Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were across the board tax cuts, not just for "the rich."
Government revenue increased after the 1981 and 1983 Reagan tax cuts and the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The national debt increased by $1 trillion dollars during the Clinton years.
Military action against Iraq was approved by Congress.
Republicans do "supply side tax cuts" and "trickle down economics." These tax cuts and economic policies are 100% directed to the rich (for so-called job creation.)
Look at GW Bushs tax cuts.
The bottom 20% of Americans got 1.2% of the Bush tax cuts.
The richest 1% of Americans got 51.8% of the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans do "supply side tax cuts" and "trickle down economics." These tax cuts and economic policies are 100% directed to the rich (for so-called job creation.)
Look at GW Bushs tax cuts.
The bottom 20% of Americans got 1.2% of the Bush tax cuts.
The richest 1% of Americans got 51.8% of the Bush tax cuts.
100% of respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues."
Heres what GW Bush's chairman of economic advisors says about tax cuts.
"N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”
100% of respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues."
Heres what GW Bush's chairman of economic advisors says about tax cuts.
"N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence†that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.†He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.â€
Ratios are elementary school math. If how they are used confounds you, then you need to get some remedial help.
Most understand them, it's just pathetic, sad and dishonest how liberals try to use them to make Obama look like he isn't spending more than any other president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
uhm
the national debt when bush took office was 5.87 trillion
whern he left it was 10.6 trillion
currently we are just short of 17 trillion
clinton nearly doubled the debt
bush nearly doubled the debt
obama is on track for more than doubling the debt
And yet the liberals will still howl about how much Bush spent and how Obama is spending less. I guess since they're spending other peoples money they don't care about truth and how much is really being spent, or where it's being spent.
the national debt when President Bush took office was 5.3 trillion, when he left it was 12.7
Our national debt currently stands at 16.7 trillion.
So even if you ignore the fact that president Obama;s deficits are because of Bush's reckless spending and recession, he still only added 4 trillion dollars tot he deficit while Bush added 7.4 trillion, remember budgets are signed into law in the previous year and the fiscal year starts in October. The 2009 budget was signed in February 2008, revised in September 2008 , and took effect in October 2008. You seem to be adding it to Obama's total.
Don't you remember when G(H)W Bush raised taxes?
Everyone said he broke his pledge "no new taxes."
Don't you remember Rush radio and Fox news saying "Bill Clinton wants to punish the rich" (by raising their tax rates.)
GW Bush is the one who lowered taxes (and he turned Clintons balanced budget into huge deficits and national debt when he did it.)
Clinton never had a balanced budget, he came close but he didn't. He came close btw by CUTTING the capital gains rate from 28% go 20% which raised revenues, thereby disputing the garbage you keep posting that cutting taxes sometimes doesn't raise revenues.
Clinton never had a balanced budget, he came close but he didn't. He came close btw by CUTTING the capital gains rate from 28% go 20% which raised revenues, thereby disputing the garbage you keep posting that cutting taxes sometimes doesn't raise revenues.
Keep posting, pghquest... maybe Chad will understand eventually!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
