• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

"Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate."

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Like I said, I'm all for lower taxes but claiming that they increase revenue is not accurate and doing it without cutting government spending ludicrous.

The problem with that assumption is that it relies on things remaining the same and tax cuts change personal buying habits thus creating greater demand. I have heard that argument and have seen what is posted. The reality is and think about it, what do you do when you get to keep more of what you make in the form of higher take home pay. Ronald Reagan cut tax rates 10-10-5% over three years, 25%, and tax revenue to the govt. doubled. How did that happen? 18 million new employees!!

Bush tax cuts grew govt. revenue as well and created 8.5 million new jobs. Bush had another problem however, 9/11 that hurt the economy and job creation. He then had the recession that began in December 2007 thus the 2008 numbers are skewed very badly.

Right now we have 16 million unemployed Americans. What would the tax revenue be if those 16 million went back to work and what is it going to take to make that happen? The present status quo isn't doing it, so cut taxes, increase demand, and more jobs are created thus more taxpayers.
 
Cut taxes, increase demand, and more jobs are created thus more taxpayers.

Haha, sure, cutting taxes fixes all economic problems. If only it were that easy. You, being an experienced business man, should know economies aren't made or broken simply by tax rates.
 
Haha, sure, cutting taxes fixes all economic problems. If only it were that easy. You, being an experienced business man, should know economies aren't made or broken simply by tax rates.

Who do you think pays for the business taxes? Tax rates have a significant impact on economic behavior. still waiting for an answer, what happens when you get more take home pay due to lower taxes?
 
HAHA! Ok, I'm done here. Go take economics 101 then we'll talk.

Hard for you to admit, isn't it? Whether you spend, save, invest, or pay off debt it helps the economy by putting more money into circulation either directly or indirectly. That is something liberals have a hard time admitting. Ever wonder why? Why don't you ask yourself why liberals are so afraid of people keeping more of their money?

You posted that the stock market does better with a Democrat in the WH. I have done better when I get to keep more of my own money and I have used a lot of that money to support charities. Liberals don't want individuals to take care of others as it takes the power away from the politicians. Think about it?
 
Ok, how does that affect the economy? Where do the banks get their money to invest in business growth?

I consult heavily with the banking industry. Banks do not need savings to make loans. They can use made up money from the fred.

Hehe

Hehe

<Im using one of your lines Conservative> DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND READ BEFORE YOU POST.
 
I consult heavily with the banking industry. Banks do not need savings to make loans. They can use made up money from the fred.

Hehe

Hehe

<Im using one of your lines Conservative> DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND READ BEFORE YOU POST.

Who said anything about need? The more they get the more they can lend and the lower the interest rates.
 
Hard for you to admit, isn't it? Whether you spend, save, invest, or pay off debt it helps the economy by putting more money into circulation either directly or indirectly. That is something liberals have a hard time admitting. Ever wonder why? Why don't you ask yourself why liberals are so afraid of people keeping more of their money?

You posted that the stock market does better with a Democrat in the WH. I have done better when I get to keep more of my own money and I have used a lot of that money to support charities. Liberals don't want individuals to take care of others as it takes the power away from the politicians. Think about it?

It appears that the parasite team has now been relegated to claiming tax hikes don't hurt the economy. we know they cannot come up with any valid arguments for tax hikes because they also support massive increases in government spending so the claim that jacking up taxes "on the rich" will lower the deficit is a crock of crap
 
It appears that the parasite team has now been relegated to claiming tax hikes don't hurt the economy. we know they cannot come up with any valid arguments for tax hikes because they also support massive increases in government spending so the claim that jacking up taxes "on the rich" will lower the deficit is a crock of crap

Interesting that liberals seem scared to keep more of their own money. Guess that way they don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions and can always blame someone else.
 
Interesting that liberals seem scared to keep more of their own money. Guess that way they don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions and can always blame someone else.

I suspect most of them are mad-they think their intellect entitles them to more money than their employer thinks they deserve.
 
Well, Kennedy couldn't foresee the rot wrought upon the nation with government spending.
14 trillion is a deep hole, produced by programs to "help". Some help I say. It's screwed the entire lot of us.

He did very well understand history and how government revenues are raised and maintained. It didn't smell of class warfare, but sound economic sense.

As for civil rights, I found the following interesting. Malcolm X takes a peek behind the curtain during the Kennedy years and civil rights dealings. I certainly don't agree with all he said or believed, not by a long shot, but there are times when he and even Farrakhan hit the right notes. Hell, even Obama did once too, but then Jackson said he wanted the N's nuts cut out.

[video] FORA.tv - Malcolm X: Address to the Ford Hall Forum[/video]

.

This smacks of revisionist history. Bush started the bailouts of the financial system in order to keep us from going into a major depression (30%+ unemployment kind of depression). Obama continued this and had the good sense to also help the US auto industry where a LOT of jobs were at risk. Claiming that all would have worked out if we had just let those institutions fail is just ignorant. Basically, we couldn't afford to take the chance. Bush knew it and Obama knew it, and McCain knew it too which is why he made that dramatic gesture during the campaign to go work on this and help support the bailout -- remember? What is crazy is that the Republicans seem unwilling to make sure that this kind of thing won't happen again. They are making it impossible to impose reasonable controls over financial institutions claiming that it hurts job growth. What crap. The financial meltdown those guys created is what has hurt job growth, letting them continue to do the same things is moronic.

Now, for some reason, Obama gets all the credit for creating this disastrous situation in the first place. He didn't. We started off in 2000 with a budget surplus thanks to Clinton. There was even talk of taking down the deficit clock in Times Square. However, thanks to Bush's unbelievably bad policies, we started into a period of very high deficits and a period of low jobs growth. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't increase tax income. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't improve job growth. Bush did help accelerate the housing bubble.

Obama is trying to pick up the pieces and all he's gotten for the trouble is a bunch of whining from racist Tea Baggers. Given the "wonderful" job that the Republicans did when they had control, I'm dumbfounded that the electorate might actually consider putting them back in power. Talk about a short attention span. Or maybe its just that they would rather have a crappy government than one run by a nigger.
 
This smacks of revisionist history. Bush started the bailouts of the financial system in order to keep us from going into a major depression (30%+ unemployment kind of depression). Obama continued this and had the good sense to also help the US auto industry where a LOT of jobs were at risk. Claiming that all would have worked out if we had just let those institutions fail is just ignorant. Basically, we couldn't afford to take the chance. Bush knew it and Obama knew it, and McCain knew it too which is why he made that dramatic gesture during the campaign to go work on this and help support the bailout -- remember? What is crazy is that the Republicans seem unwilling to make sure that this kind of thing won't happen again. They are making it impossible to impose reasonable controls over financial institutions claiming that it hurts job growth. What crap. The financial meltdown those guys created is what has hurt job growth, letting them continue to do the same things is moronic.

Now, for some reason, Obama gets all the credit for creating this disastrous situation in the first place. He didn't. We started off in 2000 with a budget surplus thanks to Clinton. There was even talk of taking down the deficit clock in Times Square. However, thanks to Bush's unbelievably bad policies, we started into a period of very high deficits and a period of low jobs growth. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't increase tax income. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't improve job growth. Bush did help accelerate the housing bubble.

Obama is trying to pick up the pieces and all he's gotten for the trouble is a bunch of whining from racist Tea Baggers. Given the "wonderful" job that the Republicans did when they had control, I'm dumbfounded that the electorate might actually consider putting them back in power. Talk about a short attention span. Or maybe its just that they would rather have a crappy government than one run by a nigger.

wow, this post demonstrates some serious issues. The racist claims are pure horsecrap to start with

Obama is joke-and anyone with a working brain 2 years ago knew that. And his color had nothing to do with his lack of qualifications in one sense and had everything to do with him being a contender. a white guy with a similarly thin resume would have never won the election
 
This smacks of revisionist history. Bush started the bailouts of the financial system in order to keep us from going into a major depression (30%+ unemployment kind of depression). Obama continued this and had the good sense to also help the US auto industry where a LOT of jobs were at risk. Claiming that all would have worked out if we had just let those institutions fail is just ignorant. Basically, we couldn't afford to take the chance. Bush knew it and Obama knew it, and McCain knew it too which is why he made that dramatic gesture during the campaign to go work on this and help support the bailout -- remember? What is crazy is that the Republicans seem unwilling to make sure that this kind of thing won't happen again. They are making it impossible to impose reasonable controls over financial institutions claiming that it hurts job growth. What crap. The financial meltdown those guys created is what has hurt job growth, letting them continue to do the same things is moronic.

Now, for some reason, Obama gets all the credit for creating this disastrous situation in the first place. He didn't. We started off in 2000 with a budget surplus thanks to Clinton. There was even talk of taking down the deficit clock in Times Square. However, thanks to Bush's unbelievably bad policies, we started into a period of very high deficits and a period of low jobs growth. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't increase tax income. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't improve job growth. Bush did help accelerate the housing bubble.

Obama is trying to pick up the pieces and all he's gotten for the trouble is a bunch of whining from racist Tea Baggers. Given the "wonderful" job that the Republicans did when they had control, I'm dumbfounded that the electorate might actually consider putting them back in power. Talk about a short attention span. Or maybe its just that they would rather have a crappy government than one run by a nigger.

Wow, what a rant and revisionist history. Seems that facts disagree with your version of what went on. Let me set you straight.

First of all, the economy was doing quite well as the GDP and employment numbers showed right up to the time that the Democrats took control of the Congress and thus all the oversight committees. Obama was in that Congress in case you forgot. Now it does seem that the only ones that want to re-write history or revise history are the Democrats and Obama supporters.

The financial crisis came to a head in the late summer of 2008 and at that time unemployment also started rising. Bush's Treasury Secretary put a bailout plan in place, the 700 billion dollar TARP program. Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion for Obama to spend. That stabilized the markets and keep us from going into that depression many claimed we were headed for.

Bush then put together a loan for the auto industry to keep it affloat after some disasterous decisions made by management including some very poorly negotiated union contracts.

Obama was elected President and given the 350 billion dollar TARP money to use for any other banking problems. Today there is still about 200 billion dollars of that fund left to spend meaning that Obama used another 150 billion and the problem was solved. There were no pieces of the financial problem to pick up.

Banks then started paying back the TARP loans with interest. Much of the 500 billion that was actually loaned has been paid back but Obama didn't use the money to pay down the deficit then went and blamed Bush for an inherited deficit which of course is a lie on a number of fronts.

Obama then took over GM/Chrysler because for the sole purpose of bailing out the unions. Then Obama put together a stimulus plan, 862 billion dollars that was supposed to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. Obviously that was another Obama lie because all it did was bailout union pension plans, support teacher's unions, and other Democrat constituent groups. It totally failed to do what it was intended to do which was to create jobs.

Then he put together a financial package that ignored the two biggest problems that helped create the financial problem, Freddie and Fannie. They were omitted and Obama and his supporters claim success. only true idiots believe that it is going to prevent another financial meltdown.

Most liberals here aren't used to being challenged with facts. I am going to post the economic and unemployment numbers up to the present and all can see that Obama supporters are full of total BS. Yet they never stop, the claims that Clinton had a surplus is another lie, it was a projected surplus that didn't take into account the recession that Clinton left Bush and 9/11 which GAO claims cost a trillion dollars. So Bush;s "incredibly bad policies" weren't nearly as bad as the liberals want the country to believe and that is evidenced by the incredible declining Obama poll numbers as the Obama lies are catching up with him.

I don't know where you get your information but obviously you have no use for facts. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. You can get that information from the non partisan bea.gov. 8.5 million jobs were created during the first 7 years of the Bush Administration and that includes 2001-2002 recession/911 years and you will see that below. I don't know why liberals have such a problem with people keeping more of their own money and why anyone would buy that tax cuts are an expense to the govt.

What we continue to have is liberal revisionist history. Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. He didn't apply the TARP repayment to the 2009 deficit and had a 1.4 trillion deficit in that year and a 1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010. He took over with unemployment at 12 million and today it is over 16 million. He witnessed the end of the recession according to NBER in June 2009 and yet every month of 2010 the unemployment has been higher than it was in each month of 2009. His economic growth is 1/6% annualized.

I understand you don't like being challenged with actual facts and thus aren't used to it but you really ought to do better research to verify what the leftwing is telling you. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Gross Domestic Product by year

GDP

2000 9951
2001 10286
2002 10642
2003 11242
2004 11867
2005 12638
2006 13398
2007 14077
2008 14441
2009 14256

Unemployment by year

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 0 0 0
 
Wow, what a rant and revisionist history. Seems that facts disagree with your version of what went on. Let me set you straight.

First of all, the economy was doing quite well as the GDP and employment numbers showed right up to the time that the Democrats took control of the Congress and thus all the oversight committees. Obama was in that Congress in case you forgot. Now it does seem that the only ones that want to re-write history or revise history are the Democrats and Obama supporters.

The financial crisis came to a head in the late summer of 2008 and at that time unemployment also started rising. Bush's Treasury Secretary put a bailout plan in place, the 700 billion dollar TARP program. Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion for Obama to spend. That stabilized the markets and keep us from going into that depression many claimed we were headed for.

Bush then put together a loan for the auto industry to keep it affloat after some disastrous decisions made by management including some very poorly negotiated union contracts.

Obama was elected President and given the 350 billion dollar TARP money to use for any other banking problems. Today there is still about 200 billion dollars of that fund left to spend meaning that Obama used another 150 billion and the problem was solved. There were no pieces of the financial problem to pick up.

Banks then started paying back the TARP loans with interest. Much of the 500 billion that was actually loaned has been paid back but Obama didn't use the money to pay down the deficit then went and blamed Bush for an inherited deficit which of course is a lie on a number of fronts.

Obama then took over GM/Chrysler because for the sole purpose of bailing out the unions. Then Obama put together a stimulus plan, 862 billion dollars that was supposed to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. Obviously that was another Obama lie because all it did was bailout union pension plans, support teacher's unions, and other Democrat constituent groups. It totally failed to do what it was intended to do which was to create jobs.

Then he put together a financial package that ignored the two biggest problems that helped create the financial problem, Freddie and Fannie. They were omitted and Obama and his supporters claim success. only true idiots believe that it is going to prevent another financial meltdown.

Most liberals here aren't used to being challenged with facts. I am going to post the economic and unemployment numbers up to the present and all can see that Obama supporters are full of total BS. Yet they never stop, the claims that Clinton had a surplus is another lie, it was a projected surplus that didn't take into account the recession that Clinton left Bush and 9/11 which GAO claims cost a trillion dollars. So Bush;s "incredibly bad policies" weren't nearly as bad as the liberals want the country to believe and that is evidenced by the incredible declining Obama poll numbers as the Obama lies are catching up with him.

I don't know where you get your information but obviously you have no use for facts. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. You can get that information from the non partisan bea.gov. 8.5 million jobs were created during the first 7 years of the Bush Administration and that includes 2001-2002 recession/911 years and you will see that below. I don't know why liberals have such a problem with people keeping more of their own money and why anyone would buy that tax cuts are an expense to the govt.

What we continue to have is liberal revisionist history. Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. He didn't apply the TARP repayment to the 2009 deficit and had a 1.4 trillion deficit in that year and a 1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010. He took over with unemployment at 12 million and today it is over 16 million. He witnessed the end of the recession according to NBER in June 2009 and yet every month of 2010 the unemployment has been higher than it was in each month of 2009. His economic growth is 1/6% annualized.

I understand you don't like being challenged with actual facts and thus aren't used to it but you really ought to do better research to verify what the leftwing is telling you. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Gross Domestic Product by year

GDP

2000 9951
2001 10286
2002 10642
2003 11242
2004 11867
2005 12638
2006 13398
2007 14077
2008 14441
2009 14256

Unemployment by year

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 0 0 0

OMG, going to say that the Democrats were guilty of the meltdown because they had been in power for a whole year? And you claim that I'm an ideologue.

Now for your handy numbers.

Bush's first year: Jan 2001 - number of unemployed 6.023M
Bush's second year: Jan 2002 - number of unemployed 8.182M or a 36% increase in the number of unemployed
Obama's first year: Jan 2009 - number of unemployed 11.919M
Obama's second year: Jan 2010 - number of unemployed 14.837M or a 24.5% increase in the number of unemployed

The real damage was done in the last year of Bush's reign when the number of unemployed jumped by 56% (according to your numbers). And yes, relative numbers make sense (when a loaf of bread cost $1 and you are making $100, it is relatively more expensive than when bread cost $2 and you are making $500).

I suppose that since Bush inherited a surplus and, as you say, tax revenue went up, then it is just an affirmation of Bush's (and the Republican Congress') stewardship that the deficit started growing like crazy under Bush? Bush handed Obama a pile of crap and and Republicans are unwilling to accept that they are AT LEAST as culpable for this mess as the Democrats and much more responsible for this mess than is Obama.

BTW, things are bad enough without your exaggerations. Your own numbers show that the current Unemployed+Discouraged is coming down and today is not "over 16M". I'm also not able to see why the Sept 2010 number of 15.976M U+D is higher than, say, the Oct 2009 value of 16.42. Maybe you meant so say "on a month by month basis" and not "each month"

Finally, why are you trying to compare Bush's 8 years against the 18 months of Obama? According to budget projections, the the deficit for the next fiscal year will be less of a percentage of GDP than it was during the typical Bush year. Bush started off with everything in good fiscal shape, Obama didn't. If you just look at the start of his administration and at the end, Bush totally screwed it up. And claiming it was all because Democrats were in control of Congress (but not the Senate) for the last two years of Bush's administration is just total bull**** (the fact that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats didn't make him a Democrat as his support of McCain in 2008 proved).
 
OMG, going to say that the Democrats were guilty of the meltdown because they had been in power for a whole year? And you claim that I'm an ideologue.

Now for your handy numbers.

Bush's first year: Jan 2001 - number of unemployed 6.023M
Bush's second year: Jan 2002 - number of unemployed 8.182M or a 36% increase in the number of unemployed
Obama's first year: Jan 2009 - number of unemployed 11.919M
Obama's second year: Jan 2010 - number of unemployed 14.837M or a 24.5% increase in the number of unemployed

The real damage was done in the last year of Bush's reign when the number of unemployed jumped by 56% (according to your numbers). And yes, relative numbers make sense (when a loaf of bread cost $1 and you are making $100, it is relatively more expensive than when bread cost $2 and you are making $500).

I suppose that since Bush inherited a surplus and, as you say, tax revenue went up, then it is just an affirmation of Bush's (and the Republican Congress') stewardship that the deficit started growing like crazy under Bush? Bush handed Obama a pile of crap and and Republicans are unwilling to accept that they are AT LEAST as culpable for this mess as the Democrats and much more responsible for this mess than is Obama.

BTW, things are bad enough without your exaggerations. Your own numbers show that the current Unemployed+Discouraged is coming down and today is not "over 16M". I'm also not able to see why the Sept 2010 number of 15.976M U+D is higher than, say, the Oct 2009 value of 16.42. Maybe you meant so say "on a month by month basis" and not "each month"

Finally, why are you trying to compare Bush's 8 years against the 18 months of Obama? According to budget projections, the the deficit for the next fiscal year will be less of a percentage of GDP than it was during the typical Bush year. Bush started off with everything in good fiscal shape, Obama didn't. If you just look at the start of his administration and at the end, Bush totally screwed it up. And claiming it was all because Democrats were in control of Congress (but not the Senate) for the last two years of Bush's administration is just total bull**** (the fact that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats didn't make him a Democrat as his support of McCain in 2008 proved).

I think this is where he will say you don't have clue, or some such thing. But I think you stated your case well. Thanks.
 
I think this is where he will say you don't have clue, or some such thing. But I think you stated your case well. Thanks.

No but I will question you and zip on his line that the deficit as a % of GDP for 2010-2011 will be lower than the average during Bush's years.
 
zip98053;1059066373]OMG, going to say that the Democrats were guilty of the meltdown because they had been in power for a whole year? And you claim that I'm an ideologue.

Now for your handy numbers.

Bush's first year: Jan 2001 - number of unemployed 6.023M
Bush's second year: Jan 2002 - number of unemployed 8.182M or a 36% increase in the number of unemployed
Obama's first year: Jan 2009 - number of unemployed 11.919M
Obama's second year: Jan 2010 - number of unemployed 14.837M or a 24.5% increase in the number of unemployed

Unbelievable! You vote? This is your argument? Bush didn't spend 862 billion to have unemployment go to this level nor did Bush claim that if you spend that money unemployment wouldn't exceeed 8%

The real damage was done in the last year of Bush's reign when the number of unemployed jumped by 56% (according to your numbers). And yes, relative numbers make sense (when a loaf of bread cost $1 and you are making $100, it is relatively more expensive than when bread cost $2 and you are making $500).

Yep, the real damage was people not paying any attention to the fact that Democrats took Congress in January 2007 and the recession began in December 2007. It does appear that you have been brainwashed by an ideology that the majority in this country are rejecting. Obama approval ratings are tanking badly so apparently the people are waking up and don't see it your way. 4.5 trillion increase in GDP is an incredible number with an inherited recession in 2001-2002 and the current recession 2007-2008.

I asked you and you ignored what exactly was Congress's role and what did they do or propose that Bush rejected that would have prevented the recession but of course you ignored that. Seems that the three equal branches of govt. only exist when a Democrat is in the WH. Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than they were in keeping the country out of a recession.


I suppose that since Bush inherited a surplus and, as you say, tax revenue went up, then it is just an affirmation of Bush's (and the Republican Congress') stewardship that the deficit started growing like crazy under Bush? Bush handed Obama a pile of crap and and Republicans are unwilling to accept that they are AT LEAST as culpable for this mess as the Democrats and much more responsible for this mess than is Obama.

Please explain how the debt went up every year of the Clinton Administration if there was a surplus inherited? All surpluses have to go to paying down the debt and the debt went up. There was no surplus. Clinton along with a Republican Congress came close but did so by taking money from the SS trust fund to show a lower deficit but taking money from SS left a shortfall in the Intergovt. holdings thus moving money from one account to another doesn't equal a surplus.

That pile of crap that Obama "inherited" was created in part by Obama and Congress. Learn how the govt. works before buying rhetoric and spouting lies.


BTW, things are bad enough without your exaggerations. Your own numbers show that the current Unemployed+Discouraged is coming down and today is not "over 16M". I'm also not able to see why the Sept 2010 number of 15.976M U+D is higher than, say, the Oct 2009 value of 16.42. Maybe you meant so say "on a month by month basis" and not "each month"

You really are one brainwashed individual. We don't have October's numbers yet to see if unemployment in October 2010 is higher or lower than October 2009. But every month of 2010 unemployment is higher than the same month in 2009. Of course you ignored that the recession ended in June 2009 so I am waiting for you to show me any other President in U.S. History that had higher unemployment "on a month to month basis" a year after the recession ended?

Finally, why are you trying to compare Bush's 8 years against the 18 months of Obama? According to budget projections, the the deficit for the next fiscal year will be less of a percentage of GDP than it was during the typical Bush year. Bush started off with everything in good fiscal shape, Obama didn't. If you just look at the start of his administration and at the end, Bush totally screwed it up. And claiming it was all because Democrats were in control of Congress (but not the Senate) for the last two years of Bush's administration is just total bull**** (the fact that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats didn't make him a Democrat as his support of McCain in 2008 proved).

According to reality the Debt is increasing and will be 100% of GDP by the end of this year and that fact escapes you. Stop buying what you are told and think. The deficit as a percentage of GDP means nothing if you drive the debt about the total GDP. Everything wasn't in good fiscal shape, we were entering a recession. The dot.com and tech bubble had burst and then we had 9/11.

But of course this really isn't about Bush, this is about "your" President who is performing up to his resume. Doesn't really matter what I say or what facts I post because you are going to divert back to Bush. The American people are waking up to the mistake they made. Eventually I have faith that you will to. Problem is with you it will be too late. Not sure where you get your information but unfortunately there are still a lot of people like you.

Democrats had TOTAL Control of the Congress from January 2007 to the present unless of course Republicans made Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader so what is total bull**** is your argument.
 
No but I will question you and zip on his line that the deficit as a % of GDP for 2010-2011 will be lower than the average during Bush's years.

Remains to be seen. But what will your respons ebe if it is?
 
Unbelievable! You vote? This is your argument? Bush didn't spend 862 billion to have unemployment go to this level nor did Bush claim that if you spend that money unemployment wouldn't exceeed 8%

Did I call it or what? :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
it's all about you
 
Did I call it or what? :lamo :lamo :lamo

Boo, seems you have a problem with anyone that presents verifiable, non partisan actual facts, not predictions or rhetoric. How you can support Obama with the results he has generated is quite telling. Keep buying the liberal rhetoric about how bad Bush was while ignoring that the change promised is worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom