The bush balanced budget plan

[SniperFire]

Didn't brain-dead Reagan promise a balanced budget by 1984?

Yes. In fact:

'In February 1981 Reagan presented the Economic Tax Recovery Act to Congress, calling for massive personal and corporate tax cuts, reductions in government spending, and a balanced budget.'

The 1982 Recession . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS


Tipp O'Neill and the Libtards in Congress said F that, they had free gubmint stuff they wants to hand out to the homies. Now you know how that went down.

No charge for your edumajacation.

This will keep me laughing all morning. Snipper using the dreaded, hated Public Broadcasting System aka PBS, to try and "prove" a point.

Funny funny shit right there.

Zeke says facts are a real mofo to him.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Here's the most important budget/tax question about Bush that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to, and rarely even get an attempt at:

In 2003, Bush cut taxes AGAIN. Why?

1. We were already in 2 wars; they weren't unforeseen future events at that time. We KNEW we had to pay for them.

2.. The Republicans had a big expensive Medicare expansion plan in the works; it was not some surprise that was lurking unseen in the future. We KNEW we had to pay for it.

3. The economy was not in recession in 2003. We were in no way in dire need of tax relief.

Why did Bush cut taxes AGAIN in 2003?

To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.


Mission Accomplished.

Education is free today.


LOL

 

[emptystep]

Didn't brain-dead Reagan promise a balanced budget by 1984?

Yes. In fact:

'In February 1981 Reagan presented the Economic Tax Recovery Act to Congress, calling for massive personal and corporate tax cuts, reductions in government spending, and a balanced budget.'

The 1982 Recession . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS


Tipp O'Neill and the Libtards in Congress said F that, they had free gubmint stuff they wants to hand out to the homies. Now you know how that went down.

No charge for your edumajacation.

This will keep me laughing all morning. Snipper using the dreaded, hated Public Broadcasting System aka PBS, to try and "prove" a point.

Funny funny shit right there.

PBS broadcasts the truth and hence the real reason for the attack on Big Bird. TRUTH, the number one enemy of the right wing. It must be squashed in all instances.

 

[Too Tall]

So are you saying what I posted is untrue, or are you just showing us you're just one more kool aid slurping dumbass on a board full of kool aid slurpping dumbasses?

Why don't you tell us how the Democratic Congress tanked the economy in 2007,

in terms that remotely resemble legitimate cause and effect. And make sure you show us how Bush, who was still president, was powerless to prevent the Congress from CAUSING THE RECESSION.

NO what I am saying is what I already said. However I will make an addition.

You are so fuking partisan and full of hate (as are most rethugs) that you can't accept responsibility or place blame on anything that a rethug does.

You want to claim that the surplus Clinton left Bush (which of course you will claim there was never a surplus, no matter how many economists say there was) was the result of the Rethugs in Congress. Cool. I am sure they played their part.

But you will claim Bush did nothing wrong in his 8 long years and I wouldn't be surprised if you next claim that Bush left Obama a thriving, vibrant economy. With virtually no debt.

Or if you do acknowledge that the economy was in a mess at the end of Bush, you will claim it was all the Dems in Congress's fault.

Right or wrong on the above statements?

It's like when something good happens under a Dem Presidency, it was the rethugs in the congress.

When something bad happens under a Rehtug president, it becomes the fault of the Dems in Congress.

Do you Rethgus ever take responsibility for your own actions? Or do you blame anyone and everyone else for your fukups?

Clinton left Bush the DOT COM bubble that burst, a week foreign policy that resulted in 911. Along came Katrina, and Bush still had an average unemployment rate of 5.2% for 8 years. And, he didn't whine about it, but he did get two stimuuls packages through Congress that were given to the taxpayers in the form of a check. Obama preferred getting almost a trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress to dole out to his campaign contributors and union supporters.

I fault Bush for being unable to reverse the insane housing loan policies that he inherited, even though he did try. I am sure you are smart enough to realized that the sub-prime lending in the housing market was the primary cause of the recession beginning in 2007.

 

[Too Tall]

Yes. In fact:

'In February 1981 Reagan presented the Economic Tax Recovery Act to Congress, calling for massive personal and corporate tax cuts, reductions in government spending, and a balanced budget.'

The 1982 Recession . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS


Tipp O'Neill and the Libtards in Congress said F that, they had free gubmint stuff they wants to hand out to the homies. Now you know how that went down.

No charge for your edumajacation.

This will keep me laughing all morning. Snipper using the dreaded, hated Public Broadcasting System aka PBS, to try and "prove" a point.

Funny funny shit right there.

PBS broadcasts the truth and hence the real reason for the attack on Big Bird. TRUTH, the number one enemy of the right wing. It must be squashed in all instances.

Some of us are beyond watching Big Bird for the truth.

 

[emptystep]

This will keep me laughing all morning. Snipper using the dreaded, hated Public Broadcasting System aka PBS, to try and "prove" a point.

Funny funny shit right there.

PBS broadcasts the truth and hence the real reason for the attack on Big Bird. TRUTH, the number one enemy of the right wing. It must be squashed in all instances.

Some of us are beyond watching Big Bird for the truth.

Well some of us aren't. (And some of us should go back to, or start, watching Big Bird for the truth because they have no idea what it is and that it matters.)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The bush balanced budget plan

I am a grumpy old man, to keep my blood flowing, I often listen to Sean
Hannity. Sean always mentions Obamas promise to cut the deficit in half.
That always gets my blood boiling.
Didn't brain-dead Reagan promise a balanced budget by 1984?
On the day of the second presidential debate, media whore Tom Brokaw
said Obama will have to answer for his trillion dollar deficits.

Lets see what caused these deficits.
Like Clinton sez, it's only math.

February 4, 2008.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2009-BUD-4.pdf
THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT

In my 2009 Budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our
Nation’s most pressing needs while addressing the long-term challenges
ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending discipline, we will balance
the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national
security. And that will help make our country safer and more prosperous.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 4, 2008

SUMMARY TABLES
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2009-BUD-31.pdf

Bush Balanced
Budget Baseline
2009 . ...Projected.....Actual ....Difference
Receipts...2,700 .......2,105 .....-595
Outlays....3,107 .......3,518 .....+411
Deficit .....-407 ......-1,413

Bush
2010 . ...Projected.....Actual ....Difference
Receipts...2,931 .......2,163 .....-768
Outlays....3,091 .......3,456 .....+365
Deficit .....-160 ......-1,293

2011 . ...Projected.....Actual ....Difference
Receipts...3,076 .......2,304 .....-772
Outlays....3,171 .......3,603 .....+432
Deficit ......-95 ......-1.300

2012 . ...Projected.....Actual ....Difference
Receipts...3,270 .......2,450 .....-820
Outlays....3,222 .......3,540 .....+318
Deficit ......+48 .......1,090

Deficit .-1,413 .-1.293 .-1.300 .-1,090 =-5.096
Receipts ..-595 ...-768 ...-772 ...-820 =-2.955
Outlays ...+411 ,.,+365 ...+432 ...+318 =+1.526

As can be seen the collapse of the bush supply side scam resulted in
revenues coming in almost three trillion dollars less
than the bush balanced budget projections.
Spending came in about one and one half trillion above the bush balanced
budget projections.

Blame the black guy for spending three trillion dollars that he never got.
For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

Much of the spending increase was the result of the Bush recession that
lost almost nine million jobs.
The recession caused large increases in Medicaid, Social Security
retirements, food stamps, and Unemployment compensation.


National Defense:

2008 ---616,073
2012 ---676.687 ___+60.614

Medicaid:

2008 ---247,739
2012 ---364.755 ___+117.016

Medicare:

2008 ---390,758
2012 ---499.284 ___+108.526

Unemployment compensation:

2008 ---45,340
2012 --107.080 ___+61.740

Food and nutrition assistance:

2008 ---60,673
2012 --114.975 ___+54.302

Social Security:

2008 --617,027
2012 --781.172 ___+164.145

Total ------------+566.225

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

-----Bluecoller, the grumpy old kraut-----

LOL trying to turn it into a race issue shows you know the truth as well as I do.

What is this truth? The truth is Obama, like Bush, is a failure when it comes to protecting the future of this country by adressing and taking actions to actually reduce our budget defecit to a place where we end up with surpluses.

 

[uscitizen]

Why don't you tell us how the Democratic Congress tanked the economy in 2007,

in terms that remotely resemble legitimate cause and effect. And make sure you show us how Bush, who was still president, was powerless to prevent the Congress from CAUSING THE RECESSION.

NO what I am saying is what I already said. However I will make an addition.

You are so fuking partisan and full of hate (as are most rethugs) that you can't accept responsibility or place blame on anything that a rethug does.

You want to claim that the surplus Clinton left Bush (which of course you will claim there was never a surplus, no matter how many economists say there was) was the result of the Rethugs in Congress. Cool. I am sure they played their part.

But you will claim Bush did nothing wrong in his 8 long years and I wouldn't be surprised if you next claim that Bush left Obama a thriving, vibrant economy. With virtually no debt.

Or if you do acknowledge that the economy was in a mess at the end of Bush, you will claim it was all the Dems in Congress's fault.

Right or wrong on the above statements?

It's like when something good happens under a Dem Presidency, it was the rethugs in the congress.

When something bad happens under a Rehtug president, it becomes the fault of the Dems in Congress.

Do you Rethgus ever take responsibility for your own actions? Or do you blame anyone and everyone else for your fukups?

Clinton left Bush the DOT COM bubble that burst, a week foreign policy that resulted in 911. Along came Katrina, and Bush still had an average unemployment rate of 5.2% for 8 years. And, he didn't whine about it, but he did get two stimuuls packages through Congress that were given to the taxpayers in the form of a check. Obama preferred getting almost a trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress to dole out to his campaign contributors and union supporters.

I fault Bush for being unable to reverse the insane housing loan policies that he inherited, even though he did try. I am sure you are smart enough to realized that the sub-prime lending in the housing market was the primary cause of the recession beginning in 2007.

Much of the dotcom bubble was caused by the Y2K software fixes. Once they were fixed spending on software development bottomed out.

 

[emptystep]

NO what I am saying is what I already said. However I will make an addition.

You are so fuking partisan and full of hate (as are most rethugs) that you can't accept responsibility or place blame on anything that a rethug does.

You want to claim that the surplus Clinton left Bush (which of course you will claim there was never a surplus, no matter how many economists say there was) was the result of the Rethugs in Congress. Cool. I am sure they played their part.

But you will claim Bush did nothing wrong in his 8 long years and I wouldn't be surprised if you next claim that Bush left Obama a thriving, vibrant economy. With virtually no debt.

Or if you do acknowledge that the economy was in a mess at the end of Bush, you will claim it was all the Dems in Congress's fault.

Right or wrong on the above statements?

It's like when something good happens under a Dem Presidency, it was the rethugs in the congress.

When something bad happens under a Rehtug president, it becomes the fault of the Dems in Congress.

Do you Rethgus ever take responsibility for your own actions? Or do you blame anyone and everyone else for your fukups?

Clinton left Bush the DOT COM bubble that burst, a week foreign policy that resulted in 911. Along came Katrina, and Bush still had an average unemployment rate of 5.2% for 8 years. And, he didn't whine about it, but he did get two stimuuls packages through Congress that were given to the taxpayers in the form of a check. Obama preferred getting almost a trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress to dole out to his campaign contributors and union supporters.

I fault Bush for being unable to reverse the insane housing loan policies that he inherited, even though he did try. I am sure you are smart enough to realized that the sub-prime lending in the housing market was the primary cause of the recession beginning in 2007.

Much of the dotcom bubble was caused by the Y2K software fixes. Once they were fixed spending on software development bottomed out.

One note about the dotcom bubble. The money in the game ruined it for everyone. The reason, the innovation and the technology, was real and the reason for the dotcom phenomenon has not gone away. With Obama getting this economy going again in a real sense the dotcom the expansion will begin again. With Romney money will ruin the game again.

 

[Too Tall]

Clinton left Bush the DOT COM bubble that burst, a week foreign policy that resulted in 911. Along came Katrina, and Bush still had an average unemployment rate of 5.2% for 8 years. And, he didn't whine about it, but he did get two stimuuls packages through Congress that were given to the taxpayers in the form of a check. Obama preferred getting almost a trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress to dole out to his campaign contributors and union supporters.

I fault Bush for being unable to reverse the insane housing loan policies that he inherited, even though he did try. I am sure you are smart enough to realized that the sub-prime lending in the housing market was the primary cause of the recession beginning in 2007.

Much of the dotcom bubble was caused by the Y2K software fixes. Once they were fixed spending on software development bottomed out.

One note about the dotcom bubble. The money in the game ruined it for everyone. The reason, the innovation and the technology, was real and the reason for the dotcom phenomenon has not gone away. With Obama getting this economy going again in a real sense the dotcom the expansion will begin again. With Romney money will ruin the game again.

The only way Obama plans on getting the economy going again, after 4 years of trying, is to expand the government. What happened to his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term? Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see will be the end of our Republic.

 

[Too Tall]

NO what I am saying is what I already said. However I will make an addition.

You are so fuking partisan and full of hate (as are most rethugs) that you can't accept responsibility or place blame on anything that a rethug does.

You want to claim that the surplus Clinton left Bush (which of course you will claim there was never a surplus, no matter how many economists say there was) was the result of the Rethugs in Congress. Cool. I am sure they played their part.

But you will claim Bush did nothing wrong in his 8 long years and I wouldn't be surprised if you next claim that Bush left Obama a thriving, vibrant economy. With virtually no debt.

Or if you do acknowledge that the economy was in a mess at the end of Bush, you will claim it was all the Dems in Congress's fault.

Right or wrong on the above statements?

It's like when something good happens under a Dem Presidency, it was the rethugs in the congress.

When something bad happens under a Rehtug president, it becomes the fault of the Dems in Congress.

Do you Rethgus ever take responsibility for your own actions? Or do you blame anyone and everyone else for your fukups?

Clinton left Bush the DOT COM bubble that burst, a week foreign policy that resulted in 911. Along came Katrina, and Bush still had an average unemployment rate of 5.2% for 8 years. And, he didn't whine about it, but he did get two stimuuls packages through Congress that were given to the taxpayers in the form of a check. Obama preferred getting almost a trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress to dole out to his campaign contributors and union supporters.

I fault Bush for being unable to reverse the insane housing loan policies that he inherited, even though he did try. I am sure you are smart enough to realized that the sub-prime lending in the housing market was the primary cause of the recession beginning in 2007.

Much of the dotcom bubble was caused by the Y2K software fixes. Once they were fixed spending on software development bottomed out.

As Joe says, that is a bunch of malarkey.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the most important budget/tax question about Bush that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to, and rarely even get an attempt at:

In 2003, Bush cut taxes AGAIN. Why?

1. We were already in 2 wars; they weren't unforeseen future events at that time. We KNEW we had to pay for them.

2.. The Republicans had a big expensive Medicare expansion plan in the works; it was not some surprise that was lurking unseen in the future. We KNEW we had to pay for it.

3. The economy was not in recession in 2003. We were in no way in dire need of tax relief.

Why did Bush cut taxes AGAIN in 2003?

To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.


Mission Accomplished.

Education is free today.


LOL

You left off 7 years. Why was that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the most important budget/tax question about Bush that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to, and rarely even get an attempt at:

In 2003, Bush cut taxes AGAIN. Why?

1. We were already in 2 wars; they weren't unforeseen future events at that time. We KNEW we had to pay for them.

2.. The Republicans had a big expensive Medicare expansion plan in the works; it was not some surprise that was lurking unseen in the future. We KNEW we had to pay for it.

3. The economy was not in recession in 2003. We were in no way in dire need of tax relief.

Why did Bush cut taxes AGAIN in 2003?

To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.


Mission Accomplished.

Education is free today.


LOL

There was a 730 billion dollar deficit for those 2 years alone, 2004 and 2005.

Why did Bush cut taxes when he knew the expenses we were facing were going to balloon the deficit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the most important budget/tax question about Bush that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to, and rarely even get an attempt at:

In 2003, Bush cut taxes AGAIN. Why?

1. We were already in 2 wars; they weren't unforeseen future events at that time. We KNEW we had to pay for them.

2.. The Republicans had a big expensive Medicare expansion plan in the works; it was not some surprise that was lurking unseen in the future. We KNEW we had to pay for it.

3. The economy was not in recession in 2003. We were in no way in dire need of tax relief.

Why did Bush cut taxes AGAIN in 2003?

To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.


Mission Accomplished.

Education is free today.


LOL

2004 and 2005 both set new spending records. Why did Bush cut taxes in the face of record spending?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the most important budget/tax question about Bush that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to, and rarely even get an attempt at:

In 2003, Bush cut taxes AGAIN. Why?

1. We were already in 2 wars; they weren't unforeseen future events at that time. We KNEW we had to pay for them.

2.. The Republicans had a big expensive Medicare expansion plan in the works; it was not some surprise that was lurking unseen in the future. We KNEW we had to pay for it.

3. The economy was not in recession in 2003. We were in no way in dire need of tax relief.

Why did Bush cut taxes AGAIN in 2003?

To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.


Mission Accomplished.

Education is free today.


LOL

Did you happen to notice that your chart shows 2 consecutive years of DECLINING REVENUES after the Bush 2001 tax cuts?

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

Post # 18
AmericanFirst
Another idiot libtard blaming bush. Bush wasn't potus in 2009,
it is all obamaturds.

You're a G*ddam LIAR.

Ex-President war-criminal submitted the 2009 budget, with a
promise of balancing the budget in 2012.

$1.2 Trillion Deficit Forecast as Obama Weighs Options
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html?em
Published: January 7, 2009

the Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.2 trillion budget
deficit for the fiscal year.

February 4, 2008.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2009-BUD-4.pdf
THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT

In my 2009 Budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our
Nation’s most pressing needs while addressing the long-term challenges
ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending discipline, we will balance
the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national
security. And that will help make our country safer and more prosperous.

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

---- bluecoller -- the grumpy old kraut-------

 

[hjmick]

Ayup, uh-huh, that's right... Only the Republicans are lying...


Fucking nit wit...

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

hjmick -bleets
Ayup, uh-huh, that's right... Only the Republicans are lying...
Fucking nit wit.

Everything in my O.P. is historical FACT.
You know, the sh*t you ditto-heads hate.

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.


---- bluecoller -- the grumpy old kraut-------

 

[bluecoller-eddy]

Post --22
SniperFire --LIES.
To drive GDP and push us to RECORD Federal Tax Receipts, of course.
Mission Accomplished.
Education is free today.
LOL

In a world full of dumb *****, you're among the dumbest.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers
graphic
The lost decade for the economy

In the 2000s GDP growth was less than 18%. Barely half of Brain-dead Reagan's second
worst decade.


In order to lie about revenue, you ignore the years when receipts dropped, and
inflation.

Revenues increased every year under Clinton. A 57% increase.

In ex-president war-criminals 7th year revenues were a mere 4.5% above the 2000 receipts.
In the 12th year of the supply side scam revenues were almost 10% below 2000 revenues.

If you had any reading comprehension you would have noticed that in my OP I pointed
out that revenues were 3 trillion short of the Bush baseline projections.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts (2005 dollars)

1980 --1196.6 __

1992 --1467.5 __+22.6%

2000 --2310.0 __+57.4%

2007 --2414.0 ___+4.5% More than 2000

2012 --2089.4 ___-9.6% Less than 2000

---- bluecoller -- the grumpy old kraut-------

 

[Sinjorri]

when conversing with a lib its just easier to walk away, the name calling from the posters just tells you how desperate they are.