Bush lies about supply side taxes.

Forums: Politics, Taxes, Economics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

What the Congress Can Do for America
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009473
January 3, 2007
GEORGE W. BUSH
It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic
growth and record revenues.

What a crock of crap. But the red-state republicans eat it up.

Most red-state republicans don't understand inflation. In the historical budget
we have a page where revenues are corrected for inflation {2000 Dollars}.

Quote:

Historical -2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Page 27 Table1.3

As can be seen we had five years where revenues were below the year 2000 level.
If we add the revenues for president war-criminals 7 years, we get $13,150.4.
If we take the year 2000 revenue and multiply by 7, we get $14,178.5.
Almost a trillion dollars more. SOME record. ----LOL

In constant {FY 2000 Dollars}
2000 2,025.5

2001 1,945.9
2002 1,777.8
2003 1,665.5
2004 1,707.2
2005 1,886.2
2006 2,039.0
2007 2,128.8
_______________
7 years 13,150.4

7x2025.5 =14,178.5

The office of management and budget estimates the 2008 revenues will be--
2008 2,034.7
almost 100 billion less than the 2007 revenues.

Six years after the 91 recession, we had a 29.5% increase in revenue.
1991 1282.6

1997 1661.2 +29.5 %

Six years after the 2001 recession, we had a 9.4% increase in revenue.
2001 1945.9

2007 2128.8 +9.4 %
Record revenues lies president war criminal.

Quote:

To induce the idle rich to get off their dead maggot-infested @sses and
make the economy grow; president war criminal stole the working class
social security trust fund. ----That's why there is no trust fund.
2001 +160,681
2002 +159,659
2003 +160,833
2004 +155,234
2005 +175,265
2006 +186,313
2007 +181,452
_________________
1,360,889

And then borrowed enough money from his Chinese commie friends to
add another one and a half trillion dollars to our children's debt.
2001 +128,236
2002 --157,758
2003 --377,585
2004 --412,727
2005 --318,346
2006 --248,181
2007 --162,002
___________________
..1,548,263

So did president war criminal borrow and steal enough money to get the
idle rich off their dead @sses.
.NOPE----- Sad

Every red-state republican hillbilly who listens to talk radio will loudly
proclaim that if you give the idle rich more money through tax cuts, they
will get off their dead maggot infested @sses and make the economy
grow faster.

Quote:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N#S5
Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars (A) (Q)

Six years GDP growth from end of 1991 recession.
March 1991(I) 7,040.8

March 1997(I) .8,536.1 +21.2%

Six years GDP growth from end of 2001 recession.
November 2001 (IV) ..9,910.0

November 2007 (IV) 11,675.7 +17.8%

President war criminal is a liar. ----Period.

-----Bluecoller, the grumpy old kruat----- Twisted Evil

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,428 • Replies: 22

No top replies

Hi Bluecollar, I assume you will be joining the We Hate Bush and Wish He Would Choke On A Cheeze Doodle Club here at A2K. I am a proud card carrying member. I do have to warn you, there is also the We Adore Bush No Matter How Incompetent He Is Because We Voted For Him And We Are Never Wrong Club and they will probably be along very soon to defend him and his legacy.

Enjoy!

0 Replies

Sic 'em, eddie!

0 Replies

I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

Hint to eddie: Brandon is certain Bush is intrinsically incapable of uttering any falsehoods.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

Hint to eddie: Brandon is certain Bush is intrinsically incapable of uttering any falsehoods.

Actually, Brandon is obsessed with this point. I do however like Brandon's taste in literature and tea.

0 Replies

Brandon is an okay guy to me on any topic except politics. I have to attack politics so diametrically opposed to mine.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

I think Eddie was referring to this:

GEORGE W. BUSH It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

I think Eddie was referring to this:
GEORGE W. BUSH It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.

Fascinating that you're the first of the posters who discussed my quote who even attempted to answer it. How typical of liberals to discuss the poster instead of the post. But, since you actually are presenting an argument, I'll respond. The president made the above statement in January of 2007. Help, me, because I actually don't recall. What was the economy doing at that point in time? Could a reasonable man have thought the economy was doing well then? You know, of course, that to be a liar, one has to make statements that one knows are wrong while one is saying them.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

Hint to eddie: Brandon is certain Bush is intrinsically incapable of uttering any falsehoods.

I am certain that when one asserts that someone is a liar, one ought to give at least one specific example.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

Hint to eddie: Brandon is certain Bush is intrinsically incapable of uttering any falsehoods.

Actually, Brandon is obsessed with this point. I do however like Brandon's taste in literature and tea.

Ah, obsession. Apparently defending the president almost all of the time differs me from the board's liberals, who are very balanced in attacking him sometimes but defending him others. Of course they're not obsessed.

0 Replies

Quote:

GEORGE W. BUSH
It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic
growth and record revenues.

Quote:

Brandon9000 sez
What was the economy doing at that point in time? Could a reasonable
man have thought the economy was doing well then? You know, of
course, that to be a liar, one has to make statements that one knows
are wrong while one is saying them.

Fact; president war criminal stole 1,360,889 million dollars from the
social security trust fund to finance income tax cuts.
Fact; president war criminal borrowed another 1,548,889 million
dollars to finance income tax cuts.

Fact; with almost three trillion dollars president miserable failure
could not grow the economy as fast as Clinton did.

Fact; Six years after the 1991 recession, we had a 21.2% increase in GDP.
About 3.5% a year.
Fact; Six years after the 2001 recession, we had a 17.8% increase in GDP.
About 3% a year, about 15% slower growth than the 91 expansion.

Now maybe president miserable failure, who couldn't find oil in Texas,
considers 3% a year growth robust, I don't know.

2007 tax revenues were in fact 5% higher than the 2000 revenues and
therefor a new record. But to claim that a lousy five percent growth
in 7 years would not have happened without the tax cuts is a LIE.

And you don't have to go to Yale to know it's a LIE. Idea

President war criminal is a liar. ----Period.

-----Bluecoller, the grumpy old kruat----- Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

bluecoller-eddie wrote:

2007 tax revenues were in fact 5% higher than the 2000 revenues and
therefor a new record. But to claim that a lousy five percent growth
in 7 years would not have happened without the tax cuts is a LIE.

That, and there are 7 years of inflation that need to be factored in.

If revenue is only growing by 2% and inflation is growing by 3%, you're actually LOSING revenue.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

I think Eddie was referring to this:
GEORGE W. BUSH It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.

Fascinating that you're the first of the posters who discussed my quote who even attempted to answer it.

Why is that fascinating?

Brandon9000 wrote:

How typical of liberals to discuss the poster instead of the post. But, since you actually are presenting an argument, I'll respond.

I didn't make any argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president made the above statement in January of 2007. Help, me, because I actually don't recall. What was the economy doing at that point in time? Could a reasonable man have thought the economy was doing well then? You know, of course, that to be a liar, one has to make statements that one knows are wrong while one is saying them.

Yeah, yeah, that's always your argument. "We must look into deepest recesses of Bush's tiny, blackened heart to determine if he really believed he was telling a lie." There's some truth to that, although I don' recall you defending Bill Clinton on those same grounds. But then there are some falsehoods that are so egregious that the person who utters them must either know they are false or else must be so oblivious to reality as to be counted a complete moron. I don't know where Bush's statement about the impact of his tax cuts puts him, but it's certainly one of the two.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you are asserting to be a lie. Mostly, you seem to be saying that the president did bad or unworthy things, but what is the lie?

I think Eddie was referring to this:
GEORGE W. BUSH It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.

Fascinating that you're the first of the posters who discussed my quote who even attempted to answer it.

Why is that fascinating?

Brandon9000 wrote:
How typical of liberals to discuss the poster instead of the post. But, since you actually are presenting an argument, I'll respond.

I didn't make any argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:
The president made the above statement in January of 2007. Help, me, because I actually don't recall. What was the economy doing at that point in time? Could a reasonable man have thought the economy was doing well then? You know, of course, that to be a liar, one has to make statements that one knows are wrong while one is saying them.

Yeah, yeah, that's always your argument. "We must look into deepest recesses of Bush's tiny, blackened heart to determine if he really believed he was telling a lie." There's some truth to that, although I don' recall you defending Bill Clinton on those same grounds. But then there are some falsehoods that are so egregious that the person who utters them must either know they are false or else must be so oblivious to reality as to be counted a complete moron. I don't know where Bush's statement about the impact of his tax cuts puts him, but it's certainly one of the two.

Actually, I defended President Clinton frequently and aggressively to the point of even writing to him twice telling him to ride out the persecution. I may or may not have been on this board then. My point is that the statement you quote was not made during the present economic climate and ought to be judged based on when it was stated. I'm stilll waiting to hear an example of an objective lie he told.

0 Replies

The lie, Brandon, is that the tax cuts did not fuel 'record revenues.' It is without a doubt that federal revenues from taxation are lower then where they would be if we had not cut taxes.

While there are some (foolish) economists who argue that voodoo economics stimulates the economy, NO serious economist argues that it leads to higher tax revenues. This is a position only taken by Republican politicians and pundits.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Actually, I defended President Clinton frequently and aggressively to the point of even writing to him twice telling him to ride out the persecution. I may or may not have been on this board then.

Did you defend Clinton because you thought he was being treated unfairly, or because you thought he never lied?

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the statement you quote was not made during the present economic climate and ought to be judged based on when it was stated. I'm stilll waiting to hear an example of an objective lie he told.

It really doesn't matter if the statement was made last year or last week. Bush's statement rests upon a stated belief in supply-side economics, which is such a grotesque farrago of falsehoods that it challenges one's credulity to think that anyone sincerely believes in it. Now, it's true that Bush may be one of those pathetic simpletons who actually thinks supply-side economics works rather than a calculated liar who doesn't care -- that is a matter of little interest to me. It's his policies that matter, not whether he's lying about the foundation of those policies.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The lie, Brandon, is that the tax cuts did not fuel 'record revenues.' It is without a doubt that federal revenues from taxation are lower then where they would be if we had not cut taxes.

Speaking of lies, how can you make such a preposterous statement as this? You have ZERO way of knowing what tax revenues would be without the tax cuts so therefore you are now lying.

Quote:

While there are some (foolish) economists who argue that voodoo economics stimulates the economy, NO serious economist argues that it leads to higher tax revenues. This is a position only taken by Republican politicians and pundits.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Now re-read those 10 times and quit being a liar.

0 Replies

Those 'facts' are all myths, and you don't know a thing about economics, McG. Even Conservatives disagree with you. I went to The Corner, b/c I know you'd just ignore any non-Conservative source.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI3OTQ5ZWJkNWI3YTIwMWRjN2Y4Zjk2N2YyZGFkYzU=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI2NjhlMjBjZjAzMDk0N2EyNjE4ZjIxZmExMDg4NDk=

Quote:

Taxes and Revenues [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Yesterday I noted that Bush's tax cuts had caused revenue to be lower than it would otherwise have been. A number of people have emailed me saying that I'm wrong: Revenues have been growing fast, and are higher than they were before the tax cuts took effect.

That shows that the tax cuts were compatible with rising revenues, not that they caused them. The tax cuts may have boosted our economic growth, but we would have had some growth without them. So the question is whether tax cuts boosted growth so much that they ended up raising money.

I can't think of any serious economist who thinks that happened. The 2003 Economic Report of the President said that "[a]lthough the economy grows in response to tax reductions... it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity." Bush's own Treasury Department has disavowed the view that Bush's tax cuts have raised revenue.Rob Portman and Ed Lazear, while serving in the Bush administration (as head of the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, respectively), said that the tax cuts had reduced federal revenue.

I'll give the last word to Alan Viard, an economist who worked at the White House before joining AEI. Last year, the Washington Post quoted him: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."[/size]

Go back to the shallow end of the pool, son

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

Now re-read those 10 times and quit being a liar.

Nothing like 10 vague statements with nothing to support any of them.
Myth #1.
What historical average? Since 1789? Or since post WW2?
Fact, the average tax revenue as a % of GDP from 2003 is NOT above the average revenue as % of GDP since 1947. Yes, 2 of Bush's years have had revenues above the average but the total is NOT and 4 of his 6 years were NOT above the average.
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
table 1.2

The average revenue as % of GDP from 1946-2007 is 17.9
Bush's revenue as % of GDP is 16.5, 16.4, 17.6, 18.5, 18.8, 17.6

Myth #2
Why does this only deal with 2006? When were the tax cuts passed?

Myth #3 No one that I know holds this myth so it is a silly one to refute.
The argument is that supply side over time creates more revenue. The problem is when tax cuts don't create more growth then that can't possibly be true. Compare the GDP growth from the Clinton years to the Bush years since his tax cut. Lower growth under Bush. So there is NOT more revenue from increased growth.

Myth#4
Cutting the capital gains creates a rise in revenues the first year the gains are cut because of pent up expectations. Capital gains revenues in the last year will NOT be the same as in 2003. I don't have time to check now but the refutation is attempting to be too narrow in only citing 2003.

Myth #6 Silly in its opinion. Tax revenues DO relate to tax rates as well as economic growth.

Myth #9 Opinion that is not supported.

Myth # 10 I love this one.
Fact. Since the Bush tax cuts the % of Revenues for the federal government that comes from income taxes has decreased dramatically. The truth is that a larger share of the Federal revenue is now coming from FICA taxes than it was before the Bush tax cuts. In 2000 the Federal government took in 1 trillion in income taxes and 652 billion in FICA. IN 2006, 1.04 trillion in income taxes and 837 billion in FICA. Anyone that tells you that the rich pay more of the FICA is telling you a large fib. The attempt to refute by only including income taxes is an outright deception.

historical tables from above. Table 2.1

You should check the facts McG before you post something that is so obviously inaccurate.

0 Replies

Bush lies about supply side taxes.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know