Republicans still don't understand how enormous of a disaster the Bush Admin was

[LordBrownTrout]

8 years of record trillions added to the debt, record numbers on welfare, 100 million out of work, lowest gdps in our countries history under O's watch......but yeah, lets go back and blame bush. Lol. This only makes the rdeans look like the petulant little school girls that they are.

Trillions from the deficit creating Bush Tax cuts - Obama's fault? Doesn't make sense.

4.7% unemployment, 5.8 million unfilled jobs. Morons call that 100 million of out work.

73 straight months of economic growth. Fools call that a disaster.

No, no. The unemployment numbers are derived differently now to paint the admin in a nice light. Idiots refuse to acknowledge the part time jobs that have been added and not full time. You still didn't answer the question of the lowest gdps in the history of this nation. There is no lipstick that will disguise the pig that you are trying to cast off as a queen.

Republicans want a higher GDP. One of the longest periods, if not the longest period of economic growth in the entire history of the US and the only thing they can say is it's not enough. And Remember, these are the people who watched millions of jobs move out of the country and over 42,000 factories close from 2001 to 2008. And then worked to bring Obama down at the expense of the good of the country and you know they can never, ever deny that. It's been thoroughly documented.
And right wingers refuse to acknowledge the 5.8 million jobs open, unfilled and available to those with the right skills. But you need some kind of schooling. Republicans and schooling. In a way the thought of both of them together is both hilarious and distasteful.

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

Its astounding as to how low you set the bar. These are not full time jobs. Record numbers are on welfare and millions are working two and three jobs just to subsist. Anyone who labels that as success has some problems with logic and reasonable deduction.

 

[tyroneweaver]

8 years of record trillions added to the debt, record numbers on welfare, 100 million out of work, lowest gdps in our countries history under O's watch......but yeah, lets go back and blame bush. Lol. This only makes the rdeans look like the petulant little school girls that they are.

U act like everything reset to zero on Obamas first day . bushes two stupid wars are still a drain on us 15 years later .

...and America will never have the health care system it once had. But once again the dems favor the rich by giving them great health care and pleabes will have to rely on the feds

 

[BluesLegend]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

 

[rdean]

Trillions from the deficit creating Bush Tax cuts - Obama's fault? Doesn't make sense.

You don't make sense. Letting people keep more of their hard earned money creates debt in Libville, but not in reality. Liberals assume all spending is God's work and must go on regardless. In fact, even slowing spending growth is considered a cut in spending. Somewhere in Libville it's written in stone that we must spend like there's no tomorrow.

I realize you are too far gone for information you don't already believe but for the others:

(and there's more detailed analysis on the page about the ten big myths libs live by)


Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:

• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

This is the problem with bringing up bullshit from the Heritage Foundation. It's always bullshit.

Let me answer a couple of the most obvious.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Because states had to raise taxes to make up for what was lost. And the Federal government had to step in and help Red State which is why the deficit grew. Duh!

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Hello, two unpaid for wars and deficit creation. Duh!

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
What does that even mean?

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
70% of any revenue went to the top 5% and 90% to the top 20%. Remember? That's how the GOP measures "doing good".

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Yea, at least we know now for sure trickle down doesn't work.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Well yea, screw up the economy by sending jobs to China and enormous tax cuts for the rich and that's what happens.

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Unless 90% goes to the top 5%. Then not so much.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
It sure did. By 2008, it turned to shit.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Why not? They got 90% of the tax cuts.

The most hilarious part of bullshit that comes from the Heritage Foundation is when they say:
FACT: Projections show...........
Hello, Projections aren't "fact".

Next time, I might go look stuff up, but this shit is so old, it's been debunked long ago.

 

[rdean]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

They beat him the first time. The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency.
The second time, Lurch was the worst candidate ever and we still didn't understand we had been tricked into Iraq.

I wouldn't be so proud of lying to the country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You would think that looking back, even the GOP base would understand how big of a disaster the Bush administration was. All of their enormous failures. How they damaged the country. They can't even name something positive from that horrible and failed administration.

Considering the enormity of the disaster, why is it they don't get it?

The most terrifying thing to me is how close we came to complete global economic collapse. Few people outside economics and academica understand how critical our situation had become. Were it not for the fortuitous timing of our election cycle, allowing us to reverse policy and infuse massive amounts of stimulus into our economy that was teetering on the edge of total disintegration (which would have resulted in catastrophic global economic depression), we wouldn't be sitting here fat and happy blaming Obama for not fixing things much more quickly and more to our liking.

As it was, we've suffered irreversible fundamental systemic damage, damage that can never be repaired. Trillions and trillions of dollars of accumulated wealth evaporated and millions of livelihoods crushed. And it was entirely preventable. It was inexcusable for Fed Chairman Greenspan to be taken "completely unawares" by the collapse because of his unwavering faith that our financial institutions were capable of regulating themselves, if only out of their own self-interest.

I don't favor the death penalty, but sometimes I think we should have built a special gallows on the White House lawn and hanged the principals of the Bush administration and the Fed Chairman, and left the bodies to sway in the wind in perpetuity as a reminder to every occupant of the Oval Office who follows what is in store for him if he thinks deregulation is the way to go.

So we traded that for $13 Trillion of new borrowing by the US government and the Fed.

Such a deal!

 

[Iceweasel]

Trillions from the deficit creating Bush Tax cuts - Obama's fault? Doesn't make sense.

You don't make sense. Letting people keep more of their hard earned money creates debt in Libville, but not in reality. Liberals assume all spending is God's work and must go on regardless. In fact, even slowing spending growth is considered a cut in spending. Somewhere in Libville it's written in stone that we must spend like there's no tomorrow.

I realize you are too far gone for information you don't already believe but for the others:

(and there's more detailed analysis on the page about the ten big myths libs live by)


Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:

• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

This is the problem with bringing up bullshit from the Heritage Foundation. It's always bullshit.

Let me answer a couple of the most obvious.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Because states had to raise taxes to make up for what was lost. And the Federal government had to step in and help Red State which is why the deficit grew. Duh!

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Hello, two unpaid for wars and deficit creation. Duh!

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
What does that even mean?

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
70% of any revenue went to the top 5% and 90% to the top 20%. Remember? That's how the GOP measures "doing good".

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Yea, at least we know now for sure trickle down doesn't work.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Well yea, screw up the economy by sending jobs to China and enormous tax cuts for the rich and that's what happens.

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Unless 90% goes to the top 5%. Then not so much.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
It sure did. By 2008, it turned to shit.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Why not? They got 90% of the tax cuts.

The most hilarious part of bullshit that comes from the Heritage Foundation is when they say:
FACT: Projections show...........
Hello, Projections aren't "fact".

Next time, I might go look stuff up, but this shit is so old, it's been debunked long ago.

Let's see, it's the Heritage Foundation versus some retard on a forum? Decisions decisions.

The rich getting 90% of the tax cuts, even if that were true, does not mean that aren't still paying most of the taxes. LOL.

Go find a playground, you're wasting our time.

 

[BluesLegend]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

They beat him the first time. The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency.
The second time, Lurch was the worst candidate ever and we still didn't understand we had been tricked into Iraq.

I wouldn't be so proud of lying to the country.

Oh here we go with the left's contradictions and excuses. You people say Bush is a complete imbecile yet he whooped your ass twice. Why didn't Gore win it by 10 points? And Kerry you people were already chanting 'this war is lost' blah blah yet Bush whooped your ass again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

They beat him the first time. The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency.
The second time, Lurch was the worst candidate ever and we still didn't understand we had been tricked into Iraq.

I wouldn't be so proud of lying to the country.

The delusional runs deep in the Derp.

 

[Iceweasel]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

They beat him the first time. The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency.
The second time, Lurch was the worst candidate ever and we still didn't understand we had been tricked into Iraq.

I wouldn't be so proud of lying to the country.

Liar. The dems wanted to recount until the numbers came up right and overshot the state deadline. There's only one authority above the state and they said enough was enough. Liberals have to lie about everything.

 

[peabody]

Bush is a rotten person and his presidency was a disaster but let's not hide from the disaster that was Clinton's presidency. Although not nearly as bad as Bush, his neoliberal economic policies led to a shrinking middle class, wage stagnation, economic inequality and partly responsible for the 2008 financial crisis

 

[BluesLegend]

What's funny is Democrats couldn't beat Bush, I mean the man could barely speak a complete sentence.

They beat him the first time. The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency.
The second time, Lurch was the worst candidate ever and we still didn't understand we had been tricked into Iraq.

I wouldn't be so proud of lying to the country.

Liar. The dems wanted to recount until the numbers came up right and overshot the state deadline. There's only one authority above the state and they said enough was enough. Liberals have to lie about everything.

They have nothing but lies left in the bag, their policies have failed both foreign and domestic. Their ideology has failed, look at Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit.

 

[Vastator]

You would think that looking back, even the GOP base would understand how big of a disaster the Bush administration was. All of their enormous failures. How they damaged the country. They can't even name something positive from that horrible and failed administration.

Considering the enormity of the disaster, why is it they don't get it?

Fleshing out excuses for a potential Hillary presidency already I see. That's prudent. Cuz if she wins... Your gonna need em'.

 

[Iceweasel]

Lefties believe Bush is responsible for anything going wrong until another Republican is in the White House.

 

[Al Azar]

You would think that looking back, even the GOP base would understand how big of a disaster the Bush administration was. All of their enormous failures. How they damaged the country. They can't even name something positive from that horrible and failed administration.

Considering the enormity of the disaster, why is it they don't get it?

The most terrifying thing to me is how close we came to complete global economic collapse. Few people outside economics and academica understand how critical our situation had become. Were it not for the fortuitous timing of our election cycle, allowing us to reverse policy and infuse massive amounts of stimulus into our economy that was teetering on the edge of total disintegration (which would have resulted in catastrophic global economic depression), we wouldn't be sitting here fat and happy blaming Obama for not fixing things much more quickly and more to our liking.

As it was, we've suffered irreversible fundamental systemic damage, damage that can never be repaired. Trillions and trillions of dollars of accumulated wealth evaporated and millions of livelihoods crushed. And it was entirely preventable. It was inexcusable for Fed Chairman Greenspan to be taken "completely unawares" by the collapse because of his unwavering faith that our financial institutions were capable of regulating themselves, if only out of their own self-interest.

I don't favor the death penalty, but sometimes I think we should have built a special gallows on the White House lawn and hanged the principals of the Bush administration and the Fed Chairman, and left the bodies to sway in the wind in perpetuity as a reminder to every occupant of the Oval Office who follows what is in store for him if he thinks deregulation is the way to go.

So we traded that for $13 Trillion of new borrowing by the US government and the Fed.

Such a deal!

Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to cover expenses after bestowing unaffordable tax cuts. Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to save our economy that's swirling the drain because of the policies who those who favor such tax cuts.

Guess who is who in this parable.

 

[Al Azar]

They have nothing but lies left in the bag, their policies have failed both foreign and domestic. Their ideology has failed, look at Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit.

They have nothing but credit for a thriving economy, vis-a-vis 2008. Who got us to that point, and who brought us back from the brink?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You would think that looking back, even the GOP base would understand how big of a disaster the Bush administration was. All of their enormous failures. How they damaged the country. They can't even name something positive from that horrible and failed administration.

Considering the enormity of the disaster, why is it they don't get it?

The most terrifying thing to me is how close we came to complete global economic collapse. Few people outside economics and academica understand how critical our situation had become. Were it not for the fortuitous timing of our election cycle, allowing us to reverse policy and infuse massive amounts of stimulus into our economy that was teetering on the edge of total disintegration (which would have resulted in catastrophic global economic depression), we wouldn't be sitting here fat and happy blaming Obama for not fixing things much more quickly and more to our liking.

As it was, we've suffered irreversible fundamental systemic damage, damage that can never be repaired. Trillions and trillions of dollars of accumulated wealth evaporated and millions of livelihoods crushed. And it was entirely preventable. It was inexcusable for Fed Chairman Greenspan to be taken "completely unawares" by the collapse because of his unwavering faith that our financial institutions were capable of regulating themselves, if only out of their own self-interest.

I don't favor the death penalty, but sometimes I think we should have built a special gallows on the White House lawn and hanged the principals of the Bush administration and the Fed Chairman, and left the bodies to sway in the wind in perpetuity as a reminder to every occupant of the Oval Office who follows what is in store for him if he thinks deregulation is the way to go.

So we traded that for $13 Trillion of new borrowing by the US government and the Fed.

Such a deal!

Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to cover expenses after bestowing unaffordable tax cuts. Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to save our economy that's swirling the drain because of the policies who those who favor such tax cuts.

Guess who is who in this parable.

That's funny! Oh, wait. You were serious?

You know WWII started and ended in less time than Obama has been in office, is he responsible for ANYTHING in your Fantasyland?

 

[Iceweasel]

You would think that looking back, even the GOP base would understand how big of a disaster the Bush administration was. All of their enormous failures. How they damaged the country. They can't even name something positive from that horrible and failed administration.

Considering the enormity of the disaster, why is it they don't get it?

The most terrifying thing to me is how close we came to complete global economic collapse. Few people outside economics and academica understand how critical our situation had become. Were it not for the fortuitous timing of our election cycle, allowing us to reverse policy and infuse massive amounts of stimulus into our economy that was teetering on the edge of total disintegration (which would have resulted in catastrophic global economic depression), we wouldn't be sitting here fat and happy blaming Obama for not fixing things much more quickly and more to our liking.

As it was, we've suffered irreversible fundamental systemic damage, damage that can never be repaired. Trillions and trillions of dollars of accumulated wealth evaporated and millions of livelihoods crushed. And it was entirely preventable. It was inexcusable for Fed Chairman Greenspan to be taken "completely unawares" by the collapse because of his unwavering faith that our financial institutions were capable of regulating themselves, if only out of their own self-interest.

I don't favor the death penalty, but sometimes I think we should have built a special gallows on the White House lawn and hanged the principals of the Bush administration and the Fed Chairman, and left the bodies to sway in the wind in perpetuity as a reminder to every occupant of the Oval Office who follows what is in store for him if he thinks deregulation is the way to go.

So we traded that for $13 Trillion of new borrowing by the US government and the Fed.

Such a deal!

Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to cover expenses after bestowing unaffordable tax cuts. Sometimes we borrow massive amounts to save our economy that's swirling the drain because of the policies who those who favor such tax cuts.

Guess who is who in this parable.

How are tax cuts unaffordable?

 

[Al Azar]

You know WWII started and ended in less time than Obama has been in office, is he responsible for ANYTHING in your Fantasyland?

An amazing economic recovery and social progress in the face of unrelenting, withering opposition.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know WWII started and ended in less time than Obama has been in office, is he responsible for ANYTHING in your Fantasyland?

An amazing economic recovery and social progress in the face of unrelenting, withering opposition.

And it only cost $13,000,000,000,000!

That's $40,000 for each and every American, allocated $80,000 to working people and $0 to Obama parasites and zombies

Thanks, Obama