You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. You want badly to believe Bush is responsible for the economic results today. What you show is just how little you understand about leadership as well as economic policies. [/QUOTE]upsideguy;1062098483]Classic Con: deflect the issue that he can not handle with a new, silly issue. I was not debating leadership and personal responsibility. I was debating who is responsible for the economic mess. Stick to the subject!
There you go again.... again, Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and then ran up huge deficits.... well before the Dems took control of congress. Again, the fact that the Dems had nominal control of congress in 2007 was moot, as 1) the damage substantially was already done (again --- why must I repeat this? --- with tax cuts designed to eliminate surplus, plus two very, very expensive wars/occupations). The Dems did not have a veto proof congress, so there wasn't much they could have done to change things.... other than do what the current Reps do, which is pass the same meaningless, shallow legislation over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and over again.
I am not debating the Clinton surplus. I am telling you the Bush screwed up the economy and we are still digging out. Again, you can't stick to the subject because its an argument lost to you and you know it. Bush made a mess out of the economy.
Facts are something that elude you, pal. First, you have presented NONE in this argument. You continue to offer only your impressions and try to pass them off as facts. I never said tax cuts were an expense to the government. I did say that tax cuts causes deficits. I backed up my statement with numerous articles on the subject... I never offered my personal impressions on this (despite, having a CPA background, I would actually have some expertise on the subject)... but, let me go ahead: deficits can be created by increasing expenditure OR by decreasing revenue. Tax cuts decreased revenue (the tables document this is what happened and the basic premise was for this to happen because they were designed to be surplus
Let me know what you do with more money in your paycheck and if that has any effect on economic activity? Do you think you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. Well, the ideology of Bush told us how they were going to reduce the surplus and pay off the debt with their tax reform. The result was the biggest forecast bust in the history of human civilization-- THE BIGGEST!
The Heritage Foundation told us the tax cuts would REDUCE revenue by $1.2T (a little higher, but at least they admitted it was going to cut revenue... which means reduce surplus/increase deficit by more than $1T) AND create a $1.8T surplus at the end of Bush's term. Of course, the actual debt at the end of Bush's term was $10.626. (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)).. for a total budget bust / ERROR of $12.2T. Never, in the history of the world, as anyone been so wrong! Now, I probably shouldn't mention here about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars/occupations, the former of which was to pay for itself, yet cost us $4-6T.
This is the "leadership" was so wrong about so much. It's easy to lay the sins of the US financial plight on their feet; its almost impossible to defend them and preserve your integrity.... but, go ahead, Con, give it a shot. Its nearly an impossible task... which is why you never do it, you just deflect. Not with me. I see through it. You can't defend Bush... and you know it. Its time to admit the sin. The truth and forgiveness will set you free.
The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan
Again, this is a different discussion. I appreciate that your only place to hide is with obfuscation. The proposition that I am asking you to either acknowledge or debate is whether the GW Bush administration 1) started with a balanced budget and delivered running large deficits and thus 2) pretty much screwed up the US economy as we know it.
Go ahead, address that issue without the distraction of changing the subject. I know you are not capable of that, so perhaps you should take the easy road and embrace the truth. It will set you free to discuss whether Obama has failed to fix the problem or is capable of fixing the problem. Though that is a different discussion, I am happy to have that with you. You just might find, on that subject, you and I are much closer to agreement.
Stay on subject.
Now we can continue this but for what purpose? Bush isn't in office, Obama could have ended the Bush tax cuts in 2009 but didn't. Obama has trillion dollar deficit every year in office. Consumer spending is the number one component of GDP so tell me how tax cuts affect consumer spending?
You seem to buy what you are told but not one of those studies addresses economic activity and that effect on jobs and tax revenue
Further back in September 2001 we had quite a shock to the economy of this country and the cries that would never forget. Here we are over a decade later and you have forgotten just like you forgot Bush inherited a recession that began official in March 2001 both of which affected employment, govt. tax revenue, and the deficit. GAO claims 9/11 cost over a trillion dollars which is part of that Bush debt.