Bush's Legacy

Iriemon said:

You called Jessica a traitor based on this supposed senate investigation showing Bush did not lie.

Again, please provide the citation for this senate finding that Bush did not lie, and the basis upon which you are calling people traitors.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I already provided quotes yesterday from the Democrat's report from Washington Post. I love how the author makes an ass out of Rockefeller.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Click to expand...

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

sazerac said:

I already provided quotes yesterday from the Democrat's report from Washington Post. I love how the author makes an ass out of Rockefeller.


[/B]

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

Click to expand...

Let me see if I have this straight.

You post:

sazerac said:

You called your president a liar with no proof. Even after senate investigations showed he did not lie. This makes you traitors by simple definition.

Click to expand...

Calling people traitors based on a senate investigation you claimed showed Bush did not lie.

And when called out on it, you cite an op-ed piece from a newspaper.

I think you've aptly demonstrated your character and the veracity of your posts. Thanks.

Iriemon said:

Let me see if I have this straight.

You post:



Calling people traitors based on a senate investigation you claimed showed Bush did not lie.

And when called out on it, you cite an op-ed piece from a newspaper.

I think you've aptly demonstrated your character and the veracity of your posts. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The 250 plus page report is right here on the internet. Google it for Christ's sake if you want! The republican report is right here too. Oh, that's right, it takes work to figure out that your president is not a liar. Googling is hard!

I provided quotes from the senate democrat report from the WaPo article that show Bush only told us what he was told by intelligence and nothing more.

Bill Clinton's man, George Tenet, told us Saddam had WMDs. That something people like to forget, too.

And you all were traitors the minute you called Bush a liar without proof. Long before these reports.

sazerac said:

The 250 plus page report is right here on the internet. Google it for Christ's sake if you want! The republican report is right here too. Oh, that's right, it takes work to figure out that your president is not a liar. Googling is hard!

And you all were traitors the minute you called Bush a liar without proof. Long before these reports.[/

Click to expand...

You can't back up your claim upon which you call others "traitors".

But if you follow your own advice and google for information about Senate investigations and Iraq, you'll find information about Senate investigations that sheds light on your claim:

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda ..."

Senate investigation reports on Bush's statement:

2004 9/11 Commission Report
The official report issued by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004 addressed the issue of a possible conspiracy between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda in the September 11 attacks. The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship, and that they did not cooperate to commit terrorist attacks against the United States. The report includes the following information:

“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
Looking at pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined "the quality and quantity of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;" and "the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community".[88] In Section 12 of the report, titled Iraq's Links to Terrorism, the Senate committee examined the CIA's "five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism." The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[97] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[98] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[99] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda."

The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda:

Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war."

Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike.....

Sure doesn't look like these senate investigations showed Bush did not lie to me. Quite the contrary.

And some other intellegence reports on whether Iraq was an ally of Al Queda as Bush stated:

2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
Ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush receives a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them.

2002 DIA reports
The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."[78] In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq

2002 British intelligence report
In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction

2003 CIA report
In January 2003, the CIA released a special Report to Congress entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism. The report concludes that "In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." (See below).[81] Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: "For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials.... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book.[82]
2003 British intelligence report

In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says."

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Bush called Iraq an ally of Al-Queda despite overwhelming information to the contrary.

That's a lie in my book.

sazerac said:

Your list reminds me how deceitful the Bush haters have to be to try to convince us that he is evil.

They can't just stick to facts. The must resort to fantasy.

Click to expand...

Never confuse rabid Liberals with the facts; their eyes will just glaze over and they will engage you into a circle of stupidity.

It's like the sage old saying; never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Just saying.....

Bodhisattva said:

Are you even capable of understanding that Bush and Company may not care about the Republican Party? :lol:

If I may ask... what is your IQ?

Certainly one with a higher IQ could understand that you are not be logical at all...

Click to expand...

The above ad hominem is a prime example of profound irony.

:roll:

ADK_Forever said:

Notice the diff btwn Clinton's term and Bush's.

United Stated National Debt

And Repubs have the noive to call Dems Tax and Spenders! :roll:

Clinton's spending was actually LESS than Bush's revenue! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Once again, Presidents cannot tax, and they cannot spend. That is the responsibility of Congress and Clinton's congress was Republican; a congress that was the FIRST in five decades to ever balance a budget.

I am always amused by the desperate efforts to re-write the historic record and give all that credit to Clinton who attempted to tax us at ever greater rates and shove Universal Healthcare, his biggest failure, down the American public’s throats.

Denial leads to ignorance; please do not do denial.

:2wave:

Family Guy said:

So you're an apologist for a President who purposely manipulated intelligence in order to start a war that was unnecessary and unwarranted? That's quite generous of you.

"Islamofascists" is one of those made up scary words that Bush and his "apologists" like to toss our to justify their mistakes, kind of like a "get out of jail free" card.

Click to expand...

I am always amused by this desperate Liberal attempt to re-write the record.

Tell me something Family Guy, did Bush manipulate the intelligence for these Democrats as well?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

The ONLY way anyone can keep spewing the lie that Bush fooled everyone is to willingly suspend your brains.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

:roll:

Truth Detector said:

Once again, Presidents cannot tax, and they cannot spend. That is the responsibility of Congress and Clinton's congress was Republican; a congress that was the FIRST in five decades to ever balance a budget.

I am always amused by the desperate efforts to re-write the historic record and give all that credit to Clinton who attempted to tax us at ever greater rates and shove Universal Healthcare, his biggest failure, down the American public’s throats.

Click to expand...

Clinton had a Dem congress in the first two years which is when the deficit busting tax increase was passed.

Presidents cannot tax (who can remember the 1981 Democratic tax cut) but they can veto, which is why the Republicans were unable to pass their budget busting tax cuts until Bush took over the WH, wiping out the surplus in a couple years and reinstituting record deficits.

Denial leads to ignorance; please do not do denial.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

Just so.

Truth Detector said:

I am always amused by this desperate Liberal attempt to re-write the record.

...

The ONLY way anyone can keep spewing the lie that Bush fooled everyone is to willingly suspend your brains.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

:roll:

Click to expand...

Bush didn't fool everyone.

...

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

...

Obama 10/26/02

Obama's 2003 statement on the Iraq War - the one where he talks about stupid wars... - Democratic Underground

Iriemon said:

Clinton had a Dem congress in the first two years which is when the deficit busting tax increase was passed.

Click to expand...

It is a fantasy or alternative world if you think the tax increases were the only thing that reduced the budget deficits.

Every Liberal Democrat government who has never seen a tax they didn't like, New York State and California for example has only ended up in deficits.

If you had any intellectual curiosity why that happens, you would comprehend that these Liberals spend way more than they take in regardless of “revenue” increases.

It was the responsible way Republicans kept spending in check during Clinton’s administration that eventually led to a balanced budget, not the bloated tax increases in 1994.

In an expanding economy, even without tax increases, Government will continually take in MORE revenue. If Governments held their desire to spend, another word for pandering, they would always have balanced budget.

Your continued denial is noted however. I know you are an advocate for the false notion that tax increases lead to balanced budgets, but the credible evidence does not support your desperate assertions because you never account for the drunken sailor desire by Liberal politicians to spend, spend, and spend.

Iriemon said:

Presidents cannot tax (who can remember the 1981 Democratic tax cut) but they can veto, which is why the Republicans were unable to pass their budget busting tax cuts until Bush took over the WH, wiping out the surplus in a couple years and reinstituting record deficits.

Click to expand...

Those tax cuts weren't budget busting, but thank you again for illustrating your profound denial of the facts.

The items that busted the budget in the early years of the Bush Presidency were 9-11, TWO wars and the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina.

I find your desperate argument for higher taxes as being the end all solution to all problems fascinating in it's denial when you refuse to acknowledge that up until the Democrats took over after the 2006 elections, the deficit was steadily decreasing.

I will leave you with the last word as usual because most debates with you end up in the circle of futility.

Iriemon said:

Bush didn't fool everyone.

...

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

...

Obama 10/26/02

Obama's 2003 statement on the Iraq War - the one where he talks about stupid wars... - Democratic Underground

Click to expand...

I find this argument amusing, if not specious, as well; Obama had no stake in the Iraq War.

But let's speculate some more, had he been in a position to put his reputation on the line, would he have voted against the war, or voted "present".

But alas, Obama didn't have a stake and to suggest that his arguments to the contrary are illustrative of his leadership skills, then you wallow in continued denial by his statements after he took offices up in the Senate.

He claimed that the surge strategy was a failure and could not succeed; he was wrong. He claimed, as did many hysterical Democrats that Iraq was in a civil war and a failure; he was wrong.

He claims not to vote with Bush, but voted for the NSA eves dropping legislation. He claims he was not a rubber stamp for Bush, but voted for funding the War. He claims he was not a rubber stamp, but voted for the $700 billion bailout.

So please, spare me your weak attempt to give Obama credit for something he didn't have a stake in or a vote for.

Carry on. :2wave:

Truth Detector said:

It is a fantasy or alternative world if you think the tax increases were the only thing that reduced the budget deficits.

Click to expand...

All other things being equal, increasing revenues reduces deficits.

Every Liberal Democrat government who has never seen a tax they didn't like, New York State and California for example has only ended up in deficits.

Click to expand...

Proof please.

If you had any intellectual curiosity why that happens, you would comprehend that these Liberals spend way more than they take in regardless of “revenue” increases.

Click to expand...

There was a surplus in 2000 under Clinton.

When was the last time there was a surplus under a Conservative.

It was the responsible way Republicans kept spending in check during Clinton’s administration that eventually led to a balanced budget, not the bloated tax increases in 1994.

Click to expand...

We sure saw the responsible way Republicans kept spending in check and the budget balanced when they didn't have Clinton's veto to reckon with.

In an expanding economy, even without tax increases, Government will continually take in MORE revenue. If Governments held their desire to spend, another word for pandering, they would always have balanced budget.

Click to expand...

Not when taxes are cut.

Bewteen 2000 and 2004 the economy grew 19%. Here's how the Government took in MORE revenue:

Year - Tot rev.

2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

Your continued denial is noted however. I know you are an advocate for the false notion that tax increases lead to balanced budgets, but the credible evidence does not support your desperate assertions because you never account for the drunken sailor desire by Liberal politicians to spend, spend, and spend.

Click to expand...

Sure, a balanced budget is a function of revenues and expenditures. In 1991, there was a $340 billion deficit, yet spending went up every year and still the budget was in surplus in 2000. The tax increase was the major factor the budget was balanced in 2000. Tax revenues grew far faster than GDP.

I know you advocate lots of things; rarely with any FACTS to support them.

Those tax cuts weren't budget busting, but thank you again for illustrating your profound denial of the facts.

Click to expand...

You operate under the delusion that your profound blathering is somehow equivalent to FACTS.

The items that busted the budget in the early years of the Bush Presidency were 9-11, TWO wars and the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina.

Click to expand...

You operate under the delusion that your profound blathering is somehow equivalent to FACTS.

I find your desperate argument for higher taxes as being the end all solution to all problems fascinating in it's denial when you refuse to acknowledge that up until the Democrats took over after the 2006 elections, the deficit was steadily decreasing.

Click to expand...

The deficit in 2006 was approximately $400 billion worse than it was in 2001 when the Republicans got control. Only someone in DENIAL of the FACTS would say that is a decrease.

I will leave you with the last word as usual because most debates with you end up in the circle of futility.

Click to expand...

Your practice of cutting and running when your delusion that your statements are equivalent to FACTS is exposed to actual FACTS is well established.

Iriemon said:

There was a surplus in 2000 under Clinton.

Click to expand...

Funny how Congress is always left out of this equation... :roll:

We sure saw the responsible way Republicans kept spending in check and the budget balanced when they didn't have Clinton's veto to reckon with.

Click to expand...

We did. If you had an ounce of curiosity you would think about the cost of the Democratic budget proposals that were not passed in the budget process. I guarantee you, since I have looked at these proposals, that the Democrats were proposing even greater spending. So you guys cannot argue that Republicans were the evil-doers here.

Now, that doesn't get the Republicans off the hook for being drunk with spending, however, it does demonstrate that the Democrats, had they had their way, would have spent even more.

Bewteen 2000 and 2004 the economy grew 19%. Here's how the Government took in MORE revenue:

Year - Tot rev.

2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that data does not demonstrate that the tax cuts were the cause of falling revenue or that the tax cuts were a primary factor.

Please muster the data that proves this or otherwise abandon the point.

Sure, a balanced budget is a function of revenues and expenditures. In 1991, there was a $340 billion deficit, yet spending went up every year and still the budget was in surplus in 2000. The tax increase was the major factor the budget was balanced in 2000. Tax revenues grew far faster than GDP.

Click to expand...

Please present your data that the tax increases were the major factor as you characterize it.

Simply citing contemporaneous events is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

This Dallas Fed paper from April 2007 demonstrates that one major feature of the the decreasing budget deficits during the Clinton administration was a massive drop in defense-related spending and a massive drop in overall spending.

Real outlays have grown at a 4.6 percent annual rate since President Bush took office in 2001, compared with 2.7 percent under Ronald Reagan and 0.8 percent under Bill Clinton.

Click to expand...

Under Clinton and a Republican Congress, real spending increased less than one percent.

The deficit in 2006 was approximately $400 billion worse than it was in 2001 when the Republicans got control. Only someone in DENIAL of the FACTS would say that is a decrease.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying that in the few years before the Democrats regained control in 2006 the budget deficits were shrinking.

That is true. Read here. Written in April 2007, the Dallas Fed concluded:

The federal deficit has fallen for three straight years—from a record $412 billion in 2004 to $248 billion in 2006.

Click to expand...

So, in fact, the federal budget deficit was decreasing in the few years prior to Democrats regaining control of the Congress.

JMak said:

Sorry, but that data does not demonstrate that the tax cuts were the cause of falling revenue or that the tax cuts were a primary factor.

Please muster the data that proves this or otherwise abandon the point.



Please present your data that the tax increases were the major factor as you characterize it.

Simply citing contemporaneous events is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

Click to expand...

But this data does:

New CBO Deficit Estimate Indicates That Without The Tax Cuts, the Budget Would Be Balanced, 8/8/06
CBO Finds the President’s Budget Would Increase Deficits by $1.6 Trillion Over Ten Years, 3/8/05
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role Than Domestic Spending Increases In Fueling The Deficit, Rev. 1/31/05

JMak said:

Funny how Congress is always left out of this equation... :roll:



We did. If you had an ounce of curiosity you would think about the cost of the Democratic budget proposals that were not passed in the budget process. I guarantee you, since I have looked at these proposals, that the Democrats were proposing even greater spending. So you guys cannot argue that Republicans were the evil-doers here.

Now, that doesn't get the Republicans off the hook for being drunk with spending, however, it does demonstrate that the Democrats, had they had their way, would have spent even more.




Sorry, but that data does not demonstrate that the tax cuts were the cause of falling revenue or that the tax cuts were a primary factor.

Please muster the data that proves this or otherwise abandon the point.



Please present your data that the tax increases were the major factor as you characterize it.

Simply citing contemporaneous events is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

This Dallas Fed paper from April 2007 demonstrates that one major feature of the the decreasing budget deficits during the Clinton administration was a massive drop in defense-related spending and a massive drop in overall spending.



Under Clinton and a Republican Congress, real spending increased less than one percent.



I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying that in the few years before the Democrats regained control in 2006 the budget deficits were shrinking.

That is true. Read here. Written in April 2007, the Dallas Fed concluded:



So, in fact, the federal budget deficit was decreasing in the few years prior to Democrats regaining control of the Congress.

Click to expand...

Thanks for saving me the trouble; facts and reality were never Ireimon's forte'.

obvious Child said:

But this data does:

New CBO Deficit Estimate Indicates That Without The Tax Cuts, the Budget Would Be Balanced, 8/8/06
CBO Finds the President’s Budget Would Increase Deficits by $1.6 Trillion Over Ten Years, 3/8/05
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role Than Domestic Spending Increases In Fueling The Deficit, Rev. 1/31/05

Click to expand...

This analysis is purely speculative and IGNORES the FACT that the deficits were DECREASING up to 2006.

But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget. There is no credible evidence to support these assertions because we have had 6 decades of congressional tax increases and tax cuts, and only during the recent Republican Congress have they ever led to a balanced budget.

This was because they also CONTROLLED spending.

It is equally specious to claim this was due to Bill Clinton's programs.

Truth Detector said:

This analysis is purely speculative and IGNORES the FACT that the deficits were DECREASING up to 2006.

Click to expand...

Cite specific article. Furthermore, are they wrong?

lol. Are you saying that tax cuts didn't increase deficits?

You do realize that you are saying that tax cuts pay for themselves no?

But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget.

Click to expand...

That depends on the other side of the equation. But cutting taxes most certainly won't if you don't make corresponding cuts to the spending.

JMak said:

Funny how Congress is always left out of this equation... :roll:

Click to expand...

The Republican Congress did not pass the tax increase. The Republican Congress showed its true colors on spending when the impediment of the Clinton veto was removed.

We did. If you had an ounce of curiosity you would think about the cost of the Democratic budget proposals that were not passed in the budget process. I guarantee you, since I have looked at these proposals, that the Democrats were proposing even greater spending. So you guys cannot argue that Republicans were the evil-doers here.

Click to expand...

Spending in 1993 and 1994, the last two years of Democratic control of Congress, was up 2.0% and 3.7%, respectively. About a third of the average annual increase when Republicans took control ofthe government.

Overall spending increase from prior year:
1993 2.0%
1994 3.7%

2001 4.2%
2002 7.9%
2003 7.3%
2004 6.2%
2005 7.9%
2006 7.4%

Now, that doesn't get the Republicans off the hook for being drunk with spending, however, it does demonstrate that the Democrats, had they had their way, would have spent even more.

Click to expand...

Doesn't demonstrate it at all.

Sorry, but that data does not demonstrate that the tax cuts were the cause of falling revenue or that the tax cuts were a primary factor.

Click to expand...

It does, however, respond to the assertion: "In an expanding economy, even without tax increases, Government will continually take in MORE revenue" to which I responded "Not when taxes are cut."

The economy was expanding, yet revenues fell hundreds of billions at the time of the tax cuts.

If you have some other analysis explaining why revenues fell hundreds of billions at a time the economy was expanding other than the tax cuts, I'm all ears.

Please muster the data that proves this or otherwise abandon the point.

Click to expand...

Tax rates were slashed, tax revenues dropped dramatically even during an economic expansion, albiet a weak one.

If you disagree, I await your analysis of some other basis for why revenues fell.

Please present your data that the tax increases were the major factor as you characterize it.

Simply citing contemporaneous events is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of contemporaneous events; it's a matter of mathematical function. Revenues = Gross income x the effective tax rate. Increase the effective tax rate and revenues increase.

That mathematical function is born out by the data. Between 1992 and 2000, revenues grew faster than GDP:


1992-2000
GDP: 57.8%
Revenues: 85.6%

compared to Reagan and Bush2 regimes, where after tax cuts revenues grew slower than GDP:

1981 – 1992
GDP: 126.4%
Revenues: 82.1%

2000-2006:
GDP: 28.3%
Revenues: 18.8%

This Dallas Fed paper from April 2007 demonstrates that one major feature of the the decreasing budget deficits during the Clinton administration was a massive drop in defense-related spending and a massive drop in overall spending.

Click to expand...

There was no massive drop in defense spending:

Year - defense spending.
1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0

Defense spending was stable. If it had kept up with inflation, it would have been about $350 billion in 2000. Given a $340 billion deficit in 1992 and a 86 billion surplus, the real decrease in defense spending accounts for only a fraction of the net change in the budget.

Under Clinton and a Republican Congress, real spending increased less than one percent.

Click to expand...

The defense budget helped; Clinton made efficiency in government a hallmark of his administration.

I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying that in the few years before the Democrats regained control in 2006 the budget deficits were shrinking.

That is true. Read here. Written in April 2007, the Dallas Fed concluded:

So, in fact, the federal budget deficit was decreasing in the few years prior to Democrats regaining control of the Congress.

Click to expand...

Well sure, if you are comparing to Bush's worst performance after the tax cuts, it improved a bit. IMO opinion, the fact that the budget was still about $400 billion worse than Bush inhereted is no bragging right.

Truth Detector said:

I find this argument amusing, if not specious, as well; Obama had no stake in the Iraq War.

But let's speculate some more, had he been in a position to put his reputation on the line, would he have voted against the war, or voted "present".

But alas, Obama didn't have a stake and to suggest that his arguments to the contrary are illustrative of his leadership skills, then you wallow in continued denial by his statements after he took offices up in the Senate.

He claimed that the surge strategy was a failure and could not succeed; he was wrong. He claimed, as did many hysterical Democrats that Iraq was in a civil war and a failure; he was wrong.

He claims not to vote with Bush, but voted for the NSA eves dropping legislation. He claims he was not a rubber stamp for Bush, but voted for funding the War. He claims he was not a rubber stamp, but voted for the $700 billion bailout.

So please, spare me your weak attempt to give Obama credit for something he didn't have a stake in or a vote for.

Carry on. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Stake or no, Obama was spot on compared to the current administration, the Republicans, the neocons, and his opponent.

Truth Detector said:

This analysis is purely speculative and IGNORES the FACT that the deficits were DECREASING up to 2006.

Click to expand...

Year - Deficit
2000 +86.6
2001 -33.3
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4

Great decrease.

But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget. There is no credible evidence to support these assertions because we have had 6 decades of congressional tax increases and tax cuts, and only during the recent Republican Congress have they ever led to a balanced budget.

Click to expand...

No, during the recent Republican Congress, they were at record levels. It was only during the recent Democratic presidency there was a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced after the 1993 tax increase. It was unbalanced after the 2001 tax cut.

This was because they also CONTROLLED spending.

Click to expand...

:rofl

It is equally specious to claim this was due to Bill Clinton's programs.

Click to expand...

Speciousness rebutted in prior post.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This analysis is purely speculative and IGNORES the FACT that the deficits were DECREASING up to 2006.

obvious Child said:

Cite specific article. Furthermore, are they wrong?

Click to expand...

You cannot possibly be taken seriously with such absurdity. You want me to cite a specific article that states that the deficits were decreasing?

What is keeping you from just looking it up? Or reading the citations Jmak made above? Laziness?

obvious Child said:

lol. Are you saying that tax cuts didn't increase deficits?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that tax increases create budget surpluses? Can you cite a credible case for the many tax increases we have had in both State and Federal budgets that led to surpluses?

I want you to pay close attention, because much like Ireimon, you have a propensity to ignore FACTS: The budget deficits we had early in Bush’s term were the result of the attacks on 9-11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. Had these events NOT occurred, the economic picture would be very different today and we probably would still be looking at Budget surpluses.

The speculative nature of your and Ireimon’s arguments suggests that had we not cut taxes, there would not have been a deficit. That is specious at best. The OTHER side of the argument has always been that these tax cuts helped to spur economic activity that limited the devastating impact 9-11 had on the US economy.

We can speculate equally that had Bush not passed these cuts, which spurred economic growth and showed revenues increasing the following years in 2005 and 2006, the deficits may have been even larger.

obvious Child said:

You do realize that you are saying that tax cuts pay for themselves no?

Click to expand...

You do realize that you are making up your own arguments. Let me give you the simpler Liberal tax formula so that you can be clear what the argument is:

Lower taxes = more money in the pockets of people and businesses = more spending = businesses expanding = higher sales tax revenue = more people employed = more tax payers = more tax revenue.

If you never raised taxes, there would be a growth in tax revenue as long as there is economic growth.

If you cut taxes, it spurs on economic activity which leads to revenue growth.

It is fascinating that you and Iriemon always want to argue that we have a revenue problem and willingly ignore the spending side of the equation.


Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget.

obvious Child said:

That depends on the other side of the equation. But cutting taxes most certainly won't if you don't make corresponding cuts to the spending.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, why did revenue begin increasing in 2005 and 2006? There were no tax increases. The CBO admitted that revenues after the tax cuts were passed exceeded projections.

You don’t even need to make cuts in spending. You just need to hold spending static and stop passing pork barrel projects/programs.

The reason the tax increase doesn’t wash with people who have brains and use them is that we have seen politicians make these arguments since the beginning of time. Never has it led to balancing budgets because these same tax, tax and tax politicians spend the money faster than any increase can bring them in.

California is the best example. They constantly find ways to increase taxes. They told us that the lottery would solve all our educational budget issues. This State gets 100,000 new tax payers a month. Yet with all that, it continues to wallow in a sea of RED ink. The California legislature is dominated by the same Liberal Democrats you now see in charge of Congress and the Senate. They spend like drunken sailors and then when they hit a wall, argue about how to get more tax money.

My argument is clear to anyone who pays attention; the issue is NOT a revenue issue, it is a SPENDING issue.

It is as equally clear to anyone not willingly suspending disbelief or wallowing in denial, that the ONLY congress in the last six decades that balanced a budget was a Republican one and the ONLY reason we got into a deficit was due to 9-11, two wars and a major hurricane disaster.

But hey, when it comes to you and Ireimon, I don’t expect the FACTS to get in the way of your denial and the specious argument that the only way to control deficits is to raise taxes. I guess we shall soon see how well that works when Obama takes over with Democrats in control of all our institutions. At least now you and Ireimon won’t have anyone else to point your fingers at and blame.

I’ll leave you and Ireimon with the last word; enough has been wasted on this.

Truth Detector said:

I want you to pay close attention, because much like Ireimon, you have a propensity to ignore FACTS: The budget deficits we had early in Bush’s term were the result of the attacks on 9-11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. Had these events NOT occurred, the economic picture would be very different today and we probably would still be looking at Budget surpluses.

Click to expand...

You are operating under the continued delusion that that your rambling is equivalent to FACTS.

The speculative nature of your and Ireimon’s arguments suggests that had we not cut taxes, there would not have been a deficit.

Click to expand...

Resorting to misquoting my positions?

That is specious at best. The OTHER side of the argument has always been that these tax cuts helped to spur economic activity that limited the devastating impact 9-11 had on the US economy.

We can speculate equally that had Bush not passed these cuts, which spurred economic growth and showed revenues increasing the following years in 2005 and 2006, the deficits may have been even larger.

Click to expand...

I agree that arguing the tax cuts spurred economic growth, which has sucked compared to the Clinton administration, is rank speculation.

You do realize that you are making up your own arguments. Let me give you the simpler Liberal tax formula so that you can be clear what the argument is:

Lower taxes = more money in the pockets of people and businesses = more spending = businesses expanding = higher sales tax revenue = more people employed = more tax payers = more tax revenue.

If you never raised taxes, there would be a growth in tax revenue as long as there is economic growth.

If you cut taxes, it spurs on economic activity which leads to revenue growth.

Click to expand...

You are operating under the continued delusion that that your rambling is equivalent to FACTS.

It is fascinating that you and Iriemon always want to argue that we have a revenue problem and willingly ignore the spending side of the equation.

Click to expand...

Resorting to misquoting my position?

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget.

Click to expand...

Since OC's post addressed the contention that tax cuts were not the cause of falling revenues and not your mischaracterization of my position, that's no surprise.

If this is the case, why did revenue begin increasing in 2005 and 2006? There were no tax increases. The CBO admitted that revenues after the tax cuts were passed exceeded projections.

You don’t even need to make cuts in spending. You just need to hold spending static and stop passing pork barrel projects/programs.

The reason the tax increase doesn’t wash with people who have brains and use them is that we have seen politicians make these arguments since the beginning of time. Never has it led to balancing budgets because these same tax, tax and tax politicians spend the money faster than any increase can bring them in.

Click to expand...

You are operating under the continued delusion that that your rambling is equivalent to FACTS.

The FACTS are that after taxes were increased in 1992, revenues grew significantly faster than GDP, which was a major reason why the budget was balanced.

My argument is clear to anyone who pays attention; the issue is NOT a revenue issue, it is a SPENDING issue.

Click to expand...

People with brains know that the deficit is a function of revenue and spending. Regardless of what you spend, if your revenues are greater you have a surplus. Only those wallowing in denial of FACT would try to say that revenues are not an issue when by definition deficits/surplus = revenues - expenditures.

It is as equally clear to anyone not willingly suspending disbelief or wallowing in denial, that the ONLY congress in the last six decades that balanced a budget was a Republican one and the ONLY reason we got into a deficit was due to 9-11, two wars and a major hurricane disaster.

Click to expand...

You are operating under the continued delusion that that your rambling is equivalent to FACTS.

But hey, when it comes to you and Ireimon, I don’t expect the FACTS to get in the way of your denial and the specious argument that the only way to control deficits is to raise taxes. I guess we shall soon see how well that works when Obama takes over with Democrats in control of all our institutions. At least now you and Ireimon won’t have anyone else to point your fingers at and blame.

Click to expand...

FACTS? LMAO! What FACTS? You are operating under the continued delusion that that your rambling is equivalent to FACTS.

I’ll leave you and Ireimon with the last word; enough has been wasted on this.

Click to expand...

Deja vu?

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This analysis is purely speculative and IGNORES the FACT that the deficits were DECREASING up to 2006.

Iriemon said:

Year - Deficit
2000 +86.6
2001 -33.3
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4

Great decrease.

Click to expand...

Of course you would leave out the data from 2005 on. Here let me help you with your denial:

2005 -493.6 DECREASING
2006 -434.5 DECREASING
2007 -344.3 DECREASING

2008 Projected -438 INCREASE

Historical Budget Data

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
But that does not answer the desperate points Ireimon attempts to argue; that increasing taxes leads to a balanced Budget. There is no credible evidence to support these assertions because we have had 6 decades of congressional tax increases and tax cuts, and only during the recent Republican Congress have they ever led to a balanced budget.

Iriemon said:

No, during the recent Republican Congress, they were at record levels. It was only during the recent Democratic presidency there was a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced after the 1993 tax increase. It was unbalanced after the 2001 tax cut.

Click to expand...

WRONG: The budget was not balanced until 1999.

Clinton took the White House in 1993. The Democrat Congress raised taxes in August of 1993. The Republican Congress took over in after the midterm elections in 1994.

The Republicans passed the taxpayer Relief act in August 1997 reducing rates.

Let’s look at the deficit data for those years:

1993 -300.4
1994 -258.8
1995 -226.4
1996 -174.0
1997 -103.2
1998 -29.9
1999 +1.9
2000 +86.4

Now if lowering tax rates affects the deficit, why did revenue continue to increase and deficits go surplus after the Taxpayer Relief act?

Your attempts to argue that tax reductions equal deficit spending are not supported by the FACTS.

Now lets look at the Reagan Presidency with Democrats in charge of spending.

1981 -73.9
1982 -120.6
1983 -207.7
1984 -185.3
1985 -221.5
1986 -237.9
1987 -168.4
1988 -192.3
1989 -205.4

In August of 1981 Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax act reducing rates.

The deficit doubled.

He agreed to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which recinded some of the decreases in the 81 act.

The deficit doubled.

The Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986 reduced many deductions and basically increased tax burdens.

The deficit fell the next year, but then started to increase once again.

So looking at this data, there is no example that supports your arguments.

Again, mine focus on the spending side and not only on the revenue side.

The ONLY Congress to ever balance a budget and have a surplus was a Republican led one.

Democrats ruled the roost from before 1968 until 1994 and deficit spending was a normal part of doing business. It only became a Democrat talking point after the Republicans finally got the deficit under control, but lost it in the aftermath of 9-11, two wars and Hurricane Katrina.

The notion that Democrats are fiscally responsible or that the only way to manage deficits is by increasing taxes are the arguments of the uninformed or willful denial.