By far easiest way to make economy grow:

[Brain357]

Seems you didn't read all of your own link. Here you go again:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Sorry kid, not posting personal info on a message board filled with crazies.

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

 

[Conservative65]

We were talking about revenues increasing and they did. Now you want to throw something else in the mix. Excessive spending and whether or not tax cuts produced more revenues are different items. Bottom line is more revenues were produced.

Since you won't prove your claim, it has been dismissed as nothing more than talking shit. Didn't expect you to support it but do expect you to continue to think I should believe it.

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

 

[Brain357]

I said revenues decreased. i didn't say they decreased forever. From your link again you seem slow.
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

I'm waiting for you to prove I'm collecting welfare. Your claim is dismissed.

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Conservative65]

Revenues didn't decrease. Your claim that they did is a false statement.

I withdraw my claim that you collect welfare. Since you haven't withdrawn yours that you make more than me, despite not showing an ounce of proof, you still operate under the mindset that I should believe because you say so.

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

 

[Brain357]

The quote from your own article says they did. Stop denying reality.
From YOUR link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

 

[Conservative65]

Correlating more than one fact at a time again?
Asswhole!!!!!!!!

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

 

[Brain357]

From your link:
But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion.

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

 

[Conservative65]

From my link:

Revenues increased 44%

We aren't talking about deficits or spending. We're talking about revenues and those other things are different items.

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

 

[Brain357]

Revenue went down just like your link clearly states. Why are you lying
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

It is like the 4th paragraph you moron. I've quoted what it says. Can you not read?

 

[Brain357]

Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues "went up every single year" after the Bush tax cuts were "put in." Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001.

The Alabama Republican made his statement on "Face the Nation."

Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.

 

[Conservative65]

Revenue went up like my link clearly states.

I referenced the paragrahp in my link that said revenues increased by 44%. Why don't you show me in the link where it says they went down.

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

It is like the 4th paragraph you moron. I've quoted what it says. Can you not read?

You should read it all not just portions. What you didn't do is say that those revenues fell BEFORE the tax cuts went into effect. The part that says it all in the 5th paragraph is the one where it says AFTER the 2003 tax rate reductions the next four years produced a 44% increase in revenue. AFTER the reductions, revenues went up.

You're really that stupid or you simply don't want to admit being wrong.

 

[Brain357]

It is your link and I have quoted it many times. And I just gave another link showing it clearly went down. You can't be this dumb so you must be completely dishonest.

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

It is like the 4th paragraph you moron. I've quoted what it says. Can you not read?

You should read it all not just portions. What you didn't do is say that those revenues fell BEFORE the tax cuts went into effect. The part that says it all in the 5th paragraph is the one where it says AFTER the 2003 tax rate reductions the next four years produced a 44% increase in revenue. AFTER the reductions, revenues went up.

You're really that stupid or you simply don't want to admit being wrong.

So the first cuts tank revenues. And because they tanked you claim they went up 44%. Reality is it took years to get back to where they were. And regardless they clearly declined!!!

 

[Conservative65]

You have claimed it says they went down. Show in the link I provided where it says that. I showed where it says otherwise. If you can't point specifically where my link says it went down, your claim is dismissed. If it says it, surely you can show it.

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

It is like the 4th paragraph you moron. I've quoted what it says. Can you not read?

You should read it all not just portions. What you didn't do is say that those revenues fell BEFORE the tax cuts went into effect. The part that says it all in the 5th paragraph is the one where it says AFTER the 2003 tax rate reductions the next four years produced a 44% increase in revenue. AFTER the reductions, revenues went up.

You're really that stupid or you simply don't want to admit being wrong.

So the first cuts tank revenues. And because they tanked you claim they went up 44%. Reality is it took years to get back to where they were. And regardless they clearly declined!!!

What first cuts? The cuts took place in 2003.

You are that stupid. It's no wonder the country is declining when shit for brains like you exist on this planet.

 

[Brain357]

You need me to repost your link? Ok you are that dumb.
After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

I need you to show me where my link says revenues went down since you're claiming it says that. Still can't do it? That's because it doesn't say that.

It is like the 4th paragraph you moron. I've quoted what it says. Can you not read?

You should read it all not just portions. What you didn't do is say that those revenues fell BEFORE the tax cuts went into effect. The part that says it all in the 5th paragraph is the one where it says AFTER the 2003 tax rate reductions the next four years produced a 44% increase in revenue. AFTER the reductions, revenues went up.

You're really that stupid or you simply don't want to admit being wrong.

So the first cuts tank revenues. And because they tanked you claim they went up 44%. Reality is it took years to get back to where they were. And regardless they clearly declined!!!

What first cuts? The cuts took place in 2003.

You are that stupid. It's no wonder the country is declining when shit for brains like you exist on this planet.

The first cuts came in 2001. You are too dumb to be in this discussion.

 

[Brain357]

In 2001, President George Bush enacted a tax cut known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So the first cuts tank revenues.

Lets be honest an economy has many variables so is not a scientific experiment. Tax cuts may not always lead to more revenue in the short run but in the long they must since they expand the economy which is the source of revenue.

 

[Brain357]

So the first cuts tank revenues.

Lets be honest an economy has many variables so is not a scientific experiment. Tax cuts may not always lead to more revenue in the short run but in the long they must since they expand the economy which is the source of revenue.

Then show they increased the rate of expansion. I don't see it.

 

[Conservative65]

In 2001, President George Bush enacted a tax cut known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

In 2003, tax cuts were enacted and it INCREASED revenue. What do you not get about that stupid?

As part of the cuts you mentioned in 2001, the effect would not have been known until later years such as those which increased revenue by 44%.

Also, the 2001 act reduced ALL income tax brackets not just those on the upper end. Now, people like you only want to raise those on the upper end. So sad how jealousy for something you'll never be shows.

 

[Brain357]

In 2001, President George Bush enacted a tax cut known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

In 2003, tax cuts were enacted and it INCREASED revenue. What do you not get about that stupid?

As part of the cuts you mentioned in 2001, the effect would not have been known until later years such as those which increased revenue by 44%.

Also, the 2001 act reduced ALL income tax brackets not just those on the upper end. Now, people like you only want to raise those on the upper end. So sad how jealousy for something you'll never be shows.

And in 2001 revenue was down as I have been saying. Without the big drop caused by the tax breaks you don't have your 44%. It took years just to get back to where it was. Give up already you don't even know what years the breaks were, your a joke.

 

[Conservative65]

In 2001, President George Bush enacted a tax cut known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

In 2003, tax cuts were enacted and it INCREASED revenue. What do you not get about that stupid?

As part of the cuts you mentioned in 2001, the effect would not have been known until later years such as those which increased revenue by 44%.

Also, the 2001 act reduced ALL income tax brackets not just those on the upper end. Now, people like you only want to raise those on the upper end. So sad how jealousy for something you'll never be shows.

And in 2001 revenue was down as I have been saying. Without the big drop caused by the tax breaks you don't have your 44%. It took years just to get back to where it was. Give up already you don't even know what years the breaks were, your a joke.

If it was passed in 2001 and result implemented until later years, your claim that 2001 revenues were down on something that couldn't have shown any results until later, you're the joke.

By the way, I used the proper "you're", not the typical incorrect "your" like you retards. Tell me again how I'm wrong. You think immediate results were produced. It doesn't work like that son.