GWB tax cuts = largest revenue growth to follow in history

[daveman]

Obama added 500 billion to our baseline
he has not allowed the Oil and Gas to expand as GWB had planned
over 50% of the jobs we have recovered came from Texas, ND, Louisiana, Oklahoma
drill baby drill
GWB had a plan,

One would get the impression that Obama doesn't give a damn about American jobs.

And one would be correct.

he has done nothing to create the atmosphere this country needs
Oil and gas is not about gas prices, it is about jobs
I am 1300 miles from home working building a gas plant in N Texas. No jobs at my home
13% UE and holding

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[J.E.D]

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”


Read more: DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Bullshit. Bush created 4 million jobs TOPS.

 

[auditor0007]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Lose jobs
lose wall street wealth
you lose taxable income
Not Tax Policy as this was proved as well as job growth until the credit bubble busted



You wonder why BHO has ignored those jobs in this jobless recovery?

Not really a surprise.

Tax cuts stimulate business growth. Business growth turns into more revenues and more revenues means more taxes.

I is astonishing that the economy grew all through Bushes term, but the economy began to sicken and die when Democrats were elected in 2006. By the end of Bushes term, the Democrats has managed to destroy 5 solid years of growth. We still haven't recovered from their mismanagement of government to this day.

The growth was all based on the housing bubble. When it burst, everything went to shit as was expected. Saying we had record growth in revenues due to a bubble is just stupid. The record growth could not be maintained because it wasn't real; it was strictly inflated numbers based on speculation. Good grief, you people need to learn something about economics.

 

[Care4all]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Lose jobs
lose wall street wealth
you lose taxable income
Not Tax Policy as this was proved as well as job growth until the credit bubble busted



You wonder why BHO has ignored those jobs in this jobless recovery?

And yet Wages were essentially stagnant and this is a consumer spending based economy.
Andf even with such growth in revenues Bush still overspent by around 5 trillion.

Not really anything to be proud of.

Would you PLEASE do some DD before you vote again
GWB added 700 billion through 08 budget, thats all
2009 he added about 300 more billion
BHO added the same or more in 09, and then added another 500 billion in 2010
Your talking Debt, not sepnding
And GWB only added 2.5 trillion the debt thru 08 and another 1.25 in 09
50% of 09 was BHO
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
which we know turned out to be allot more
The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures
The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt
Federal Spending By the Numbers 2008
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

Under President Bush's reign, $6 TRILLION DOLLARS was added to the National Debt total. Under President Bush's reign we had the HOUSING BUBBLE....and during this BUBBLE more people were working, more realtors, more carpenters, more plumbers, more roofers, more general contractors, more appraisers, more loan officers, more Real Estate investors/ Flippers, etc etc etc etc etc....and more people playing around in financials on wall street and in the banking industry betting for and against this bubbled market....amazing what bubbles can do eh?

Do you truly believe that revenues increased due to the tax cuts only and not because of the FAKE AND PHONY SHAM OF A HOUSING BUBBLE? Bush's first set of tax cuts took place in 2001, his second set of tax cuts in 2003, and tax revenues DID NOT GO HIGHER than what was collected in 2000 during Clinton's last year, until the year 2005...that was 5 years of tax revenue LOSSES compared to before the tax cuts, before he had a slight increase in taxes over the last year of Clinton in 2005 and then the whole country fell to its knees beginning in 2007 and was obliterated in 2008.

I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from, but you are clearly not considering several factors and are leaving out what was added to the National Debt under him, you keep trying to use the Public Debt and NOT THE TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT, WHY IS THAT? His spending went from Clinton's last budget of spending around 2 trillion a year in total to President bush's last fiscal year of spending around 3.5 trillion a year....his spending increases were BEYOND REASON, skyrocketed the spending of our federal government more than any president in my life time, and I am no spring chicken. (in the 4 years Obama will be in office, he has raised spending by ONLY 300 billion....over bush's last year of spending, NOT the $1.5 TRILLION a year that president Bush had raised federal spending after his 8 years)

Also, his deficits appeared lower than the $6 trillion he added to our total national debt because the Social Security Surpluses that were collected during his presidency were the HIGHEST in Social security's history....and these social security surplus revenues "masked" Bush's deficit spending because they were never put in to a lock box as he had promised during his campaign.

$2.3 TRILLION in Social security surplus Revenues masked the deficits that are shown during his presidency.

President bush's last fiscal year of responsibility, the deficit spending was $1.4 trillion dollars and ONLY 150 billion to 200 billion of that was what Obama had signed and added to it before September 30 of 2009....all other spending that Obama had signed off on took place during HIS first fiscal budget, after september 30th of 2009, which began the 2010 fiscal year.

If it were merely the Bush tax cuts that added revenue then why did all hell break loose in 2008, and Humpty Dumpty's wall crumble?

It was the Housing bubble.

 

[auditor0007]

And yet Wages were essentially stagnant and this is a consumer spending based economy.
Andf even with such growth in revenues Bush still overspent by around 5 trillion.

Not really anything to be proud of.

Would you PLEASE do some DD before you vote again
GWB added 700 billion through 08 budget, thats all
2009 he added about 300 more billion
BHO added the same or more in 09, and then added another 500 billion in 2010
Your talking Debt, not sepnding
And GWB only added 2.5 trillion the debt thru 08 and another 1.25 in 09
50% of 09 was BHO
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
which we know turned out to be allot more
The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures
The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt
Federal Spending By the Numbers 2008
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

Under President Bush's reign, $6 TRILLION DOLLARS was added to the National Debt total. Under President Bush's reign we had the HOUSING BUBBLE....and during this BUBBLE more people were working, more realtors, more carpenters, more plumbers, more roofers, more general contractors, more appraisers, more loan officers, more Real Estate investors/ Flippers, etc etc etc etc etc....and more people playing around in financials on wall street and in the banking industry betting for and against this bubbled market....amazing what bubbles can do eh?

Do you truly believe that revenues increased due to the tax cuts only and not because of the FAKE AND PHONY SHAM OF A HOUSING BUBBLE? Bush's first set of tax cuts took place in 2001, his second set of tax cuts in 2003, and tax revenues DID NOT GO HIGHER than what was collected in 2000 during Clinton's last year, until the year 2005...that was 5 years of tax revenue LOSSES compared to before the tax cuts, before he had a slight increase in taxes over the last year of Clinton in 2005 and then the whole country fell to its knees beginning in 2007 and was obliterated in 2008.

I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from, but you are clearly not considering several factors and are leaving out what was added to the National Debt under him, you keep trying to use the Public Debt and NOT THE TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT, WHY IS THAT? His spending went from Clinton's last budget of spending around 2 trillion a year in total to President bush's last fiscal year of spending around 3.5 trillion a year....his spending increases were BEYOND REASON, skyrocketed the spending of our federal government more than any president in my life time, and I am no spring chicken. (in the 4 years Obama will be in office, he has raised spending by ONLY 300 billion....over bush's last year of spending, NOT the $1.5 TRILLION a year that president Bush had raised federal spending after his 8 years)

Also, his deficits appeared lower than the $6 trillion he added to our total national debt because the Social Security Surpluses that were collected during his presidency were the HIGHEST in Social security's history....and these social security surplus revenues "masked" Bush's deficit spending because they were never put in to a lock box as he had promised during his campaign.

$2.3 TRILLION in Social security surplus Revenues masked the deficits that are shown during his presidency.

President bush's last fiscal year of responsibility, the deficit spending was $1.4 trillion dollars and ONLY 150 billion to 200 billion of that was what Obama had signed and added to it before September 30 of 2009....all other spending that Obama had signed off on took place during HIS first fiscal budget, after september 30th of 2009, which began the 2010 fiscal year.

If it were merely the Bush tax cuts that added revenue then why did all hell break loose in 2008, and Humpty Dumpty's wall crumble?

It was the Housing bubble.

Thank God someone here has a brain.

 

[auditor0007]

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”


Read more: DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Bullshit. Bush created 4 million jobs TOPS.

Take away the housing bubble, and Bush has a good six years of recession. Now, I don't blame Bush directly for the housing bubble, although he helped in making the conditions right for it, but many others were responsible. The point is that his tax cuts didn't do anything positive for the country. Last of all, the tax cuts were never put out there as a way to stimulate the economy. Bush sold everyone on the tax cuts because, at the time, the CBO was projecting surpluses for years to come. Bush thought that money should go directly back to the taxpayers. He also stated that should revenues fall, the tax cuts should be rescinded. This is something all Republicans agreed with at the time. Then they got greedy.

 

[Care4all]

One would get the impression that Obama doesn't give a damn about American jobs.

And one would be correct.

he has done nothing to create the atmosphere this country needs
Oil and gas is not about gas prices, it is about jobs
I am 1300 miles from home working building a gas plant in N Texas. No jobs at my home
13% UE and holding

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

Ask romney, he did the same thing....funded solar/green companies that later went belly up, with tax payer's money..... I guess you win some you lose some, no matter who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, or how much "business apptitude" you are suppose to have....eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We've gone from 136 billion surplus to a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit since the Bush tax cuts were put in place. The Bush tax structure has yet to pay for a single year's budget of government spending.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama raising taxes isn't about good money sense. It's about vengence and anger against the "haves", or who they simply dont like.

Really? Reagan must have really hated the haves, he raised taxes 11 times during his presidency and raised the tax on interest income.
Bush raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes. They all hated the haves soo much.

 

[Moonglow]

he has done nothing to create the atmosphere this country needs
Oil and gas is not about gas prices, it is about jobs
I am 1300 miles from home working building a gas plant in N Texas. No jobs at my home
13% UE and holding

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

Ask romney, he did the same thing....funded solar/green companies that later went belly up, with tax payer's money..... I guess you win some you lose some, no matter who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, or how much "business apptitude" you are suppose to have....eh?

Another dave moment?

 

[Moonglow]

Does the right forget the Bush stimulus checks? Do they not remember the term, jobless recovery?

 

[zeke]

Figures lie and liars figure. Proven again and again.

Just think, under the Rethugs we can cut all taxes to zero and the defiicit will magically disappear because of all the wonderful economic activity that will take place. But there won't be any taxes collected off the activity, so hows that gonna pay............oh never mind, You rehtugs got it figured out I'm sure.

It's gonna be so cool when no one pays taxes. Hurry up and giterdone.

And Bush really REALLY was the most fiscally disciplined President EVER. Those deficits that people blame on him........no way. Nancy Pelosi was the culprit. Bush did nothing.
Bush could hardly say "deficit". Let alone spell it.

 

[GreatDay]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Lose jobs
lose wall street wealth
you lose taxable income
Not Tax Policy as this was proved as well as job growth until the credit bubble busted



You wonder why BHO has ignored those jobs in this jobless recovery?

Could you tell me why this guy got it so wrong?

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”


“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adjusted for inflation, revenues over the course of the Bush tax cuts, 2002 to the present, are virtually flat.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[J.E.D]

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”


Read more: DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

Bullshit. Bush created 4 million jobs TOPS.

Take away the housing bubble, and Bush has a good six years of recession. Now, I don't blame Bush directly for the housing bubble, although he helped in making the conditions right for it, but many others were responsible. The point is that his tax cuts didn't do anything positive for the country. Last of all, the tax cuts were never put out there as a way to stimulate the economy. Bush sold everyone on the tax cuts because, at the time, the CBO was projecting surpluses for years to come. Bush thought that money should go directly back to the taxpayers. He also stated that should revenues fall, the tax cuts should be rescinded. This is something all Republicans agreed with at the time. Then they got greedy.

Yep, they were scheduled to sunset for a reason.

 

[daveman]

he has done nothing to create the atmosphere this country needs
Oil and gas is not about gas prices, it is about jobs
I am 1300 miles from home working building a gas plant in N Texas. No jobs at my home
13% UE and holding

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

Ask romney, he did the same thing....funded solar/green companies that later went belly up, with tax payer's money..... I guess you win some you lose some, no matter who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, or how much "business apptitude" you are suppose to have....eh?

Did Romney decide to fund those companies despite the advice of experts because the owner was a party donor?

Because that's what Obama did with Solyndra.

 

[daveman]

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

Ask romney, he did the same thing....funded solar/green companies that later went belly up, with tax payer's money..... I guess you win some you lose some, no matter who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, or how much "business apptitude" you are suppose to have....eh?

Another dave moment?

Same question for you: Did Romney decide to fund those companies despite the advice of experts because the owner was a party donor?

 

[daveman]

Figures lie and liars figure. Proven again and again.

Just think, under the Rethugs we can cut all taxes to zero and the defiicit will magically disappear because of all the wonderful economic activity that will take place. But there won't be any taxes collected off the activity, so hows that gonna pay............oh never mind, You rehtugs got it figured out I'm sure.

It's gonna be so cool when no one pays taxes. Hurry up and giterdone.

And Bush really REALLY was the most fiscally disciplined President EVER. Those deficits that people blame on him........no way. Nancy Pelosi was the culprit. Bush did nothing.
Bush could hardly say "deficit". Let alone spell it.

The obvious answer is to take even more money away from people. Then we'll all be rich!

 

[Full-Auto]

he has done nothing to create the atmosphere this country needs
Oil and gas is not about gas prices, it is about jobs
I am 1300 miles from home working building a gas plant in N Texas. No jobs at my home
13% UE and holding

Just imagine if you worked for a green energy company whose owner was a big Dem donor.

You'd be out of work, but hey! The owner would have millions of taxpayer dollars! That makes it okay.

Right, USMB lefties?

Ask romney, he did the same thing....funded solar/green companies that later went belly up, with tax payer's money..... I guess you win some you lose some, no matter who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, or how much "business apptitude" you are suppose to have....eh?

Did he write in a disclaimer the owners would not lose a personal dime?

Lets compare apples and apples....................Did Romney do it 16 times?

 

[healthmyths]

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Lose jobs
lose wall street wealth
you lose taxable income
Not Tax Policy as this was proved as well as job growth until the credit bubble busted



You wonder why BHO has ignored those jobs in this jobless recovery?

Not really a surprise.

Tax cuts stimulate business growth. Business growth turns into more revenues and more revenues means more taxes.

I is astonishing that the economy grew all through Bushes term, but the economy began to sicken and die when Democrats were elected in 2006. By the end of Bushes term, the Democrats has managed to destroy 5 solid years of growth. We still haven't recovered from their mismanagement of government to this day.

In reality you could have added another $266 billion a year starting in 2004 in tax revenue IF... IF!!
1) $5 trillion in market losses in 2000 from the dot.com bust weren't written off at $166 billion starting in 2002
2) $2 trillion in losses from 9/11 - another $66 billion in write offs.. 18,000 businesses, destroyed no flights 3 days!
3) $1 trillion in losses due to worst Hurricane seasons(plural!) in history another $33 billion..

All in all starting in 2005 and up to this year nearly $2.6 TRILLION in written off Federal tax revenue..

BUT DOES ANYONE remember that????
Consider also that another $1.2 trillion spent because of the war on terror.. Homeland Security $600 billion AND
if the f...king traitorous DEMOCRATS had not been encouraging the barbarians to KILL US TROOPS using little kids with bombs that went off when getting CANDY from our troops.. statements like these that the terrorists LOVED to use to recruit more thugs!

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets --action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

These traitors helped encourage terrorists which prolonged the LIBERATION of IRAQ and prolonged ending the
1991 CEASE FIRE that was broken dozens of times -- then 3,000+ troops and $600 billion would NOT have been used!

When these traitors made those remarks.. I literally wept for our troops KNOWING that some would die because these a...holes wanted political gain! Damn the USA! Screw our Troops! Tell the world HOW bad ALL our troops are!
Tell the world THE USA KILLS civilans ALL the time in air raids (Obama!)..

I puke everytime I see Obama do his weak-wristed wussy salute to the soldier guarding his helicopter!