Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!
For the above, that's highly debatable....BUT, the lack of brains on your part is AMPLY provable.
(Christian with money??? This idiot is hilarious.....)
Blues is a known liar as shown in my sig line.
The rich are not my enemy you stupid hack. Envy, jealousy, hatred, these are the emotions of the left.
Whereas, getting royally screwed and voting against their own best interests, are "virtues" for brain-dead right wingers.......Go figure .......
Ahahaha I'm your worst nightmare lib a right wing Christian conservative with money, hell yeah!
Good luck getting into your Heaven.
Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.
When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.
I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.
Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.
That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.
Nope!
In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.
Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.
During Bush's 8 years, millions of jobs were lost and over 42,000 factories closed. That's going to lead to less revenue. How come Republicans can't seem to understand that?omc modpack
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
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.
Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.
Year over year revenues fell in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.
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.)
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.)
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
OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......
Following that line of logic then:
If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?
If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?
If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?
(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)
lol, you obviously know nothing about economics. The reason it rises is because more money moves, and almost all movement creates a taxable event. And, as money moves, it also creates a difference in who has possession of it, which means the amount they pay rises.
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:
Nope...wrong answer.......the tax revenue went up with the tax cuts......and then they spent even more than that.....
It is never a tax revenue problem...it is always a government spending problem.......
omc modpack
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
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.
Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.
Mike, I agree with you 100%; but every liberal poster with over 10,000 posts are going to come here and hose you by obfuscating the issue, and using lefty sites that change the parameters.
Your facts do NOT fit the lefty narrative, and when you shut them down with your facts, they will go back to the tried and true, "but the rich got richer, so that means all those policies were awful."
We know the same thing happened under Reagan also, and yet we have a thread on here where every lefty called Reagan the worst President ever. They then make excuses of how he did it with smoke and mirrors.
Watch, they will either ignore the thread so it falls, or 20 lefties with 10,000 posts will bomb you on here to shut you up. It is their modus aperendi, lol. Good luck, but thanks for the facts!
And Kennedy....he cut the tax rate from 90% and revenue flooded into the government.....and one other President before him, I never remember which one...
Tax cuts work every time the are tried....and every time the democrats out spend whatever money they generate.....
OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......
Following that line of logic then:
If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?
If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?
If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?
(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)
What you lefties never understand is that when you cut a tax...that means you aren't taking money from the people who actually know how to create money...through work and businesses....they start more businesses, expand their businesses, hire more workers, create more products.....
All of that activity creates more money....and that money gets taxed...which sends more money to the government.....
I know you lefties don't understand the concept...by we can't help you with your mental illness....you will just have to benefit from it without understanding it....
When will conservatives ever stop pretending Dubya was anything other than a total disaster?
When truth and reality no longer exist........
Clinton raised taxes.....
Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth
Unexceptional Growth
A favorite liberal argument is to attribute the U.S. economy’s strong performance during the 1990s to President Clinton’s economic policies, chief among which was a huge tax increase.
Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of capping it to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.[1]
The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit economic growth during the 1990s, but it was well below potential. Moreover, rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time.
As for the overall economic recovery, it started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991.
In addition to coming into office in the midst of an economic expansion, Clinton also benefited from a very unusual confluence of events that created a remarkably favorable environment for rapid economic growth:
With these factors clearing the way, the economy should have displayed spectacular and accelerating growth in the years immediately after Clinton entered the White House, but growth of that magnitude did not materialize until later in the decade.
- The end of the Cold War brought a powerful dose of growth-enhancing certainty to the global economy;
- The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping below $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel, versus near $100 per barrel today[2];
- The Federal Reserve had tamed inflation to an extent previously thought impossible, with inflation averaging 2 percent during the Clinton Administration[3]; and
- A tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing information technologies emerged—including the explosion of the Internet as a powerful tool for commerce and communication—which further increased productivity.
From 1993 until 1997, the economy grew at 3.3 percent per year.[4] While solid, this growth was certainly not exceptional. During that same time, real wages declined, despite the perception that the 1990s were an era of unmitigated abundance.[5]
Why dont liberals post the clinton tax cuts
ya know there were some
clinton created the housing bubble
clinton created the dot com bubble
just like obama is creating the stock market bubble
clinton benefited from the reagan ss tax increase which created a surplus
reagan ended the expensive cold war. and clinton benefited financially from it
