- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
QUOTE
I keep hearing that the tax cut went to the top 1%. Did you get a tax cut? I did and I am not in the top 1%. Explain to me how govt. revenue grew AFTER the tax cut. Stop with the class envy.
Why do I need to show you anything as you won't believe it. Do some research for a change at non partisan sites
You are indeed confused and really beyond hope.
As is now obvious you are incapable of understanding even what is posted. Tell that to the GAO and the cost was for 9/11 and the hurricanes.
We were talking about fiscal year 2009 which you claim that Obama inherited yet conveniently ignored that most of the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was after Bush left office so Bush couldn't veto anything. TARP was passed after the budget and contributed to the debt but most of TARP has been paid back.
Why don't you grow up and actually do some research
Since you are all over the board apparently we can talk about anything. Why is that relevant?
donc;1058595450]The point of my post wasn’t whether you or I got a tax cut, it was that those that could most afford to pay the taxes got the lions share of the benefits.
Looking at it in hindsight, is the damage to the future economy that it caused, considering that we had two wars going on at the time. That smacked of sheer lunacy.
Here’s something you might like to look at, which of course you will ignore but someone else just might find rather interesting.
Here’s where it came from.
Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
And here for those that are into pdf,s.
Hurricanes, like Floyd, which you attributed to bush, when it hit during Clintons term? :rofl
Yet bush had the option to veto anything that the dems came up with during the last two years that they had control of Congress. SOoo…. it kinda looks like he was quite pleased with the fact that he had at up to that time the largest debt on any President in history; hence no veto of anything that even smacked of increasing the debt . It’s nice that you seem to agree with that fact.
Why didn’t you go to the link I provided and research it yourself? If you did you would have found an in-debt explanation for the clip that I provide. < Part D a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years> So sad when someone gets so shiftless that they cant even open a website .
Silly me I thought that a $25 billion contract for mercenaries would be relevant to the ($12 billion a month) cost of the war in Iraq. :roll:
i wonder how you continually get away with denigrating other posters.What a crock! Did you check the date of that article? Only in the liberal world does math trump personal consumer activity. Yes, of course if consumer activity generates the same amount of economic activity does the tax revenue go up, but liberals like you simply don't get it. Tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and they spent it, saved it, or invested it, all helping the economy. Individuals paying less taxes created millions of new taxpayers thus the revenue went up. Stop buying what you are told and think for a change.
People with less money never create jobs because they never increase demand. It is obvious that you are an Obama supporter.
Katrina, Ike, and Rita where the major hurricanes but again keep diverting from the fact that 9/11 was the significan cost.
Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration? Obviously you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about since you want to blame Bush for the 10.6 trillion dollar debt
What you are providing are PROJECTED liability and not what is actually happening. Do you know the difference?
Again, 25 billion dollars over how many years? Figure out how much that is per year and apply that to the total budget. Mental midgets will never understand what it means to actually think.
i wonder how you continually get away with denigrating other posters.
Conservative
Did you check the date of that article? Yes, of course if consumer activity generates the same amount of economic activity does the tax revenue go up, but liberals like you simply don't get it. Tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and they spent it, saved it, or invested it, all helping the economy. Individuals paying less taxes created millions of new taxpayers thus the revenue went up.
People with less money never create jobs because they never increase demand. It is obvious that you are an Obama supporter.
Katrina, Ike, and Rita where the major hurricanes but again keep diverting from the fact that 9/11 was the significan cost.
Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration?
What you are providing are PROJECTED liability and not what is actually happening.
donc;1058596629]Most of the money is spent by those who have the least, therefore they are the ones gen up the economy.
The chart doesn’t lie, if you take exception with it, post something besides your opinion.As for as the date it is within the dates that were discussing.
All of the above just shows what lunatics we had in charge, that would put in tax-cuts during trying times like that. When we had an incompetent administration, operating under Vice president five deferments, mantra of” deficits don’t matter” followed up with Medicare part D,no offsets+no negotiating with big pharma on drug prices, plus starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts You don’t see the mad hatter in any of this s***. :doh
Why didn’t he find something to veto rather than increasing the debt? Surely their was something he could have vetoed in eight years of unprecedented spending.
Seeing as how you want to talk about deficits; how about this little factoid.
< The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by half again as much as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (remember, this is in inflation-adjusted dollars).>
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.htm
but of course you want to discuss bushes last two years eh?
Better look at this first though. Careful what you say, as I know where it came from and it has more damnable evidence of complete incompetency.
It really serves no purpose to discuss issues with those that lack the basic understanding of debt and deficits nor how our economy works. Debt is cumulative and deficit is yearly. Bush inherited a 5.6 trillion debt and added 5 trillion to it. Included in that debt was the cost of 9/11, Hurricane's Katrina, Floyd, Rita, and Ike which is over a trillion of that debt. The cost of the wars were 100 billion per year according to the GAO so go back to school and get an education on how to do research. You now want to blame Bush for the debt he inherited?
That "Junior" Senator was running for President and that "junion" Senator was part of the Democrat Majority that controlled Congress. Congress is an equal branch of the govt. thus is responsible just like the President for any deficits. Please get a civics education.
LOL, nice revisionist history and again something that diverts from my post. what has the cost of the Medicare Part B program been? Not sure where you get your information but Moveon.org would be proud as most of the information you post is false.
Actually if I were you I would be embarrassed about posting lies, distortions, and diversions. Have you no pride?
Stop making a fool out of yourself. BEA.govt, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury site shows different data that yours and those are the official sites. You really need to get a clue.
I suggest you actually get data from non partisan sites. It would make you look smarter than you do by posting the false information you are posting.
Those waves you are posting are actually waves to all those brain cells that have left your head.
QUOTE=Conservative;
The article is dated April 2004 and MAKES PROJECTIONS about the future using the assumptions that economic activity will remain the same throughout the future. there is no assurance that would happen.
You really have a lot invested in hatred for the past Administration.
All of it seems to be based upon ignorance.
Don't know who you are listening to but you don't have a clue as to how our economy works,
how we have three equal branches of govt. and that our economy is built on free enterprise and capitalism.
You could help yourself a lot by going to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment numbers, and the U.S. Treasury for spending and revenue. That would make you at least a little better educated.
No, I will be more than happy to discuss all 8 years of the Bush Administration but you cannot seem to discuss the topic of this thread which is Obama and all his spending.
There is nothing here that I need to address with you because you simply aren't smart enough to understand the data in this chart.
donc;1058597757]Just as there is no assurance that you or I will wake be alive tomorrow. Like you say, it’s a dated article so it should be pretty easy so debunk. Have at it.
Opinion as well as projection.:roll:
Getting better here; just opinion,but you forgot to post your ignorance.
Hhmm…< Medicare part D, no offsets> maybe I should go back to school. Do you know off hand where there is school that has a good course in voo-doo economics? :shock:
Maybe I can get a few online credits on (negotiating with big pharma on drug prices with no offsets of course)the economy being what is, gotta save a few dinero when you can, the bush depression/ recession being what it is.
Perhaps I could get a miner on (starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts)do you think?Besides I thought you were against projections,it seems that I remember a few projections made by (Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers).could be wrong though.
Coulda sworn you posted this in post# 877 (Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration?)
Silly me, I thought that when you ask about the last two years of the bush missadministation that chart would come in handy. Are you saying that it is wrong? :shock:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?