Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[NYcarbineer]

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Then you should spend all of your life savings.....see how much revenue that generates for you........

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

Ok, so the individual American consumer is irresponsible.

 

[Care4all]

When Bush left office the debt was $10T. The debt is now $18T after 8 years of Democrats. Democrats are the pproblem.

president bush, began his fiscal budget, October 1st, 2001, Clinton's ended September 30, 2001 from the budget he created beginning October 1, 2000-9/30/2001.

On October 1, 2001 The National debt was:
$5,806,151,389,190.21

on President bush's last day of his fiscal year,
the national debt was:
$11,920,519,164,319.42

And you can generously take out $200 billion from that, for the things that Obama did to affect Bush's last fiscal budget ending...like the stimulus.

So let's call it ending with:

$11.721 trillion in National debt under his fiscal reign.

That's $5.915 Trillion, added to the national debt under President Bush's 8 years of fiscal responsibility.

He more than doubled the National debt under his fiscal reign of 8 years....and during a hopping housing boom and banking/mortgage boom, where tax revenues should have been through the roof wicked good.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[LeftofLeft]

OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......

Following that line of logic then:

If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?

If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?

If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?

(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)

Follow this logic: stop taking more of the People's money, more jobs, less unemployment welfare, more cash investment from companies as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. More jobs, more companies, equals more sources of tax revenue. Contrast that with high unemployment, high food stamps, low paying jobs, cash sitting on the sidelines equals egregious deficit spending and constant cries for raising the debt ceiling so we can do more irresponsible spending.

 

[1treedancer]

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Then you should spend all of your life savings.....see how much revenue that generates for you........

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

And your expertise on a dog licking his balls IS…?

 

[nat4900]

Follow this logic: stop taking more of the People's money, more jobs, less unemployment welfare, more cash investment from companies as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. More jobs, more companies, equals more sources of tax revenue.

The MAJOR FLAW in all nitwits' argument (like the one above) is that if a company wanted to AVOID taxes then indeed cash investment in "jobs, etc." would be the desired results....But since THAT is not the case as of late, the realistic conclusion is that the money is winding up in foreign banks and foreign companies or simply being hoarded, or invested in bigger Lear jets and NOT in creating jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then you should spend all of your life savings.....see how much revenue that generates for you........

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

And your expertise on a dog licking his balls IS…?

Seen it done. About like your expertise on anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

Follow this logic: stop taking more of the People's money, more jobs, less unemployment welfare, more cash investment from companies as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. More jobs, more companies, equals more sources of tax revenue.

The MAJOR FLAW in all nitwits' argument (like the one above) is that if a company wanted to AVOID taxes then indeed cash investment in "jobs, etc." would be the desired results....But since THAT is not the case as of late, the realistic conclusion is that the money is winding up in foreign banks and foreign companies or simply being hoarded, or invested in bigger Lear jets and NOT in creating jobs.

You really are stupid, poor thing. You think hiring employees is investing?

 

[nat4900]

You really are stupid, poor thing. You think hiring employees is investing?

Well, of course not if you have a slave-owner mentality, right RabbiT?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Why dont liberals post the clinton tax cuts
ya know there were some

clinton created the housing bubble
clinton created the dot com bubble
just like obama is creating the stock market bubble

clinton benefited from the reagan ss tax increase which created a surplus
reagan ended the expensive cold war. and clinton benefited financially from it

 

[Billy000]

Every month or so we a liberal thread about how the Bush tax cuts led to huge deficits and an explosion in the national debt. We are also told that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Some liberals even still claim that somehow the Bush tax cuts contributed to the Great Recession (right, because letting people keep more of their money somehow, someway harms the economy!). Here are the facts:

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue. As anyone can confirm by looking at federal tax revenue data, here's what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

In other words, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. (See The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth for more info.)

So why did the deficit explode? Because Congress went on a spending spree and raised spending at an even faster rate than revenue was rising. It's that simple. If Congress had merely limited spending hikes to match inflation, we would have been operating well in the black.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. We have had nothing close to that since Bush left office.

* The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich. Some of the largest rate cuts went to the middle class/the poor. In fact, after the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share of federal tax revenue. (See Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? and Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts and George W. Bush, Middle Class Champion for more info.)

Bush had rising deficits from a balanced budget that not cutting taxes might have prevented.

Look at a chart that actually means something:

Are you just sooo brainwashed that you can't process basic math? I repeat: Federal revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts. In fact, we had the largest four-year increase in federal revenue in American history following the Bush tax cuts.

Now, as to your chart that "really means something," i.e., comparing federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, that's a ridiculous comparison, one that both sides use when it suits them.

The percentage of a federal revenue as a percentage of GDP can fluctuate based on a number of factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue increased every year after the Bush tax cuts were passed.

So obviously the Bush tax cuts did not cause the deficit. Vastly increased spending caused the deficit. If you get a 4% raise but increase your spending by triple that amount, you're going to go into the red. It's that simple. This is math, just basic, unchangeable math.

Here is what you arent grasping: raw dollars have gone up, revenue as a percentage of GDP went down under Bush. Inflation is why raw dollars ultimately don't matter.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Another light beer commercial.

The wealthy and ruling classes are laughing at all you dicks.

 

[1treedancer]

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

And your expertise on a dog licking his balls IS…?

Seen it done. About like your expertise on anything.

Yet you ignore something like this, HUH?It seems you have rather odd viewing habits.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Every month or so we a liberal thread about how the Bush tax cuts led to huge deficits and an explosion in the national debt. We are also told that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Some liberals even still claim that somehow the Bush tax cuts contributed to the Great Recession (right, because letting people keep more of their money somehow, someway harms the economy!). Here are the facts:

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue. As anyone can confirm by looking at federal tax revenue data, here's what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

In other words, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. (See The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth for more info.)

So why did the deficit explode? Because Congress went on a spending spree and raised spending at an even faster rate than revenue was rising. It's that simple. If Congress had merely limited spending hikes to match inflation, we would have been operating well in the black.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. We have had nothing close to that since Bush left office.

* The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich. Some of the largest rate cuts went to the middle class/the poor. In fact, after the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share of federal tax revenue. (See Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? and Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts and George W. Bush, Middle Class Champion for more info.)

... and then the housing bubble burst.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike Griffith:
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.

Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.

Year over year revenues fell in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

Another misleading dodge. Anything but the truth, hey? Most of the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003! So don't you think it's a bit silly, not to mention misleading, to cite 2002 and 2003 and then skip to 2008? Gee, why'd you skip 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007? We both know why. And, of course, 2008 was the year the recession started--yet, revenue in 2008 was $2.52 trillion, which was only a very small drop from 2007 and was more than 2004, 2005, 2006.

Let's just state the facts again: Federal revenue from 2003-2008:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
2008 -- $2.52 trillion

Why not just stop lying and admit that the Bush tax cuts were followed by sizable revenue increases for four years in a row, and that the fifth year, even though a recession started then, saw only a slight drop? Those are the facts.

So the Bush tax cuts could not have caused the rise in the deficit. Excessive spending caused the rise in the deficit.

 

[The Rabbi]

You really are stupid, poor thing. You think hiring employees is investing?

Well, of course not if you have a slave-owner mentality, right RabbiT?

You must have a slave owner mentality. Of course that's assuming you actually have a mentality.

 

[The Rabbi]

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

And your expertise on a dog licking his balls IS…?

Seen it done. About like your expertise on anything.

Yet you ignore something like this, HUH?It seems you have rather odd viewing habits.

Another idiot who cant read a chart.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Follow this logic: stop taking more of the People's money, more jobs, less unemployment welfare, more cash investment from companies as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. More jobs, more companies, equals more sources of tax revenue.

The MAJOR FLAW in all nitwits' argument (like the one above) is that if a company wanted to AVOID taxes then indeed cash investment in "jobs, etc." would be the desired results....But since THAT is not the case as of late, the realistic conclusion is that the money is winding up in foreign banks and foreign companies or simply being hoarded, or invested in bigger Lear jets and NOT in creating jobs.

A typical liberal always feels compelled to name call and smear in a debate when they are losing as you just did. You think simple hoarding and Lear jets are the reason companies are keeping their cash on the sidelines?

 

[The Rabbi]

Follow this logic: stop taking more of the People's money, more jobs, less unemployment welfare, more cash investment from companies as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. More jobs, more companies, equals more sources of tax revenue.

The MAJOR FLAW in all nitwits' argument (like the one above) is that if a company wanted to AVOID taxes then indeed cash investment in "jobs, etc." would be the desired results....But since THAT is not the case as of late, the realistic conclusion is that the money is winding up in foreign banks and foreign companies or simply being hoarded, or invested in bigger Lear jets and NOT in creating jobs.

A typical liberal always feels compelled to name call and smear in a debate when they are losing as you just did. You think simple hoarding and Lear jets are the reason companies are keeping their cash on the sidelines?

It's "corporate greed." Just ask them. Yes, they truly believe that corporations are greedy because they are leaving their cash earning less than 1% rather than investing it in businesses that will generate more profit.
It's unbelievable.

 

[Mac1958]

It's "corporate greed." Just ask them. Yes, they truly believe that corporations are greedy because they are leaving their cash earning less than 1% rather than investing it in businesses that will generate more profit. It's unbelievable.

Yeah.

Once the conversation goes in that direction I just give up on it.

I'm not paid to teach them Business 101 and they wouldn't get it, anyway.
.

 

[Care4all]

Mike Griffith:
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.

Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.

Year over year revenues fell in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

Another misleading dodge. Anything but the truth, hey? Most of the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003! So don't you think it's a bit silly, not to mention misleading, to cite 2002 and 2003 and then skip to 2008? Gee, why'd you skip 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007? We both know why. And, of course, 2008 was the year the recession started--yet, revenue in 2008 was $2.52 trillion, which was only a very small drop from 2007 and was more than 2004, 2005, 2006.

Let's just state the facts again: Federal revenue from 2003-2008:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
2008 -- $2.52 trillion

Why not just stop lying and admit that the Bush tax cuts were followed by sizable revenue increases for four years in a row, and that the fifth year, even though a recession started then, saw only a slight drop? Those are the facts.

So the Bush tax cuts could not have caused the rise in the deficit. Excessive spending caused the rise in the deficit.

You need to stop lying, Bush had two major tax cuts, 2001 and 2003,

Why FUDGE your figures? Begin your supposed analysis in 2001, then let's talk.