Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[bedowin62]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, it doesn't mean that.

Bush's 1.2 trillion dollar deficit came from continuing the previous budgets,

while revenues fell and mandatory spending programs automatically increased because of the recession.

 

[bedowin62]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, it doesn't mean that.

Bush's 1.2 trillion dollar deficit came from continuing the previous budgets,

while revenues fell and mandatory spending programs automatically increased because of the recession.

no it does mean that idiot; Dems wrote the last "Bush" budgets. obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget to the tune of over $200 BILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING.

but since you want to go there remember budgets in outlying years are expected to INCREASE because of obama's policies; but i'm sure you will have a different take on that.

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Dad2three]

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

LOL!!!

Newt Congress cut spending and saying Obama cut the deficit is just plain fucking stupid

Oh right, AFTER Clinton's first budget surplus he had to veto Newts/GOP's 4700+ billion tax cut to get 3 more, then Dubya/GOP had control and we saw the consequences.

Yep Obama HAS cut the deficit handed to him by 2/3rds dummy

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts,(WITHOUT SINGLE GOPer) which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, it doesn't mean that.

Bush's 1.2 trillion dollar deficit came from continuing the previous budgets,

while revenues fell and mandatory spending programs automatically increased because of the recession.

no it does mean that idiot; Dems wrote the last "Bush" budgets. obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget to the tune of over $200 BILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING.

but since you want to go there remember budgets in outlying years are expected to INCREASE because of obama's policies; but i'm sure you will have a different take on that.

idiots and hypocrites

You don't know what you're talking about as usual.

 

[Dad2three]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office ...

 

[Dad2three]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[2aguy]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office ...

Darth Sidious….the lying is strong with this one…..

 

[bedowin62]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.

good one loon; but it means Dems wrote "bush's" highest deficits. repubs wrote his lowest ones.

it means Republicans wrote OBAMA'S LOWEST deficit budgets; and DEMCORATS WROTE OBAMA'S HIGHEST DEFICIT BUDGETS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

posters wont save you dullard.

Democrats wrote bush's biggest budget deficits; Republicans wrote Bush's smallest deficits

Republicans wrote obama's smallest budget deficits. Democrats wrote Obama's largest budget deficits

Republicans "obstructed" literally hundreds of billions in spending Dems/obama wanted

OBAMA ADDED OVER $200 BILLION TO THE "REPUBLICAN" BUDGET YOU MENTION


libs are losers who lie TO THEMSELVES

 

[Dad2three]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office ...

Darth Sidious….the lying is strong with this one…..

13 days PRE Obama

Jan 9, 2009

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

 

[2aguy]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office ...

Darth Sidious….the lying is strong with this one…..

13 days PRE Obama

Jan 9, 2009

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

Lying with numbers….something you lefties specialize in…..

 

[bedowin62]

Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

 

[bedowin62]

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

 

[bedowin62]

Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.
Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.
The interest rate we are now paying for the debt — about 3.5 percent — is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage-backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other

 

[Bfgrn]

In short, federal revenues were below 2000 levels (after adjusting for inflation) until 2006. They outpaced fiscal year 2000 collections for a bit, then fell again in 2008. The same pattern roughly holds if you use 2001 as the starting point.

What’s that all mean? When you adjust for inflation, the 47 percent revenue growth from 2003 to 2007 becomes 28 percent. And if you start the clock in 2001, revenue growth drops to 4 percent. By 2009, of course, the numbers look even worse.

Here’s another way to look at it, using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Over Bush’s two full terms, federal revenues dropped 13 percent.

Accounting for economic growth

Not adjusting for inflation and cherry-picking the time period are two problems in Christie’s calculation. So is not factoring in a rising population (more people, means more taxpayers, more goods and services sold, etc.).

Economists such as Gale say a better way to put federal revenues into context is by comparing them to the Gross Domestic Product.

Through that lens, federal revenues as a share of the economy fell and never reached their 2001 level through Bush’s two terms.

more

 

[tyroneweaver]

The Right thinks that taking a cut in income will make them rich.

and the left thinks you can spend your way out of debt.
The reason the right don't believe in even more taxes is $600 pencil sharpeners

 

[g5000]

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

When Bill Clinton raised taxes, revenues increased.

When George Bush lowered taxes, revenues increased.


Now look at the other side of the coin:


Deficits dropped every fiscal year of Bill Clinton's Administration.

Deficits skyrocketed during George Bush's Administration and hit the highest level in the history of the Universe.

Deficits have dropped every fiscal year of Barack Obama's Administration.



Proceed.

 

[bedowin62]

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

When Bill Clinton raised taxes, revenues increased.

When George Bush lowered taxes, revenues increased.


Now look at the other side of the coin:


Deficits dropped every fiscal year of Bill Clinton's Administration.

Deficits skyrocketed during George Bush's Administration and hit the highest level in the history of the Universe.

Deficits have dropped every fiscal year of Barack Obama's Administration.



Proceed.

Deficits "dropped" from record highs set when Democrats and obama controlled the budget process.
obama spent MORE THAN $200 BILLION in his first year that ended up going onto the deficit total of the last "Bush" budget; making that a record deficit

 

[Dad2three]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office ...

Darth Sidious….the lying is strong with this one…..

13 days PRE Obama

Jan 9, 2009

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

Lying with numbers….something you lefties specialize in…..

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

once again obama added OVER $200 BILLION to that last "Bush" budget deficit

libs are losers who lie to themselves