Why do people hate Liberals?

[Foxfyre]

And 51% of American workers pay ZERO % EFFECTIVE PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
And 41 MILLION Americans on are food stamps.
And 9 MILLION Americans are on Disability.
The debt is due to the people not pulling their weight, and instead demanding the 49% row the boat for them.

All the brown shit in your chart? Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.

Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget. Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.

 

[numan]

However, he is an excellent example of the fact that the United States is not a nation. America was founded, and has always functioned and been run, by scoundrels, scammers and con-artists.

lol... The country is being run by... a collection of "scoundrels, scammers, and con-artists."

You mean lawyers?

They are certainly a significant subset of the "scoundrels, scammers and con-artists."

If the Titanic had been filled with lawyers, what would you call it ?

Ans.: A beginning.
.

 

[Trajan]

your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....

SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?

Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.

Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.

Disability is up due to demographics.

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the Reagan administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."

he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to SSI and medicare.

and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?

 

[Trajan]

A really a sad commentary of what conservatism is all about.

That article was written in late 2009. That 50 year old women with stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors is dead and buried.

The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics: "I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater."

Liberalism is all about people. Conservatism is all about material things.

You folks are the modern day Pharisee. I suggest you grab everything you can in this life, because eternity will be very hot for scum like you.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

we are way past 'occasional'...


what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx. 3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly) folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do?

well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now; I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....

Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.

you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.

A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns. The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.

I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.

There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.

hey Bfgrn, I see you thanked her " response" to my post, but you don't have anything to say yourself?

so, back to our conversation....well?

 

[Bfgrn]

your "post" doesn't refute a thing he said....

SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?

Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.

Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.

Disability is up due to demographics.

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the Reagan administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."

he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to SSI and medicare.

and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?

Guess you didn't bother to check out my link...how embarrassing for you.

Envious of the poor, it can't get any lower than that.

 

[Bfgrn]

All the brown shit in your chart? Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.

Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget. Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.

The stimulus is in that chart.
OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

More 30-year conservative ascendancy...

 

[Trajan]

SO, the debt will be paid down by WHOM?

Social programs are not the cause of the debt held by the public. And Social Security has helped lower the deficit.

Plus his figures on federal taxes are wrong, typical of the right.

Disability is up due to demographics.

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the Reagan administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."

he said zero % personal effective income tax...hello, read what he wrote....in fact half of that 50% who pay zero effective personal income tax also by virtue of the Earned income credit get back $$ that basically zeros/returns the their fica withholding, they are in real effect contributing zero to SSI and medicare.

and the rest of that means what exactly? what is your point?

Guess you didn't bother to check out my link...how embarrassing for you.

Envious of the poor, it can't get any lower than that.

sure I looked at it, example-

These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay.


and?

I don't see them classifying exactly, what type of other federal taxes they pay, above is the only reference I saw with any specificity...and I spoke to that, exactly.

keep your snotty comments to yourself, try and have an adult conversation...ok?


so.....

 

[Trajan]

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

we are way past 'occasional'...


what brown said does have merit, and I can give you another example- when schip (The State Children's Health Insurance Program) rolled out, after approx. 3-5 years it became evident that several hundred thousand ( almost a million in fact if I recall correctly) folks who's kids were eligible, did not enroll them....they didn't sign them up, they just didn't....so what to do?

well, if your a democratic and use the old rope a dope, with the old its for the children emotional sob story, you get congress to raise eligibility benchmarks....raise the income level higher, now; I don't know what that had to do with the issue but thats what they did. Did it solve the original problem? No.....

Why? becasue people are not blocks of wood that do what you want them too, even if its for their own good or their child....there are people how simply do not look out for their own bests interests...and this is life.

you can only do so much and, absent dragging them out of their houses putting them in a car and making them sign up etc....all you can do is offer the chance to enroll and provide the assistance originally offered. Throwing money willy nilly at issues is just self aggrandizing emotional sap.... it may feel good, but it doesn't make it effective.

A friend of mine is an accountant and he had the single mother of a disabled child in to do her tax returns. The woman was struggling financially and he found earned income credits she wasn't using, as well as disability credits for her son, but the woman didn't want to claim them because she considered any money received from the government to be "welfare" and she wasn't a welfare case.

I have another friend who is very conservative, who is also struggling financially and she wouldn't ever sign up for something like SCHIPP because she believes all government programs are a slippery slope to communism.

There are all kinds of people who escew government programs for all sorts of reasons.

hey Bfgrn, I see you thanked her " response" to my post, but you don't have anything to say yourself?

so, back to our conversation....well?

still waiting.....

 

[Trajan]

All the brown shit in your chart? Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.

Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget. Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.

The stimulus is in that chart.
OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

More 30-year conservative ascendancy...

You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

end up? that means what exactly?

and you know, this debt issue is not a card you should be playing, I mean seriously, unless you want to here and now take obama to task for his deficit spending and adding to the debt. Well, maybe you do, do you?

I also notice you did not address her link either to wit;

As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.)

looks and sounds progressive to me*shrugs*


and what on earth does incarceration rate have to do with this discussion?

 

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn posts whatever his handlers tell him to post. He has no brain of his own...

So says the pseudo geologist who doesn't comprehend the dangers of dumping garbage and waste in streams.

I've spent nearly my whole career cleaning up messes of just that type little one. How does it feel to be a pseudo environmentalist who supported one of the most environmentally damaging programs ever foisted off on the American public? Do you realize that through your ignorant efforts you and your kind did more environmental damage in ten years with you ridiculous MTBE mandates than Big Oil has done in over 100 years?

You should be so proud of your accomplishments...............

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) did not mandate MTBE.

Next...

 

[Bfgrn]

Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget. Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:



A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.

The stimulus is in that chart.
OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

More 30-year conservative ascendancy...

You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

end up? that means what exactly?

and you know, this debt issue is not a card you should be playing, I mean seriously, unless you want to here and now take obama to task for his deficit spending and adding to the debt. Well, maybe you do, do you?

It means the cost has not ended, and it will not end in our lifetime. The costs will continue as we are forced to replace equipment lost or worn out, provide lifetime medical care for the injured and other expenses that continue...The $3 Trillion War

Our debt was created by Republicans. If Obama spent nothing, the debt would continue to grow. He inherited an economy that was moribund.

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 12 years, and the White House for 8 years...we had ZERO job growth in the 2000's...

Obama and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 2 years. What did they do?

Obama and Democrats put us on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

 

[RKMBrown]

All the brown shit in your chart? Yeah, most of that money is the tax cuts for middle class income earners.

Strange that the chart does not include Obamacare or Medicare or Medicaid or the stimulus package, most of which is off budget. Or the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been grossly misrepresented by the leftwing media and others who are dedicated to trashing the Bush years.

Believe me, I have a lot of quarrels with a number of Bush policies on this or that, but his tax policy is not among them:

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
• The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
• The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
• Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
• The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Further the top 1% of earners did in fact do very well over those same four years but they saw their tax bill increase by more than 1887% over the 25-50% of earners.
All the details can be found here:

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Which is another reason to despise a liberalism that cannot look objectively at the economic damage it does while it continues to blame somebody else, usually fallaciously.

The stimulus is in that chart.
OFF budget? You mean the War in Iraq which will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars?

Here is some wisdom that flies in the face of your lying Heritage Foundation. And it is not from a liberal.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Here are some other truths and charts you right winger who are NOT liberals in any way, shape or form don't want to confront.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

What does that 30-year conservative ascendancy look like?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

More 30-year conservative ascendancy...

I agree with the argument that the wars on poverty, hunger, booze, drugs, and terror have marked a long era of pissing taxpayer funds away to make the population feel like something is being done... all the while the only thing being done is restrictions on liberty at the cost of tens of trillions in wasted production and hundreds of millions of families torn apart. Just imagine what we would have done with all that money if this tyrannical government had not taken it from us. Where would we be now?

 

[Dragonlady]

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long. Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%. These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush. He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.

 

[RKMBrown]

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long. Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%. These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush. He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.

Why make up so many lies when the facts are so easy to look up?

 

[saveliberty]

Hate liberals? Why? They only act superior in thought and use other people's money to help. Know-it-all freeloaders are always fun at parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long. Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%. These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush. He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.

The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble. Perhaps you notice that the interest rates were not raised after the Democats took over Congress in 2007 or that the interest rates have continued to decline in five years of the Obama administration.

There are very good reasons for the government not dickering with the currency and to allow the free market to dictate interest rates. There are very good reason to question a lot of policy of the Fed that often has NOTHING to do with any presidential edict or Congressional action.

And there are very good reasons to understand that the facts that Heritage and Forbes are presenting are real facts and honest people acknowledge that. And to understand why a liberal, who wishes to rewrite history and blame Bush, would dismiss them out of hand.

 

[RKMBrown]

A more recent discussion in Forbes states that in the next four years following the Bush tax cuts in 2003, treasury revenues increased by 44%. The only thing stopping that trend was the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and no economist lays that at the feet of the Bush tax cuts or any policy that was initiated in the Bush adminisration.

Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long. Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%. These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush. He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.

The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble.

Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out the association of lower interest rates to a higher number of risky loans? The only way the banks had to make the same amount of profit in home mortgages was to hand out more $ in more loans, run up the cost of property etc.. Lower rates most certainly do lead to higher number of loans. The bubble pop was due to the price of the homes exceeding the amount people could pay in a recession as the high paid jobs left the USA and the USA debt piled up for all the social programs, thus making US labor more inefficient by comparison with foreign competition. As the price of the homes corrected, the risk based investors who could not meet their bets were exposed and went bankrupt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really???

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long. Thomas Hoenig, one of the Directors of the Federal Reserve has also espoused this opinion.

Far Too Low for Far Too Long | Rortybomb

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%. These were policies that Bush put into place to ease both the dot.com crash recession, and post 9/11 and this certainly stimulated the economy, so that it appeared that the tax cuts made it all happen, but it was the cheap money, and plenty of it, all of it borrowed.

And that was ALL George W. Bush. He even went on TV and announced those interest rates to Americans.

The low interest rates did not cause the housing bubble. People being encouraged to take out mortgages they had no way to pay caused the housing bubble.

Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out the association of lower interest rates to a higher number of risky loans? The only way the banks had to make the same amount of profit in home mortgages was to hand out more $ in more loans, run up the cost of property etc.. Lower rates most certainly do lead to higher number of loans. The bubble pop was due to the price of the homes exceeding the amount people could pay in a recession as the high paid jobs left the USA and the USA debt piled up for all the social programs, thus making US labor more inefficient by comparison with foreign competition. As the price of the homes corrected, the risk based investors who could not meet their bets were exposed and went bankrupt.

Low interest rates can have the effect of encouraging the irresponsible to buy more property than they could otherwise afford. That is where the responsibility of lending institutions are supposed to come in and apply the normal standards of financing; i.e. follow the rule of thumb that people can generally afford a mortgage of about 2-1/2 times their annual income and also reasonable credit history is appropriate to consider before people receive a loan. When that guideline is followed reasonably closely, what the interest rates are doesn't really matter, even when normal economic activity creates an occasional housing bubble. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/housing_bubble.asp

Unfortunately during the economic prosperity of most of the Clinton/Bush years, the government encouraged neither sound borrowing or lending practices, and banking policy was relaxed to encourage more irresponsible lending and management of bundled mortgages. Hell, the government actually threatened retaliation against lending institutions that did not accommodate their vision of home ownership for every family. And it is for that reason that the inevitable housing bubble collapse has had a catastrophic effect both in the short term and long term. And most of that happened as a direct result of liberal government policy.

Another reason to deplore policy based on liberal concepts.

 

[saveliberty]

All you have to do is remember the birth of derivitatives. Their sole purpose was to protect banks from high risk loans. Like that worked.

 

[numan]

John B. Taylor, Economics Professor at Stanford University says that one of the causes of the Housing Bubble was that the Federal Reserve, after 2001, artificially kept the interest rates far too low for too long....

The Housing Bubble burst in 2006 when rates went from 1% post 9/11 to 5.5%.

emphasis added

'
Why make up so many lies when the facts are so easy to look up?
'

Tex, you posted a chart of treasury bond rates.

However, our esteemed Dragonlady was referring to the Federal Reserve Discount Rate :

I will charitably ascribe your error to inadvertance, rather than to fundamental ignorance of the basics of economics.

However, I cannot be so charitable to the other excessively opinionated commentators on this thread. They deserve deep oprobrium for missing this basic point, leaving it to an amateur like little ol' me to correct your whopping floater !!
.