jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
No really.
Phil Gramm put the amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that allowed the creation of the financial derivatives that destroyed the banks.
George Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased the National Debt to fund the ridiculous invasion of Iraq.
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro*jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend*ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev*enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
And opinion piece from Heritage.org, a partisan rightwing think tank that worshipped Geroge Bush and supported 99% of everthing he did?
Are you fucking serious with this shit?
Are you ever going to stop defending Bush with all your heart and soul?
Can you show where tax revenues weren't more than projected or are you continuing with your BDS?