[francoHFW]

Anyone with a functioning brain would- that leaves out the dupes.

Thanks for the SECOND Pub Great World Depression. 80% of Obama's debt averted and paid for it, dumbazzes.

 

[uscitizen]

Bush crashed the economy is a lame excuse?
Whaaa?

 

[healthmyths]

Bush was fiscally irresponsible, but Obama ran for his job, and won it, and made things a whole lot worse!

EXPLAIN THIS!!!

Did these EVENTS HAPPEN???

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!

Then payroll taxes
Assuming 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com bust -- 145,000 lost due to 9/11 (remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days!) 400,000 jobs lost due to hurricanes..
850,000 jobs lost.
So at say an average of $30,000 per job and Social Security and Medicare EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% or $2,295 paid by employee.. BUT I imagine you and many like you forget the EMPLOYER matches that and also pays $2,295 or a total of $4,590 paid in by Employee and Employer!
$4,590 times 850,000 jobs or near $4 billion a year due to those LOST jobs in Federal REVENUE!

So between these two tax revenue generators losing over $100 billion a year all due to what... EVENTS beyond ANYONE's control!!!

 

[healthmyths]

NOT ONE of you can sanely refute the FACTS that dot.com bust happened!
9/11 HAPPENED!
Worst Hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes but year after year SEASONS!

All of which CoST the economy $8 trillion! Almost $100 billion a year in TAX revenue losses!

BUT NONE of YOU of remember that???
400,000 jobs LOST due to dot.com.. FACT! 150,000 jobs lost due to 9/11 FACT!
400,000 jobs LOST due to hurricanes FACT!

THESE EVENTS happened and had REAL economic consequences but you idiots don't remember them!
AND YOU blame Bush for something HE HAD NO power over preventing!

YOU idiots seem to forget that 90% of All Americans were fearful of terrorists!
Do YOU remember the Anthrax attacks?
People didn't want to open their mail!
And YOU all forget that and ignorantly BLAME BUSH????
There are no apologies here! JUST The FACTS that dot.com bust happened, 9/11 happened worst hurricanes happened!
AND the economy couldn't sustain the housing bubble that as of 12/12/12 a study has shown was caused by the CRA!
HERE Read you idiots! Here is the proof but you won't admit because you are TOO dumb to understand!

New study concludes that the Community Reinvestment Act ‘clearly’ did lead to risky lending
James Pethokoukis | December 12, 2012, 9:50 am
Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming. …
New study concludes that the Community Reinvestment Act ‘clearly’ did lead to risky lending | AEIdeas

In case the above GOES OVER your head...
When the lenders did "risky" subprime lending DUE to the CRA... DEFAULTS occurred 15% more often!
Defaults meant lower credit ratings for the lenders! Lower credit ratings to the lenders meant they had to take greater and greater subprime lending risks to
gain more and more revenue to meet the higher costs of borrowing since their credit ratings got worse!

 

[Chris]

Two useless wars and Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[Toronado3800]

Bush was fiscally irresponsible, but Obama ran for his job, and won it, and made things a whole lot worse!

EXPLAIN THIS!!!

Did these EVENTS HAPPEN???

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!

Then payroll taxes
Assuming 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com bust -- 145,000 lost due to 9/11 (remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days!) 400,000 jobs lost due to hurricanes..
850,000 jobs lost.
So at say an average of $30,000 per job and Social Security and Medicare EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% or $2,295 paid by employee.. BUT I imagine you and many like you forget the EMPLOYER matches that and also pays $2,295 or a total of $4,590 paid in by Employee and Employer!
$4,590 times 850,000 jobs or near $4 billion a year due to those LOST jobs in Federal REVENUE!

So between these two tax revenue generators losing over $100 billion a year all due to what... EVENTS beyond ANYONE's control!!!

Discount the Hurricane one. There seem to be huge Hurricanes or droughts or floods for every President.

How about this: Bush W made the mistake of being President during normal times and not understanding the market of economy.

Reagan was a New Dealer who loved the positive effects of deficit spending.

Bush H well, was a company man who was President and um....did little besides a war in the sand and watch the economy.

Clinton ended up with a balanced budget and accidently let a program for poor folks get created which could then be applied by short sighted bankers to EVERYONE. Idiot Americans and their quarterly profit reports.

There. I said something niceish about everyone.

 

[Duped]

I don't dipute your mitigations, but Bush was not a conservative! How much did the Irac war cost? I noticed you did not mention that? I am no fan of Bush, but I would take 10, more of him before another Obama!

 

[Lakhota]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vn_PSJsl0LQ]Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toronado3800]

So gd dumb. So the economy retracted 9% and was hemorraging 800 k jobs/month when Obama came in- then after ten months it gained jobs every month since and the Dow doubled. You're out of your tiny brainwashed minds, despite 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction (didn't happen according to Pubs and the PPM-Dems had total control!! LOL A DISGRACE).

Fox has every other report on how amazing huge the debt is....fecking a-hole gazers, for dupes/haters ONLY.Only care about the debt when Dems are in...

Whatever you think Obama did that was economically positive, make sure you counter weight it with 6,
trillion in new debt. Tell me how great he is once we pay it back - with interest!

You have a point. To this date we have paid little of the penalty for that deficit spending. Reagan's yes. Obama's and Bush W's not yet.

Just imagine the economic turmoil with 6 trillion fewer dollars floating around the economy. (your number. I am in the crapper and can not readkly compare the increase of Obama's deficit spending vs W's).

Now I'm worried about how precariojs our position as a world power is. We need some good ol American something I tell you. A world war to devastate Europe and Asia? Then another one? To conquor another continent and let big brother give away the land to immigrants and artificially pump the economy that way?

I'm really not that down on our fortunes but it is worth thinking about for motivational fear.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

Let's review:

Lehman Brother collapsed first, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Bear Stearns was a weak sister, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Merrill Lynch: a subsidiary of BofA these 4 Christmases past

Fannie? Freddie? Sucked up $200B of Capital and totally dominate the residential mortgage market

Banks are profitable, so what exactly are you talking about when you mindless parrot Obama's talking points?

AIG crashed first. They were the mortgage insurance company that couldn't cover all the defaulting mortgages made under the CRA. After that all the companies that had investments in AIG crashed.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush was fiscally irresponsible, but Obama ran for his job, and won it, and made things a whole lot worse!

EXPLAIN THIS!!!

Did these EVENTS HAPPEN???

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!

Then payroll taxes
Assuming 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com bust -- 145,000 lost due to 9/11 (remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days!) 400,000 jobs lost due to hurricanes..
850,000 jobs lost.
So at say an average of $30,000 per job and Social Security and Medicare EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% or $2,295 paid by employee.. BUT I imagine you and many like you forget the EMPLOYER matches that and also pays $2,295 or a total of $4,590 paid in by Employee and Employer!
$4,590 times 850,000 jobs or near $4 billion a year due to those LOST jobs in Federal REVENUE!

So between these two tax revenue generators losing over $100 billion a year all due to what... EVENTS beyond ANYONE's control!!!

Discount the Hurricane one. There seem to be huge Hurricanes or droughts or floods for every President.

How about this: Bush W made the mistake of being President during normal times and not understanding the market of economy.

Reagan was a New Dealer who loved the positive effects of deficit spending.

Bush H well, was a company man who was President and um....did little besides a war in the sand and watch the economy.

Clinton ended up with a balanced budget and accidently let a program for poor folks get created which could then be applied by short sighted bankers to EVERYONE. Idiot Americans and their quarterly profit reports.

There. I said something niceish about everyone.

WRONG!! Discount the Hurricane one. There seem to be huge Hurricanes or droughts or floods for every President.
FACTS dumb f...k!!
The years 2001 to 2008 WERE THE WORST SEASONs in history! FACT!
Of the top 36 hurricanes since 1926 13 occurred from 2001 to 2008.
Of the total of $316 billion in damages these 13 cost 58% of that or $156 billion.
# 1Katrina (LA/MS/AL/SE FL) 2005 3 $81,000,000,000
# 3 through 7 hurricanes occurred from 2001 to 2008!
Costliest U.S. Hurricanes | Weather Underground
a) There were 26 named storms in 2005, surpassing the record of 21 set in 1933
b) Three of the hurricanes in the 2005 season reached Category 5 status, meaning they had wind speeds
greater than 155 mph at some point during the arc of the storm.
but we've never had three," said Steve Kiser, a tropical cyclone program manger at the National Weather Service.

How about this: "Bush W made the mistake of being President during normal times and not understanding the market of economy."
what an absolutely STUPID dumb f...k comment!
The Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market losses and 300,000 jobs ! Do you understand what means?? TAX REVENUE DECLINE by $60 billion a year for 30 years you idiot as people take capital losses against their TAX LIABILITY!!!
300,000 people NO LONGER paying and employers no longer paying SS/Medicare !

NOT ONE MENTION of 9/11 you dummy! Cost $2 trillion in losses nearly $24 billion a year in tax revenue decline! 150,000 people out of work and you totally ignore it!

WHY is it SO f...king HaRD to admit those events Happened?
AND when they did there were Economic consequences! That are costing Federal revenue $100 billion a year for next 30 years!
Seismic events! Cataclysmic events! History changing events... the likes that have never been seen in American history by any President!

See this is why more and more people are refuting idiots like YOU! Because the FACTS are against you!
People do remember the dot.com bust and the money lost and the jobs lost!
They DO remember 9/11 and the anthrax attacks and the hurricanes EVEN if YOU try to ignore them ... these EVENTS happened and nothing like this convergence of earth shattering events has ever occurred in an 8 year period in all of history!

And you have amnesia???

 

[Billo_Really]

Preposition fail.

I think you're looking at this a little too simply. You seem to be identifying single policies and deciding if they made the economy "good," or if they made the economy "bad." There's no linear causality with this stuff. Tax cuts are temporarily stimulative. Increasing federal spending can also be temporarily stimulative. If you overdo it with either of these, you will eventually run into fiscal problems. So on and so forth, the point is this is all very dynamic and complex.

Then lets just say they all played a role in the meltdown. They all contributed to the crash, collectively.

But if I was going to pick one thing, that was guilty (more than anything else) for the crash, it would be the repeal of Glass-Steegall. We've been down this road before. We went through the same speculative bullshit back in the 20's, which eventually led to the crash of '29. Then Roosevelt made it illegal for savings banks and investment banks to do business under the same roof. And for over half a century, the economy had its ups and downs, but no crash. Then we fast forward to that piece of shit Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton, all of a sudden, no more Glass-Steegall and investment banks and savings banks can once again merge under the same roof and do their business again. And 'viola, what happens a couple years later? We have another meltdown!

 

[Toronado3800]

EXPLAIN THIS!!!

Did these EVENTS HAPPEN???

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $60 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

Do YOU think those people that had $5 trillion in losses DIDN"T report those losses in their ADJUSTED TAX INCOME over the next 30 years which is what IRS allows?
For example if a Dot.com investor loss $1 million of that $5 trillion that means the investor has 30 years to write off against taxable income $33,000.
So Instead of having a tax on $1 million or at 35% $350,000 by subtracting $33,000 from $1 million that means taxes of 35% on $966,000 or $338,000 a loss to the US treasury of $12,000 from just this $1 million of the $5 trillion!
Or for every $1 million in losses $12,000 loss in tax revenue or on the $5 trillion nearly $60 billion in tax revenue for each year from 2003 and 30 years forward.

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) Then we had 9/11 which cost $2 trillion or at the above example another $24 billion in loss tax revenue from 2004 and next 30 years.
2)145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
Hurricanes cost $1 trillion.. at the above another $12 billion in loss tax revenue.
Collectively Federal tax revenue Loss due to the $8 trillion in losses nearly $100 billion a year from 2003 and next 30 years!

Then payroll taxes
Assuming 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com bust -- 145,000 lost due to 9/11 (remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days!) 400,000 jobs lost due to hurricanes..
850,000 jobs lost.
So at say an average of $30,000 per job and Social Security and Medicare EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% or $2,295 paid by employee.. BUT I imagine you and many like you forget the EMPLOYER matches that and also pays $2,295 or a total of $4,590 paid in by Employee and Employer!
$4,590 times 850,000 jobs or near $4 billion a year due to those LOST jobs in Federal REVENUE!

So between these two tax revenue generators losing over $100 billion a year all due to what... EVENTS beyond ANYONE's control!!!

Discount the Hurricane one. There seem to be huge Hurricanes or droughts or floods for every President.

How about this: Bush W made the mistake of being President during normal times and not understanding the market of economy.

Reagan was a New Dealer who loved the positive effects of deficit spending.

Bush H well, was a company man who was President and um....did little besides a war in the sand and watch the economy.

Clinton ended up with a balanced budget and accidently let a program for poor folks get created which could then be applied by short sighted bankers to EVERYONE. Idiot Americans and their quarterly profit reports.

There. I said something niceish about everyone.

WRONG!! Discount the Hurricane one. There seem to be huge Hurricanes or droughts or floods for every President.
FACTS dumb f...k!!
The years 2001 to 2008 WERE THE WORST SEASONs in history! FACT!
Of the top 36 hurricanes since 1926 13 occurred from 2001 to 2008.
Of the total of $316 billion in damages these 13 cost 58% of that or $156 billion.
# 1Katrina (LA/MS/AL/SE FL) 2005 3 $81,000,000,000
# 3 through 7 hurricanes occurred from 2001 to 2008!
Costliest U.S. Hurricanes | Weather Underground
a) There were 26 named storms in 2005, surpassing the record of 21 set in 1933
b) Three of the hurricanes in the 2005 season reached Category 5 status, meaning they had wind speeds
greater than 155 mph at some point during the arc of the storm.
but we've never had three," said Steve Kiser, a tropical cyclone program manger at the National Weather Service.

How about this: "Bush W made the mistake of being President during normal times and not understanding the market of economy."
what an absolutely STUPID dumb f...k comment!
The Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market losses and 300,000 jobs ! Do you understand what means?? TAX REVENUE DECLINE by $60 billion a year for 30 years you idiot as people take capital losses against their TAX LIABILITY!!!
300,000 people NO LONGER paying and employers no longer paying SS/Medicare !

NOT ONE MENTION of 9/11 you dummy! Cost $2 trillion in losses nearly $24 billion a year in tax revenue decline! 150,000 people out of work and you totally ignore it!

WHY is it SO f...king HaRD to admit those events Happened?
AND when they did there were Economic consequences! That are costing Federal revenue $100 billion a year for next 30 years!
Seismic events! Cataclysmic events! History changing events... the likes that have never been seen in American history by any President!

See this is why more and more people are refuting idiots like YOU! Because the FACTS are against you!
People do remember the dot.com bust and the money lost and the jobs lost!
They DO remember 9/11 and the anthrax attacks and the hurricanes EVEN if YOU try to ignore them ... these EVENTS happened and nothing like this convergence of earth shattering events has ever occurred in an 8 year period in all of history!

And you have amnesia???

Ah, nothing like calling folks names to help make sure your side gets fewer votes.

You do have a valid point about hurricane losses. Here in the Midwest I am pretty detached from the routine southeast weather events.

Lets think about market losses. You buy $100 in stock in my company. It goes under. Is the money gone? Nope. My company spent it on whores or steel or advertising or SOMETHING.

None the less if banks are leveraged off these stocks it can have a tumbling effect.

Also interesting is the way your post is if your natural disaster effect on the whole economy can be applied to the dust bowl era.

Finally we can not allow it to become too big a rallying point for Team Obama. Elsewise they will claim the bank collapse ruined the economy for their whole two terms. Now THAT was a cluster which affected the middle class's buying power and slowed the economy.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Interesting that Republicans are trying re-write history this fast. You have to wait at least two generations for everyone to forget what a ********** your guy was before you can rehabilitate his image, like how you did with Reagan during the Bush Administration.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

Let's review:

Lehman Brother collapsed first, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Bear Stearns was a weak sister, they're gone these 4 Christmases past

Merrill Lynch: a subsidiary of BofA these 4 Christmases past

Fannie? Freddie? Sucked up $200B of Capital and totally dominate the residential mortgage market

Banks are profitable, so what exactly are you talking about when you mindless parrot Obama's talking points?

The ones guilty of financial fraud have not been prosecuted and held accountable and therefore, the economy will not recover until the rule of law has been re-established in that industry, like we did with the S&L scandal.

That, plus the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the two wars he started, make up the rock from which the economy cannot get out from under. Obama throwing the middle class under the bus by cutting entitlements, is the nail in the coffin.

You want to prosecute Fannie and Freddie?

What about Jon Corzine?

Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001, how did the collapse the economy 7 years later?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

Let's review:

07-17-2004

Kerry’s Economic Deficit​

"The challenger will have trouble darkening this bright picture.

If it’s not bad enough that rapid economic recovery has neutered Sen. Kerry’s principal domestic criticism of President Bush, now comes even worse news for the Democratic campaign: The budget deficit is starting to substantially shrink.

The latest budget numbers show a $19.1 billion surplus for June, $3 billion higher than the $16 billion Wall Street expectation. It seems that a flood of new tax collections, spurred by fatter employment payrolls and corporate profits, is rapidly reducing the federal budget gap. Tax receipts from businesses rose an astonishing 38 percent over the past twelve months and personal income-tax collections increased almost 9 percent. What’s happening? Could it be that stronger economic growth from lower tax rates is producing more tax receipts? I believe it’s called supply-side economics.

As the tax-cut-led recovery continues, deficits will rapidly wane over the coming years.

All this is why Kerry’s proposal to raise tax rates on upper-income individuals, small businesses, and key investment categories like capital gains and dividends is so completely out of touch. The Kerry tax hikes will blunt the good news on growth and deficits, exactly the reverse of what the pessimistic Kerryites are predicting.

Like the modern Democratic party, the Kerryites neither understand nor acknowledge the tax-incentive model of economic growth that simply restates an old truism: Individuals produce and invest more if it is more profitable after-tax to do so."

Gee.....where would we be, if it wasn't for all o' those "conservative"-psychics??

 

[ba1614]

Every single American that continuously sticks their hand out for Uncle Sam to put something in it is to blame.

Sadly, too many today have been brainwashed to believe that it's governments job to wipe their ass for them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bush Crashed the Economy and other lame excuses

Democrats can you please tell us in your own words how it is still possible that the Obama economy continues to suck because of Boooooooooosh?

Let's review:

12/9/2005

Supply-Side Boom​

"We were struck by a chart that Treasury Secretary John Snow used last week when he presented the administration's case for making the 2003 tax cuts permanent.

For Democrats opposed to the cuts, no argument has been more potent than that tax cuts somehow "cost" the government money — and thus make deficits worse. Snow's chart, shown below, puts the lie to that argument.

In fact, the supply-siders are right: Revenues rise after tax rates are reduced. Federal revenues bottomed at $1.8 trillion just as Bush signed his bill; since then, they've risen 19.4% to $2.15 trillion, an all-time high.

This also explains why the richest Americans' share of all income taxes paid has soared to 34.27% from 19.05% in 1980 even though their average income-tax rate has fallen by roughly a third — from 34.47% to 24.31% in 2003.

More important, however, is the impact tax cuts have on the economy. Since May 2003, when Bush's major plan of tax cuts on both capital and income took effect, the economy has been on a tear. It's virtually impossible to argue the two aren't linked.

We also hear how all the tax cuts are going to the "rich." Again, not true. A surge in entrepreneurship, jobs, income and wealth has made all of us richer and more secure."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

09-20-2006

More Bad News For Libs​

This is making tax cuts look more promising, although looking at it from an economic growth perspective, tax revenue as a percent of GDP is still below pre-tax cut levels so you can't conclude for cetain that we moved the correct direction down the Laffer curve to balance tax rates and the rate of growth for the GDP.

Not to mention record home ownership, low unemployment, low inflation, good GDP numbers, strong consumer spending, and strong construction spending.

The Dow may set an all time high. People will love their 401K statements when they look at them

All this is bad news for the libs

 

[Mr. Shaman]

i just want to watch this thread fail and Frank drag out old talking points.

This sounds like the time for that FAUX Noise Superman......

...John Stossel!!!!

05-19-2007
The Tax-Cut Myth