Bush tax cuts put us $2.7 TRILLION dollars in the hole (treason, solution)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy

If anything the Bush Administration should be held accountable for not giving JSOC and CIA special operators the additional military support they requested it during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001 when they had Osama Bin Laden CORNERED. But he was allowed to get away when JSOC and CIA special operators had to depend on Afghans instead of U.S. troops to capture Osama Bin Laden and those Afghans turned on them and refused.

.

bin laden died in dec 2001

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

A bunch of crap. Walls about intelligence sharing DID NOT APPLY to the terrorists of 9-11. In fact if you go back and actually read and learn something, the failure was that the information was NOT shared...NOT BECAUSE it couldn't be, but because the departments themselves DIDN'T WANT TO. There is NO WALL that would preclude any information sharing between intelligence agencies OF NON-AMERICAN'S. Another conservative LIE.

And yes. A decisive and cognitive person, interupts the teacher and says, "I'm sorry, something has come up and we need to cut our time here short. I've really enjoyed our time together, but I must go."
That simple. Instead, he sat there thinking "I picked the wrong decade to quit sniffing glue!"

I hate Bush for the failure he was and for the catastrophic disaster he unleashed on my Country. The only blind one here are the one's who continue to push false-hood after proven false-hood in true un-American fashion.

you do so enjoy being wrong dont you? read bigjons posts, and you will see that indeed there was a wall put up between agencies. you might also want to read this from the 9/11 commission report;

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec11.pdf

there is plenty of blame to go around in dealing with al qeada, it was founded in 1988, and the clinton administration had 8 years to deal with them. remember the 1993 attack on the world trade center? how about the other various attacks on US embassies during the clinton administration? and how about the fact that bin laden was offered up to clinton THREE TIMES and he refused all three times to take him. even if clinton had ordered bin laden to be shot while escaping, he could have cut the head off al qeada early on, and we would still have the twin towers standing where they were since 1969. but like carter, clinton had no backbone to deal with things like this.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

No, you and your head in the sand mentality are what is preposterous.

Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html - broken link)



Preposterous?! No...down right treasonous and treacherous. The men who have now tied us down in a never ending war, abandoned their posts when the country needed them, and expected them to protect them. They were negligent and complicit in their actions and deeds, are should be held responsible as accomplices after the fact of those who perpetrated the attacks on our country on 11 Sep 2001. And by your statements you do America harm.

In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.


ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002




you much for your lies, tx

[stan4]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

Bush tax cuts took in $2.7 TRILLION dollars less from 2000-2008, than had the tax rates stayed at 2000 levels. That's roughly $337 Million per year less than we should have collected.

Out of those EIGHT years, in SIX of those years income's declined. Out of the two positive income years even when they are combined they only exceed the other six once.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?




And the argument for extending Bush tax cuts for the rich....goes up in smoke. ~

What part don't you get? Cutting taxes does not cause 'the hole' of debt. SPENDING causes 'the hole.' Cut spending accordingly.

[shiftymh]

It is frightening that some people think the government is entitled to $2.7 Trillion of other people's money in the first place for anything other than defense and infrastructure.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by shiftymh

It is frightening that some people think the government is entitled to $2.7 Trillion of other people's money in the first place for anything other than defense and infrastructure.

Only the rich people though..those making $200K and above..$250K if you're married.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by txgolfer130

Bush tax cuts took in $2.7 TRILLION dollars less from 2000-2008, than had the tax rates stayed at 2000 levels. That's roughly $337 Million per year less than we should have collected.

Out of those EIGHT years, in SIX of those years income's declined. Out of the two positive income years even when they are combined they only exceed the other six once.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


And the argument for extending Bush tax cuts for the rich....goes up in smoke. ~

This line from your quote is totally false:

"The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years"

The Bush tax cuts did not take effect until July 2003, its has not been 8 years yet.


Notice how slow the rise in revenue during the booming 1990s

The rise in revenue is sharp after 2003

Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States 2010 - Charts Tables

So you want us to believe, that had Bush not implemented the tax cuts that tax revenue under him would have soared even faster then it did? We were already pulling in more revenue under Bush then under Clinton. Sounds like you are making the case that under Bush's leadership, our country was in an economic boom, and if Bush were to have just raised taxes a bit, it would have been the biggest boom in America's history.

[txgolfer130]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

If what you allege was true then the U.S. Congress is complicit. But you will not allege that will you?

And the only reason for that would be that the ENTIRE Congress was not getting intelligence reports and WARNINGS on the threats as the President and National Security Council was. But you don't see that, you just see the reasoning for not taking accountability and attempt to spread blame around to everyone.

How very Republican of you.

[txgolfer130]

Originally Posted by NJBest

Would you buy a t-shirt from me if I put the quoted text across the American Flag on it?

Disclaimer to mods: This is hypothetical. I am not really advertising the sale of t-shirts here.

Yes, I would buy 2.

[txgolfer130]

Originally Posted by Gixxer1K

I love how the left always tries to defend Obama. Bush had 8 years and Obama spent more in his FIRST year than any president in history.I'd say he's on track to blow everyone out of the water but if you want to sit on the side with your head in the sand while he does it go right ahead!!

Also, why is the deficit tripling under Obama? Thought he was going to come in and created jobs and keep unemployment under 8%!


U.S. budget deficit to hit $1.3-trillion - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/us-budget-deficit-to-hit-13-trillion/article1678597/ - broken link)

Another FALLACY. Obama has not spent more in his FIRST YEAR than any President IN HISTORY. Get you facts straight.

And he will probably end up doing so, simply to fix and get the country back on track from the massive attempt at destruction that Republicans and those who can't understand numbers and budgets assaulted this country with.

But here's a small example...tell me...when Bush puts forth a 10 year budget in 2001 starting w/ year 2001...when does it expire? And if all of the accounts payable are due in 2010 when does that payment have to be paid, and when does it come from the bottom of the page to the top?



If you need a crash course in accounting I would hope you don't consult a Republican, you'll look more foolish than you do now.