Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[The Rabbi]

Bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income tax.

Today, we find out from the erudite RabbiT, that 56% of Americans are neither lower or middle class.....56% are the wealthy class. Who knew?

You're getting schooled in this thread is noted and applauded.

 

[nat4900]

Rabbi is promoting putting US troops all over the world to protect the jobs we lost to foreign countries.

Given RabbiT "brilliance" we should then also have U.S. troops stationed in front of Swiss and Cayman banks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi is promoting putting US troops all over the world to protect the jobs we lost to foreign countries.

Given RabbiT "brilliance" we should then also have U.S. troops stationed in front of Swiss and Cayman banks.

Are you advocating invading Switzerland? No shock.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

Defense spending benefits everyone in this country.
Social spending doesnt benefit anyone except politicians.

What benefit did I get from the Iraq War?

What benefit am I getting from the US military presence in Korea and Japan?

Do you have North Korean nukes raining down on your head? No.
Are you able to buy lower cost products made with transistors from Korea? Yes.
There ya go.
Brain fart.

Are the nations who don't have troops in Korea barred from buying Korean products? lol

Rabbi is promoting putting US troops all over the world to protect the jobs we lost to foreign countries.

Brilliant.

You really just arent getting this, are you?
Who would you like to send troops to Korea? China? Russia?

The wellbeing of South Korea is South Korea's responsibility.

 

[nat4900]

You really just arent getting this, are you?
Who would you like to send troops to Korea? China? Russia?

IDIOT !!!! South Korea has her own troops

Are you advocating invading Switzerland? No shock.

Absolutely....If right wing morons like you stated purpose for the U.S. military is to PROTECT wealthy Americans' untaxed bank accounts, then YES, station US troops in front of Swiss banks.

 

[The Rabbi]

You really just arent getting this, are you?
Who would you like to send troops to Korea? China? Russia?

IDIOT !!!! South Korea has her own troops

Are you advocating invading Switzerland? No shock.

Absolutely....If right wing morons like you stated purpose for the U.S. military is to PROTECT wealthy Americans' untaxed bank accounts, then YES, station US troops in front of Swiss banks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

Defense spending benefits everyone in this country.
Social spending doesnt benefit anyone except politicians.

What benefit did I get from the Iraq War?

What benefit am I getting from the US military presence in Korea and Japan?

Do you have North Korean nukes raining down on your head? No.
Are you able to buy lower cost products made with transistors from Korea? Yes.
There ya go.
Brain fart.

Are the nations who don't have troops in Korea barred from buying Korean products? lol

Rabbi is promoting putting US troops all over the world to protect the jobs we lost to foreign countries.

Brilliant.

You really just arent getting this, are you?
Who would you like to send troops to Korea? China? Russia?

Are we the only foreign nation with troops in Korea?

Why are we the only nation with a vital national security interest in defending South Korea? Are all the nations that don't have troops in Korea doomed to destruction?

...or maybe we don't really have any vital interests in keeping troops in Korea...

 

[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.

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.

He's already tried to reject the more telling measure - revenues as a percent of GDP - because it destroys his argument.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because the percentage of your income vs. GDP was smaller?! Really? Would you really be that dumb?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

He's already tried to reject the more telling measure - revenues as a percent of GDP - because it destroys his argument.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because GDP growth made it so that the percentage of your income was a smaller compared to GDP? Really? Would you really be that dumb?

When libs need to appeal to percentage of GDP they do that.
If the actual number makes the case better they'll use that
If they need a number adjusted for the price of beard trimming in Fiji they'll use that.
Anything but take responsibility for the worst binge in spending i history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

He's already tried to reject the more telling measure - revenues as a percent of GDP - because it destroys his argument.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because GDP growth made it so that the percentage of your income was a smaller compared to GDP? Really? Would you really be that dumb?

When libs need to appeal to percentage of GDP they do that.
If the actual number makes the case better they'll use that
If they need a number adjusted for the price of beard trimming in Fiji they'll use that.
Anything but take responsibility for the worst binge in spending i history.

Percent of GDP is relevant because it shows that despite GDP going much higher, tax revenues are not going up proportionately.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

He's already tried to reject the more telling measure - revenues as a percent of GDP - because it destroys his argument.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because GDP growth made it so that the percentage of your income was a smaller compared to GDP? Really? Would you really be that dumb?

When libs need to appeal to percentage of GDP they do that.
If the actual number makes the case better they'll use that
If they need a number adjusted for the price of beard trimming in Fiji they'll use that.
Anything but take responsibility for the worst binge in spending i history.

Percent of GDP is relevant because it shows that despite GDP going much higher, tax revenues are not going up proportionately.

That is incorrect. Revenue on any measure is higher than its ever been.

 

[nat4900]

Lets test out the O/P's "theory"......

We should declare war on Iran and N. Korea (those remaining axis of evil) AND also pass huge tax cuts to the Trumps of this country......

According to the title of this thread, THEN, everything will be just peachy again as they were during GWB's "stellar" 8 years' term........DEAL????

 

[The Rabbi]

Lets test out the O/P's "theory"......

We should declare war on Iran and N. Korea (those remaining axis of evil) AND also pass huge tax cuts to the Trumps of this country......

According to the title of this thread, THEN, everything will be just peachy again as they were during GWB's "stellar" 8 years' term........DEAL????

Unemployment was lower for every quarter in Bush's terms than it has been for the vast majority of Obama's terms.
Truth really hurts, eh?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

 

[nat4900]

Unemployment was lower for every quarter in Bush's terms than it has been for the vast majority of Obama's terms.
Truth really hurts, eh?

Oh yeah........

 

[Iceweasel]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

But the toggle switch in your noggin can't process things like Katrina, 9/11, housing meltdown, banking crisis, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

The revenue increase from 2010 to 2014 was larger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

But the toggle switch in your noggin can't process things like Katrina, 9/11, housing meltdown, banking crisis, etc.

Oh right, Bush always gets extra credit for extraneous events. Strangely no other president does.

 

[Iceweasel]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

But the toggle switch in your noggin can't process things like Katrina, 9/11, housing meltdown, banking crisis, etc.

Oh right, Bush always gets extra credit for extraneous events. Strangely no other president does.

Yeah, those were just "extraneous events".
Jesus.