AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 7

post #241 of 419
1/7/10 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Republican history written by "History":
911
from surplus to 1.4 trillion deficit.
tax cuts during war time.
war budget not in national budget.
war spending OK but not healthcare.
US reputation destroyed.
social programs cut.
are against census.
gay and straight sex scandals abound.
birthers.
global warming deniers.
crumbling infra structure.
want to keep status quo.
voted against any and all social programs like Medicare and social security.
closed mental institutions (were most republicans should be under Reagan.)
misunderestimated everything.
for bank bailout but against stimulus.
sent tax refund checks we could not afford.
want to use the word terrorism more.
are against ending wars.
financial melt down.
housing bubble.
record trade deficits.
drill baby drill.
hand holding with Saudis.
"You lie".
2 wars.
Gitmo.
Terrorists released to Yemen.
Torture.
exposure of undercover agents.
no care for 911 rescuers.
60% 401k losses.
no job gains for 10 years.
patriot act.
wire tapping.
.....

Fantastic stuff to run on, it will especially bring a lot of young voters to the GOP. Dems should just give up and bow out of all the races.

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century.

Some of those are Republican issues, and many of those plague both parties. Your point is?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #242 of 419
1/7/10 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Republican history written by "History":
911

Hell these are easy for anyone who doesn't think in bumper stickers. I'll pick off a few but since so little effort went into creating them, why bother refuting all of them.

9/11.- The WTC was attacked early in the Clinton administration as was the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton allowed terrorism to grow his entire eight years and Bush had to start cleaning up the mess. (How do you like the blame game in reverse?) He started no counter terrorism measures. Worse still, the policy of regime change being endorsed for Iraq was put in place by Clinton. Bush just got stuck carrying it out.
Quote:
from surplus to 1.4 trillion deficit.

This is not correct. First Republicans actually only controlled both parts of the Congress for four out of eight years. You will easily see it is during the Democratic years that the deficit grew largest. It averaged 250 billion per year during years when Republicans controlled both the House, Senate and Presidency. It jumped out to $400 billion a year after Democrats took full control of both the House and Senate in 2006. Finally once they won the presidency, they reopened the prior fiscal year (this last one) and stuffed in the stimulus, added another $400 billion to the last bill for the year as well.

Quote:
tax cuts during war time.

Obama ran on a tax cut as well. It ended up being very small, but he not only had it passed, he mde it retroactive as well. In addition while still fighting two wars, we have had cash for buying homes, and cash for clunkers.

Quote:
war budget not in national budget.
war spending OK but not healthcare.
US reputation destroyed.
social programs cut.
are against census.
gay and straight sex scandals abound.
birthers.
global warming deniers.
crumbling infra structure.
want to keep status quo.
voted against any and all social programs like Medicare and social security.
closed mental institutions (were most republicans should be under Reagan.)
misunderestimated everything.
for bank bailout but against stimulus.
sent tax refund checks we could not afford.
want to use the word terrorism more.
are against ending wars.
financial melt down.
housing bubble.
record trade deficits.
drill baby drill.
hand holding with Saudis.
"You lie".
2 wars.
Gitmo.
Terrorists released to Yemen.
Torture.
exposure of undercover agents.
no care for 911 rescuers.
60% 401k losses.
no job gains for 10 years.
patriot act.
wire tapping.
.....

Fantastic stuff to run on, it will especially bring a lot of young voters to the GOP. Dems should just give up and bow out of all the races.

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century.


I could go on but the list is a joke. Obama hasn't had any job gains, only millions in job losses. Obama voted for FISA and Patriot. Obama declared Gitmo would be closed Jan 11th. Do you see that happening? The country wishes we were drilling for oil not the opposite. Some are outright lies like declaring no gains for social programs when we know that a prescription drug benefit (which helped explode the deficit) was added.

Slogans might work for weak minds. Perhaps that is why I see so many liberal cars slathered in them. In reality, the country is going to vote their pocketbook and what is left in it after four years of Congressional Democratic control and two years of Obama by the time elections come around won't be but-kiss.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #243 of 419
1/7/10 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hell these are easy for anyone who doesn't think in bumper stickers. I'll pick off a few but since so little effort went into creating them, why bother refuting all of them.

9/11.- The WTC was attacked early in the Clinton administration as was the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton allowed terrorism to grow his entire eight years and Bush had to start cleaning up the mess. (How do you like the blame game in reverse?) He started no counter terrorism measures. Worse still, the policy of regime change being endorsed for Iraq was put in place by Clinton. Bush just got stuck carrying it out.


This is not correct. First Republicans actually only controlled both parts of the Congress for four out of eight years. You will easily see it is during the Democratic years that the deficit grew largest. It averaged 250 billion per year during years when Republicans controlled both the House, Senate and Presidency. It jumped out to $400 billion a year after Democrats took full control of both the House and Senate in 2006. Finally once they won the presidency, they reopened the prior fiscal year (this last one) and stuffed in the stimulus, added another $400 billion to the last bill for the year as well.



Obama ran on a tax cut as well. It ended up being very small, but he not only had it passed, he mde it retroactive as well. In addition while still fighting two wars, we have had cash for buying homes, and cash for clunkers.




I could go on but the list is a joke. Obama hasn't had any job gains, only millions in job losses. Obama voted for FISA and Patriot. Obama declared Gitmo would be closed Jan 11th. Do you see that happening? The country wishes we were drilling for oil not the opposite. Some are outright lies like declaring no gains for social programs when we know that a prescription drug benefit (which helped explode the deficit) was added.

Slogans might work for weak minds. Perhaps that is why I see so many liberal cars slathered in them. In reality, the country is going to vote their pocketbook and what is left in it after four years of Congressional Democratic control and two years of Obama by the time elections come around won't be but-kiss.

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #244 of 419
1/7/10 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century?

There is no achievement. This country is in decline. The argument is about whether the half-conservatives and the full liberals can fool everyone long enough to bankrupt the nation complete as opposed to half way.

What happens when Paleo-conservatives tell the Neo-conservative we shouldn't have wars? The Neos, join up with the liberals and call the paleos a bunch or racists who don't want to help brown people. Then the liberals turn around and call the Neos racists as well for good measure.

Thus anyone who doesn't want to police the world is racist.
Thus anyone who doesn't want to police the Middle East is racist.
Unless you are a Conservative and we need to get into office in which case the war is to kill brown people.
However then when you don't want to pull the troops and move them to Darfur, it is because you hate brown people and don't want to help them because... that's right... you are racist.

Take this same logic and apply to banks with bad loans. Apply it to a stimulus that doesn't stimulate. Bad logic applied in a half assed manner stil leads to half-assed results. People are seeing that much more easily now that Obama is president because there isn't anyone left to blame.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #245 of 419
1/7/10 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

.

9/11.- The WTC was attacked early in the Clinton administration as was the U.S.S. Cole.

Who was president before Clinton?

If you argue that Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess, who's mess was the first WTC bombing?

"Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Are you saying that voting for a Republican legislation and a Republican president is a disqualifying factor for the office of president of the US?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #246 of 419
1/7/10 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Who was president before Clinton?

If you argue that Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess, who's mess was the first WTC bombing?

"Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Are you saying that voting for a Republican legislation and a Republican president is a disqualifying factor for the office of president of the US?

Bush and Reagan were president but always with Democratic Congresses. (If I recall correctly the Repubs grabbed the Senate for a couple years in there.) The Congress was controlled by Democrats for the prior 40 years. All Republican presidents could do is basically stick a finger in the Democratic flood of spending. Reagan took the Truman doctrine and carried it out as it ought to have been carried out, but that doesn't mean we need to continue the doctrine to this day nor even that we should have continued it in his day. Everyone is a bit hamstrung by history though so it is easier to forgive those trespasses of Reagan. Under Clinton though, the Soviet Union had collapsed. There was no reason to not bring troops home from Germany. Instead we were invading Haiti, bombing Bosnia, lobbing missiles at Iraq, etc.

Or do we forget all those things happening when there is a D next to the name? Clinton fought tooth and nail against balancing the budget then grabbed the credit when it happened. The ONLY time we have had a balanced budget (real or imagined when counting Social Security) is with a staunchly conservative Republican Congress.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #247 of 419
1/7/10 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Bush and Reagan were president but always with Democratic Congresses. (If I recall correctly the Repubs grabbed the Senate for a couple years in there.) The Congress was controlled by Democrats for the prior 40 years. All Republican presidents could do is basically stick a finger in the Democratic flood of spending. Reagan took the Truman doctrine and carried it out as it ought to have been carried out, but that doesn't mean we need to continue the doctrine to this day nor even that we should have continued it in his day. Everyone is a bit hamstrung by history though so it is easier to forgive those trespasses of Reagan. Under Clinton though, the Soviet Union had collapsed. There was no reason to not bring troops home from Germany. Instead we were invading Haiti, bombing Bosnia, lobbing missiles at Iraq, etc.

Or do we forget all those things happening when there is a D next to the name? Clinton fought tooth and nail against balancing the budget then grabbed the credit when it happened. The ONLY time we have had a balanced budget (real or imagined when counting Social Security) is with a staunchly conservative Republican Congress.

There are specific questions that I asked, if you do not want to respond to them, please do not quote my posts.

here it is again:

Who was president before Clinton?

If you argue that Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess, who's mess was the first WTC bombing?

"Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Are you saying that voting for a Republican legislation and a Republican president is a disqualifying factor for the office of president of the US?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #248 of 419
1/7/10 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It really depends on who the "history" is being written by. Secondly, I was merely stating the points of view are not facts in themselves.






It's swinging right--if you read any polling. And while there are GOP members retiring, my understanding is that they are in safe districts (though I don't have that data right in front of me). The reason its bigger news for dems is that many are in contested races with the national political environment becoming toxic for their party. It may become the polar opposite of 2006 and 2008, where some Republicans lost their seats because they were Republicans.

Quote:
It really depends on who the "history" is being written by. Secondly, I was merely stating the points of view are not facts in themselves

Kind of like Nixon would write that he was a hero for trying to illegally manipulate a national election.? He still believed he did the right thing right up to the end. If you didn't like the facts at HC I ask again are any of them in error? These things actually happened no matter how you slice it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #249 of 419
1/7/10 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

There are specific questions that I asked, if you do not want to respond to them, please do not quote my posts.

here it is again:

Who was president before Clinton?

Bush and Reagan were president but always with Democratic Congresses.

Quote:
If you argue that Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess, who's mess was the first WTC bombing?

Clinton's almost exclusively alone because he did not treat it as a military action and instead treated it like a legal matter. Bush at least had recourse for continuing to follow the Truman doctrine since the Soviet Union was still around. However by the time Clinton took office, the USSR had collapsed and everyone was talking peace dividend. Bush took U.N. sanctioned action in Kuwait. Clinton maintained the American military presence and the resentment it as caused for the next eight years. So I give the blame to Clinton. When the Soviet Union collapses, everyone is talking peace dividend, and even that nice mess in Kuwait was handled by your predecessor, the talk should be of troops coming home from around the world and ending Pax Americana. Clinton did no such thing, nor will Obama.

Quote:
"Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Are you saying that voting for a Republican legislation and a Republican president is a disqualifying factor for the office of president of the US?

The quote has no context and isn't from me so I have no idea why you are trying to hoist me upon someone elses' petard.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #250 of 419
1/8/10 at 8:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The quote has no context and isn't from me so I have no idea why you are trying to hoist me upon someone elses' petard.

Your quote: "Obama voted for FISA and Patriot."

I generalized the quote to "Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Do you believe that voting with your Republican president is a disqualifying factor?

You used this to diminish Obama however you diminished Bush as well as the entire Republican party.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #251 of 419
1/8/10 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Your quote: "Obama voted for FISA and Patriot."

I generalized the quote to "Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Do you believe that voting with your Republican president is a disqualifying factor?

You used this to diminish Obama however you diminished Bush as well as the entire Republican party.

I believe he actually used this to remove the differentiation you are trying to establish exists between the two parties and the the two men in general. Obama however has one glaring difference, he goes in saying one thing while doing the complete opposite on more than one occasion. At least when Bush said something you could be sure that was what he was intending to do. Whether that was the right thing or not...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #252 of 419
1/8/10 at 12:20pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Kind of like Nixon would write that he was a hero for trying to illegally manipulate a national election.? He still believed he did the right thing right up to the end. If you didn't like the facts at HC I ask again are any of them in error? These things actually happened no matter how you slice it.


It's like talking to a wall. Nixon? . I've already addressed History Commons in at least two threads. How many times do I have to answer the same question?

Quote:
If you didn't like the facts at HC I ask again are any of them in error?

1. I never said I had a problem with the facts at HC.

2. As far as I can tell, no. I haven't conducted a thorough search, so some could be inaccurate.

3. #2 does not mean that site is impartial or inclusive of all facts. That is the point.


Speaking of questions: Do you believe HC is an impartial , balanced site?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #253 of 419
1/8/10 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Your quote: "Obama voted for FISA and Patriot."

I generalized the quote to "Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Do you believe that voting with your Republican president is a disqualifying factor?

You used this to diminish Obama however you diminished Bush as well as the entire Republican party.

Strawman. Obama's votes diminish him, because they do not meet his rhetoric.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #254 of 419
1/8/10 at 12:43pm
Thread Starter 
I have a minute, so here goes:

Quote:
Republican history written by "History":
911
from surplus to 1.4 trillion deficit.

Incorrect. The largest deficits have been under Dem control.

Quote:
tax cuts during war time.

So? It stimulated the economy and as a result, revenue went up, not down.

Quote:
war budget not in national budget.

Both parties are guilty of that.

Quote:
war spending OK but not healthcare.

One is mandated by the Constitution. The other is socialism.

Quote:
US reputation destroyed.

Totally ridiculous.

Quote:
social programs cut.

Hmm...which ones? You mean like the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit?

Quote:
are against census.

Support that.

Quote:
gay and straight sex scandals abound.

For both parties.

Quote:
birthers.

Still no birth certificate, though. hmmm?

Quote:
global warming deniers.

Why would one not deny it? It doesn't exist.

Quote:
crumbling infra structure.

You mean "infrastructure." Be specific. We spend billions every year.

Quote:
want to keep status quo.

Like a free market economy? Imagine that.

Quote:
voted against any and all social programs like Medicare and social security.

Patently false.

Quote:
closed mental institutions (were most republicans should be under Reagan.)

This is a new one. Link?

Quote:
misunderestimated everything.

Wow...everything? That's a lot!

Quote:
for bank bailout but against stimulus.

As it should be. The President was told the economy would utterly collapse without a bailout. The stimulus is a steaming pile.

Quote:
sent tax refund checks we could not afford.

So we couldn't afford $150 billion, but we can afford healthcare and stimulus totaling $2 trillion. Righto.

Quote:
want to use the word terrorism more.

Better than not using it at all...even AFTER we're attacked on your watch.

Quote:
are against ending wars.

False. Against defeat and retreat.

Quote:
financial melt down.
housing bubble.

Show which Republican policies caused those. Go ahead. Maybe you should look up this little thing called the Community Reinvestment Act.

Quote:
record trade deficits.

Have they gotten better since the Dems took over, or worse? Hmmm.

Quote:
drill baby drill.

Only an idiot would oppose this.

Quote:
hand holding with Saudis.

Bowing to Saudis.

Quote:
"You lie".

He did.

Quote:
2 wars.

Both of which Obama refuses to fight...OR end.

Quote:
Gitmo.

Gitmo Illinois. Or Iowa...or wherever they are going to put it.

Quote:
Terrorists released to Yemen.

Terrorists released to Bermuda.

Quote:
Torture.

False.

Quote:
exposure of undercover agents.

They were not "undercover agents." My lord.

Quote:
no care for 911 rescuers.

Yeah...no care. What heartless bastards.

Quote:
60% 401k losses.

Please name the policies responsible.

Quote:
no job gains for 10 years.

Bush helped create million of jobs. Look it up. Look at average unemployment during the decade.

Quote:
patriot act.
wire tapping.

Both necessary to protect the country...something the current administration apparently is not that concerned about. See, they are just "isolated extremists."
.....

Fantastic stuff to run on, it will especially bring a lot of young voters to the GOP. Dems should just give up and bow out of all the races.

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century.
Some of those are Republican issues, and many of those plague both [/quote]

I don't think there is a "crowing achievement" for either party. Of course, the Bush Tax cuts did stimulate the economy. The country was not attacked for 7 years. Millions of jobs were created. Unemployment was low. Deficits were at least manageable. Can Obama match that record?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #255 of 419
1/8/10 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course, the Bush Tax cuts did stimulate the economy.

By how much were your taxes decreased under Bush?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Can Obama match that record?

We will know in 8 years.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #256 of 419
1/8/10 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Patently false.

Long live (Republican) socialism!
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #257 of 419
1/8/10 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

By how much were your taxes decreased under Bush?

We will know in 8 years.

I don't know about anyone else, but I saved about $800 under Bush's tax plan. That was honest to goodness savings on my pocket.

If you want to look after the fact try this:

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-f...rksheet-10177/


For your second question:
Well, we better know in about 3 years, he may not make it 8 in office otherwise.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #258 of 419
1/8/10 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
tax cuts during war time.
So? It stimulated the economy and as a result, revenue went up, not down.

Of course, the Bush Tax cuts did stimulate the economy.

Can you provide any support for this? Because there is a lot of economic data out there that disagrees.

The boom that wasn’t: The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts
 By Lee Price
Economic Policy Institute
October 25, 2005

Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, it’s time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made today’s economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.

Details:
http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf

-----------------

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...care-probably/



"I'm not that worried about the issue of costs," Paul Krugman (a noted economist and a columnist for the New York Times) wrote. "Yes, the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts."

We wanted to know if Krugman was right that the initial cost estimates for health care legislation by the Congressional Budget Office were less than "the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts."

Looking back, how much have the Bush tax cuts cost us so far? There's not a CBO report on that puts a dollar figure on that, and different think tanks calculated the lost revenues different ways. Keep in mind, we're talking about estimating something that didn't happen: How much in revenues didn't the government collect? Economic conditions change over time, and changes in tax code can affect that. So it's not a straight-up calculation.
...

We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group.

He said Krugman's $1.8 trillion number only considers the government's lost revenue, and doesn't account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was "defensible, but an overstatement." He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues.

"I can't believe I'm actually saying one of Krugman's numbers is defensible," he added.

After reading many studies on the cost of the Bush tax cuts, it seems to us that Krugman is in the ballpark with his $1.8 trillion estimate.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #259 of 419
1/8/10 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Can you provide any support for this? Because there is a lot of economic data out there that disagrees.

The boom that wasnt: The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts
 By Lee Price
Economic Policy Institute
October 25, 2005

Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, its time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made todays economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.

Details:
http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf

-----------------

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...care-probably/



"I'm not that worried about the issue of costs," Paul Krugman (a noted economist and a columnist for the New York Times) wrote. "Yes, the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts."

We wanted to know if Krugman was right that the initial cost estimates for health care legislation by the Congressional Budget Office were less than "the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts."

Looking back, how much have the Bush tax cuts cost us so far? There's not a CBO report on that puts a dollar figure on that, and different think tanks calculated the lost revenues different ways. Keep in mind, we're talking about estimating something that didn't happen: How much in revenues didn't the government collect? Economic conditions change over time, and changes in tax code can affect that. So it's not a straight-up calculation.
...

We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group.

He said Krugman's $1.8 trillion number only considers the government's lost revenue, and doesn't account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was "defensible, but an overstatement." He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues.

"I can't believe I'm actually saying one of Krugman's numbers is defensible," he added.

After reading many studies on the cost of the Bush tax cuts, it seems to us that Krugman is in the ballpark with his $1.8 trillion estimate.

Speculation, all of it. This line puts it all in perspective:

Quote:
Keep in mind, we're talking about estimating something that didn't happen: How much in revenues didn't the government collect? Economic conditions change over time, and changes in tax code can affect that. So it's not a straight-up calculation.

The economy could have tanked without the cuts and the revenues would have been much less than what they were over the same time period. The problem is, the government continues to grow the budget every year regardless of revenues, and rather than cut programs they raise taxes or raid other funds to keep things going. When things take a downward turn, they need to do the right thing and cut programs that are not critical. What do they cut, police, fire, school programs etc... Things that people see and need, the fear that is generated then causes a cry for higher taxes... Nice and easy for them...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #260 of 419
1/9/10 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I don't know about anyone else, but I saved about $800 under Bush's tax plan. That was honest to goodness savings on my pocket.

If you want to look after the fact try this:

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-f...rksheet-10177/


For your second question:
Well, we better know in about 3 years, he may not make it 8 in office otherwise.

The question was not how much you saved but how much your taxes (the percentage of your income that you had to pay as taxes) were decreased.

Please do not quote my posts if you do not intend to answer my questions or if you do not understand the questions, many thanks.

As a follow up question I would like to ask: Do you believe that saving your $ 800.- is justified considering that it helped create a 1.4 trillion $ deficit and is really money borrowed from the Saudis and the Chinese?

2007 Bush tax cut results
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #261 of 419
1/9/10 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

The question was not how much you saved but how much your taxes (the percentage of your income that you had to pay as taxes) were decreased.

Please do not quote my posts if you do not intend to answer my questions or if you do not understand the questions, many thanks.

As a follow up question I would like to ask: Do you believe that saving your $ 800.- is justified considering that it helped create a 1.4 trillion $ deficit and is really money borrowed from the Saudis and the Chinese?

2007 Bush tax cut results

The way i answered was the same thing. My taxes were decreased by over $800. That was money that did not stay with the Government and came back to me so a savings on my taxes. Please do not talk down to people if you expect them to continue answering your posts or taking you seriously.

And as for your follow up question. Any return of taxes is indeed justified. How the government deals with that is their problem. If they don't have the money to do it, then they should cut their expenses. Please do not pretend that all the money we send to the government is used correctly. It should be cut back, truly streamlined and audited at every possible step. If waste is found, it should be eliminated. That in itself could likely balance the budget on many levels. If they borrow from the Saudis and the Chinese to "Pay for" a tax cut. Then they should be thrown out of office. You don't pay for a planned drop in income, you budget for it. Unless you are the government...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #262 of 419
1/10/10 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's like talking to a wall. Nixon? . I've already addressed History Commons in at least two threads. How many times do I have to answer the same question?



1. I never said I had a problem with the facts at HC.

2. As far as I can tell, no. I haven't conducted a thorough search, so some could be inaccurate.

3. #2 does not mean that site is impartial or inclusive of all facts. That is the point.


Speaking of questions: Do you believe HC is an impartial , balanced site?

I asked if there were large gaps in the history reported at HC. If not and they are truthful facts then a few minor things like ignoring UN mandates ( which as we know quite a number of countries do the worst offender is Israel ) don't really contradict the massive amount of information which seems to suggest that Bush wasn't really on top of that situation. The lack of WMD bears this out. I'm guessing the points left out are so minor they're only important to someone with an extremely polarized view.

Yes I think they're more balanced than most sites quoted here. They don't editorialize. They don't talk about the facts they simply present them.

Sorry if they left a few items that wouldn't have made much of a difference to the general public. Perhaps you could make an entry?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #263 of 419
1/10/10 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

<snip useless rambling> points left out are so minor they're only important to someone with an extremely polarized view.

Leaving the counterpoints out make them just as polarized. Don't leave facts out, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes I think they're more balanced than most sites quoted here.

By leaving out facts that take away from the point of view they are trying to shove down the ignorant people? Sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They don't talk about the facts they simply present them.

No one would have to talk about it because they simple needed to leave out counterpoints and other facts to lead you to inappropriate conclusions. By leaving out facts, they're just as guilty of misdirection as someone editorializing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry if they left a few items that wouldn't have made much of a difference to the general public.

Clearly they don't make a difference to you, an admitted liberal and someone who argues about stuff they don't even know about (like economics which you yourself admitted to) with a very biased view of things. If they wouldn't make much difference, they wouldn't fear putting them out their. It's not for them to decide what facts are important and what aren't, unless they're trying to guide people to a specific conclusion. Hardly unbiased.
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 419
1/11/10 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Leaving the counterpoints out make them just as polarized. Don't leave facts out, period.



By leaving out facts that take away from the point of view they are trying to shove down the ignorant people? Sure.



No one would have to talk about it because they simple needed to leave out counterpoints and other facts to lead you to inappropriate conclusions. By leaving out facts, they're just as guilty of misdirection as someone editorializing.



Clearly they don't make a difference to you, an admitted liberal and someone who argues about stuff they don't even know about (like economics which you yourself admitted to) with a very biased view of things. If they wouldn't make much difference, they wouldn't fear putting them out their. It's not for them to decide what facts are important and what aren't, unless they're trying to guide people to a specific conclusion. Hardly unbiased.

Mindless, partisan, flamebait!

Quote:
It's not for them to decide what facts are important and what aren't,

Guess what? It's not up to you either! It's up to the general voting public. And they've decided.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #265 of 419
1/11/10 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Your quote: "Obama voted for FISA and Patriot."

I generalized the quote to "Obama voted with his president and for his president's legislation."

Do you believe that voting with your Republican president is a disqualifying factor?

You used this to diminish Obama however you diminished Bush as well as the entire Republican party.

In generalizing it, you changed it significantly. That said if you believe that the legislation itself is a disqualifying factor, then it doesn't matter who sponsored it, voting for it disqualifies you.

This strange strawman stinks of the "intent" game where two identical actions are treated differently based on the "good intentions" of the person engaging in them.

If FISA and Patriot prove one is ill suited for the office, it does not matter whether one sponsored and one voted, the conclusion is the same.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #266 of 419
1/12/10 at 6:55am
And you know after all that it's still Bush's fault!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #267 of 419
1/12/10 at 8:25am
Actually the reasoning of yourself and others, and especially the dismissive and irrational nature of the arguments put forth has the Democratic party diving into the dumpster faster than anyone could have imagined.

Let's see how well your "cycles" theory holds up in 2010, Jimmac.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #268 of 419
1/13/10 at 6:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually the reasoning of yourself and others, and especially the dismissive and irrational nature of the arguments put forth has the Democratic party diving into the dumpster faster than anyone could have imagined.

Let's see how well your "cycles" theory holds up in 2010, Jimmac.

You'll see ( but won't admit ).

Yawn!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #269 of 419
1/13/10 at 8:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

The question was not how much you saved but how much your taxes (the percentage of your income that you had to pay as taxes) were decreased.

Personally? I'd say at least 5% of my gross income. This comes from changes to the marginal rates, various credits and depreciation of equipment law.

Quote:

Please do not quote my posts if you do not intend to answer my questions or if you do not understand the questions, many thanks.

I think we'll quote anything you we like. You post it...it's fair game.

Quote:

As a follow up question I would like to ask: Do you believe that saving your $ 800.- is justified considering that it helped create a 1.4 trillion $ deficit and is really money borrowed from the Saudis and the Chinese?

2007 Bush tax cut results

False assumption, and unsupported. Calculating the "cost" of a tax cut is foolish as well. Tax cuts don't cost anything. They simply have results. The immediate result is that revenue goes down. But since tax policy affects economic behavior, the economy is eventually stimulated, thereby creating more revenue. Once again, liberals refuse to see this. It's been proven three times in the last 50 years, but no matter.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #270 of 419
1/14/10 at 6:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Personally? I'd say at least 5% of my gross income. This comes from changes to the marginal rates, various credits and depreciation of equipment law.



I think we'll quote anything you we like. You post it...it's fair game.



False assumption, and unsupported. Calculating the "cost" of a tax cut is foolish as well. Tax cuts don't cost anything. They simply have results. The immediate result is that revenue goes down. But since tax policy affects economic behavior, the economy is eventually stimulated, thereby creating more revenue. Once again, liberals refuse to see this. It's been proven three times in the last 50 years, but no matter.

Quote:
we'll

Who's the " We " in We'll? You make it sound like you're a board of inquiry!

If you're taliking about the Neocon conservative memebers of this forum and you look at all the polls taken recently it's obvious they're in the minority.

So please don't try to intimidate Wormhole with this nonsense.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #271 of 419
1/14/10 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Who's the " We " in We'll? You make it sound like you're a board of inquiry!

If you're taliking about the Neocon conservative memebers of this forum and you look at all the polls taken recently it's obvious they're in the minority.

So please don't try to intimidate Wormhole with this nonsense.

I am intimidated by SDW attempt at the English language.

One guy saved $ 800.-
I am not sure if it was per year or per hour.
Wow man....
This other guy saved 5% of his gross

Obviously we are dealing with financial geniuses here. Please give me investment advice!! Should I buy GM or wait? How about Google are we expecting 5% growth? Should I put a few 100 grand into real estate?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #272 of 419
1/14/10 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I am intimidated by SDW attempt at the English language.

One guy saved $ 800.-
I am not sure if it was per year or per hour.
Wow man....
This other guy saved 5% of his gross

Obviously we are dealing with financial geniuses here. Please give me investment advice!! Should I buy GM or wait? How about Google are we expecting 5% growth? Should I put a few 100 grand into real estate?

Show me how to save 100% of my tax dollars and I am in. Otherwise, every little bit counts over the long run for getting my money back from the government. I did not calculate the overall savings from the taxes that were possibly not collected, just from the simple increase in refund at the end of the year. So it could have been much higher overall.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #273 of 419
1/14/10 at 5:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Who's the " We " in We'll? You make it sound like you're a board of inquiry!

If you're taliking about the Neocon conservative memebers of this forum and you look at all the polls taken recently it's obvious they're in the minority.

So please don't try to intimidate Wormhole with this nonsense.

"We" is anyone who chooses to quote his posts.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #274 of 419
1/14/10 at 5:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I am intimidated by SDW attempt at the English language.

One guy saved $ 800.-
I am not sure if it was per year or per hour.
Wow man....
This other guy saved 5% of his gross

Obviously we are dealing with financial geniuses here. Please give me investment advice!! Should I buy GM or wait? How about Google are we expecting 5% growth? Should I put a few 100 grand into real estate?


So you're claiming that 5% of one's gross is not significant? At the time, I'd say that was about $3,000. That's a huge amount of money for a middle class person like myself. And $800? That would help too.
It's pretty clear that you have no idea how taxation and the economy affects average families.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #275 of 419
1/14/10 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you're claiming that 5% of one's gross is not significant? At the time, I'd say that was about $3,000. That's a huge amount of money for a middle class person like myself. And $800? That would help too.
It's pretty clear that you have no idea how taxation and the economy affects average families.

The other part he forgets in his LOL fest, doing and changing nothing saves him, NOTHING. Genius indeed...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #276 of 419
1/14/10 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"We" is anyone who chooses to quote his posts.

Gosh I must be part of that group also! In which case if I quote him I would also agree with him.

" We " sounds like implying a large controlling group in opposition that you don't have.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #277 of 419
1/15/10 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The other part he forgets in his LOL fest, doing and changing nothing saves him, NOTHING. Genius indeed...

$ 800 were donated to the Martha Coakley campaign "dedicated to NoahJ"
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #278 of 419
1/15/10 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

$ 800 were donated to the Martha Coakley campaign "dedicated to NoahJ"

It's your money, spend it how you like. Put it in action. If you have $800 to burn, go for it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #279 of 419
1/15/10 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you're claiming that 5% of one's gross is not significant? At the time, I'd say that was about $3,000. That's a huge amount of money for a middle class person like myself. And $800? That would help too.
It's pretty clear that you have no idea how taxation and the economy affects average families.

No I am claiming that 5% of the gross does not exist in a tax calculation.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #280 of 419
1/15/10 at 11:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Gosh I must be part of that group also! In which case if I quote him I would also agree with him.

" We " sounds like implying a large controlling group in opposition that you don't have.

It implies nothing. You can infer what you'd like. All I'm saying is that if he posts it, it's fair game.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault