Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[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.

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

How did Katrina hurt the economy? Unemployment was 5% when Katrina hit, and stayed under 5% for the next 2 years.

 

[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.

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

Bush handed Obama an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month and at -6% GDP. The worst economic handoff by any president since Hoover.

Why don't you count that?

 

[BluesLegend]

You bunch of dumb asses are hilarious, you naïve sheep flail about trying to punish the rich but its not possible. What are you going to do raise their income taxes? They don't have much income, that's not where their money comes from. If you raise the capital gains tax they just sit on their investments, you don't pay the tax until you sell and realize the gain. Raising the capital gains tax does slam middle to upper middle class who can't afford to sit on their investments, bravo. Tax their businesses? Fine they just lay off the US workers and send the jobs off-shore and raise prices to cover the tax increase and delay making capital improvements and investments resulting in fewer jobs for you

Your flag of surrender to the rich is obvious....Your enslaved mentality gives the ultra wealthy even more power.
According to your half-brain, They win....They can continue to bribe congress....They can continue to rape the environment...

One simple solutions: If you want to call yourself a U.S. company but ship the jobs overseas, then you cannot sell your goods back to U.S. citizens.....
Some would call it isolationism.....But those some ones are usually the businesses themselves and the brain dead right wingers who blindly swallow the bait.

The rich are not my enemy you stupid hack. Envy, jealousy, hatred, these are the emotions of the left.

 

[leftwinger]

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's problem is that signed budgets that blew up domestic spending and fought two wars on top of it (rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view).

Unfunded and off the budget wars

according to: Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2020 (All off-budget column show surplus). Very tiring to constantly have do disprove liberal pablum.

 

[nat4900]

The rich are not my enemy you stupid hack. Envy, jealousy, hatred, these are the emotions of the left.

Whereas, getting royally screwed and voting against their own best interests, are "virtues" for brain-dead right wingers.......Go figure .......

 

[leftwinger]

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)

"on President bush's last day of his fiscal year" one must be careful on START/STOP dates. Debt is a bit murky due to fiscal year calendar cross over into presidential terms. All the debt created is BAD and way too much. It has zoomed to over $1T/yr under current regime. They system could collapse.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have always been in awe of Bush's denial. Most people understand that if you cut back on collecting tax revenue, you should also cut back on expenses. Yet, Bush saw it differently. He cut back on taxes, and then launched two wars and Medicare, Part D...all without covering the expenses. Even LBJ, who thought that money grew on trees, slapped a 10% surtax on us to pay for Vietnam.

The subject of English, resulting in his mangled syntax, was not the only hole in Bush's education.

 

[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?

Here's the argument you disagree with:

Why Are U.S. Troops Still In Korea?

See how much of it you can refute with facts and substance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

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.

We don't need troops in Korea to keep you in transistor radios. They're for sale on Ebay.

 

[nat4900]

They system could collapse.

Good thing you have lots of room under your bed.

 

[nat4900]

ere's the argument you disagree with:

Why Are U.S. Troops Still In Korea?

See how much of it you can refute with facts and substance.

....and, please let me add this "cute little map"....

 

[BluesLegend]

The rich are not my enemy you stupid hack. Envy, jealousy, hatred, these are the emotions of the left.

Whereas, getting royally screwed and voting against their own best interests, are "virtues" for brain-dead right wingers.......Go figure .......

Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!

 

[nat4900]

Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!

For the above, that's highly debatable....BUT, the lack of brains on your part is AMPLY provable.

(Christian with money??? This idiot is hilarious.....)

 

[Carla_Danger]

Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!

For the above, that's highly debatable....BUT, the lack of brains on your part is AMPLY provable.

(Christian with money??? This idiot is hilarious.....)

Blues is a known liar as shown in my sig line.

 

[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.

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.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

 

[CowboyTed]

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:

So under Reagan, government spending as % of GDP plummeted and ended below government revenues. Reagan was actually on a glidepath to budget surpluses

As usual Horseshit
http://static4.businessinsider.com/...eally-misleading-look-at-federal-spending.jpg

Want to reduce spending get a Democrat President

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.
.

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and revenues rose for 7 years in a row.

Which is better? 4 years in a row or 7 years in a row?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The rich are not my enemy you stupid hack. Envy, jealousy, hatred, these are the emotions of the left.

Whereas, getting royally screwed and voting against their own best interests, are "virtues" for brain-dead right wingers.......Go figure .......

Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!

Good luck getting into your Heaven.

 

[The Rabbi]

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:

So under Reagan, government spending as % of GDP plummeted and ended below government revenues. Reagan was actually on a glidepath to budget surpluses

As usual Horseshit
http://static4.businessinsider.com/...eally-misleading-look-at-federal-spending.jpg
View attachment 50978

Want to reduce spending get a Democrat President

You understand your chart shows Obama is the biggest spender of any president in history, right?

 

[BluesLegend]

Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!

For the above, that's highly debatable....BUT, the lack of brains on your part is AMPLY provable.

(Christian with money??? This idiot is hilarious.....)

Look who's talking your a liberal top that insult you can't!