Getting tired of all these Liberals bashing Bush-lite ...

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Actually, I came up with that on my own because I'm an educated person and I am able to form my own oppinions based on my education in economins. YOU are the one spouting party-lines. If you'd taken an economics class, you would see that what I am saying is correct. That's not to imply that you are not correct as well on some points, either.

I have taken economics classes and I see what you are saying is NOT correct. You cannot turn the economy around by giving the wealthy more money. You need to stimulate demand. This gives business a reason to hire and expand, thus putting more people back to work, who then have money to spend, thus increasing demand, giving business a reason to hire and expand . . .

In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy

I would like to know how you plan to lower interest rates more than they already are. The interest rate card has been played, and played aggressively. It did not work. More had to be done. Tax cuts was another option. Tell me, how can you lower income taxes on the lower class even more than they already are? FYI, it's currently at around 0%. It sounds to me like you don't know much about economics since you are just parroting what other people who don't know economics are saying. Granted, I'm not an expert, but this is fundamental stuff.

Who said we need to lower interest rates further? The Fed's rate cuts are having the desired effect. The economy is starting to turn around - knock on wood.

 

[ElFenix]

bah, the economy is all just mind games anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually YOU are wrong. Add up the numbers for FY2003. Then lets look at the 2004 budget.

2003 budget(including the $75billion for Iraq in April)
-375B deficit
-75B - Iraq(april)
-------
300B deficit let to blame on War and Tax-cuts
-tax cut of 2001
-----
Equals?
How much was the taxcut for FY2003? Keep in mind that the Tax-cut that was passed this summer is for FY2004 and it was 350B over 10 years. So only about 125B is for the first year and about the same for the second - the rest is spread over the next ten years. PLUS - it actually only builds or hurries the tax-cuts Bush signed back in 2001. Like the rate drops will happen before the original 2006...etc Read and learn my freind.
So Bowfinger what "cost" of Bush's first tax-cut was against FY2003? You have about 300B to go to be able to blame it all on Bush.
Ready...
Set...
Go!

Yep Bow - you keep trying to blame it on Bush and I'll keep telling you - you are full of Sh!t, because you are. I find it laughable that you can even remotely think that if you took away Iraq and the tax-cuts we'd be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Buahaha...I can't believe I even had to quote that - it's absurd. When you get informed, please come back and ammend your statement

CkG

There you go again. "Maybe if I pretend the 2001 tax cuts weren't Bush's tax cuts I can distract everyone long enough to save face. Maybe if I pretend that 2003 is the only year with a deficit I can dismiss the even-bigger deficits that follow."

The 2003 federal deficit was $374 Billion. Over half of that, $205 Billion, is due to the two Bush tax cuts. Just like I said.

Bush's Iraq invasion cost us another $70 Billion to $92 Billion in 2003, depending on which expenses we count. That brings our total to somewhere between $275 Billion and $297 Billion, 74% to 79% of the total 2003 deficit. Hundreds of billions. Just like I said.

The numbers only get worse in 2004. The tax cuts alone are projected to add another $310 Billion to the deifict in 2004. Add in another $100 billion or more for Iraq in 2004 and that's about $410 Billion total. Hundreds of billions, just like I said. That's roughly $700 Billion in two years. Hundreds of billions, just like I said.

You didn't do very well in school, did you?

If we continue at this rate -- if -- that's over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in three years just from Bush's tax cuts and Iraqi crusade. Perhaps the new Democratic leadership in 2004 can bring a little fiscal responsibility back to Washington.



CkG: "Yep Bow - you keep trying to blame it on Bush and I'll keep telling you - you are full of Sh!t, because you are. I find it laughable that you can even remotely think that if you took away Iraq and the tax-cuts we'd be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Buahaha...I can't believe I even had to quote that - it's absurd. When you get informed, please come back and ammend your statement"

I think we can all see who is full of what. Thanks for playing.

What? Huh? What happened to the Hundreds of Billions of dollars ahead? Seems like you didn't do very well in school Your own numbers don't even put us "ahead" Nice try with the spin though

Now that we have the attacks countered and out of the way....we can get back to the subject. You made the accusation that Bush's tax-cuts and Iraq war is what caused the deficit and that we would be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Do you now wish to amend that?
Also, I'd like to see where you got you $205 Billion number from since the Tax-Cut Bush signed this year is for FY2004. In April Bush got a supplemental appropriation of $75 for the War on Terror most of which was for the Iraq war. This supplemental is FY2003 which makes it part of the $375B deficit budget. Now also, Bush's first Tax-cut was a cut that was very spread out over the next ~10 years. I'd really love to see where your $205 number came from because many of the tax-cuts in the 2001 package weren't set to start immediately - like the incometax rate decreases. We'll get into your 2004 numbers once you show where you pulled the $205 figure from.
So yes - our current deficit was caused by continued overspending - which needs to stop.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Actually, I came up with that on my own because I'm an educated person and I am able to form my own oppinions based on my education in economins. YOU are the one spouting party-lines. If you'd taken an economics class, you would see that what I am saying is correct. That's not to imply that you are not correct as well on some points, either.

I have taken economics classes and I see what you are saying is NOT correct. You cannot turn the economy around by giving the wealthy more money. You need to stimulate demand. This gives business a reason to hire and expand, thus putting more people back to work, who then have money to spend, thus increasing demand, giving business a reason to hire and expand . . .

In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy

I would like to know how you plan to lower interest rates more than they already are. The interest rate card has been played, and played aggressively. It did not work. More had to be done. Tax cuts was another option. Tell me, how can you lower income taxes on the lower class even more than they already are? FYI, it's currently at around 0%. It sounds to me like you don't know much about economics since you are just parroting what other people who don't know economics are saying. Granted, I'm not an expert, but this is fundamental stuff.

Who said we need to lower interest rates further? The Fed's rate cuts are having the desired effect. The economy is starting to turn around - knock on wood.

Ah, the Feds are the reason, but definately not the tax-cuts..sure

Bowfinger - I take everything back. You don't have to prove your numbers and I'm not going to fight you on this anymore because you'll won't even acknowledge that the tax-cuts helped. You've proven time and again that you are a partisan hack(or just a plain Republican/Bush hater) and I wish to have no further discourse with you.

Good day.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY<
What? Huh? What happened to the Hundreds of Billions of dollars ahead? Seems like you didn't do very well in school Your own numbers don't even put us "ahead" Nice try with the spin though

Now that we have the attacks countered and out of the way....we can get back to the subject. You made the accusation that Bush's tax-cuts and Iraq war is what caused the deficit and that we would be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Do you now wish to amend that?

No, I wish you would take Reading Comprehension 101. I did NOT say this would put us hundreds of billions of dollars in the black. I said it would put us ahead, i.e, hundreds of billions of dollars less in the red.

Also, I'd like to see where you got you $205 Billion number from since the Tax-Cut Bush signed this year is for FY2004. In April Bush got a supplemental appropriation of $75 for the War on Terror most of which was for the Iraq war. This supplemental is FY2003 which makes it part of the $375B deficit budget. Now also, Bush's first Tax-cut was a cut that was very spread out over the next ~10 years. I'd really love to see where your $205 number came from because many of the tax-cuts in the 2001 package weren't set to start immediately - like the incometax rate decreases. We'll get into your 2004 numbers once you show where you pulled the $205 figure from.

Sorry, didn't save the link. It was one of the first sites I found on Google that quoted accolades from both the left and the right on their fairness and their scrupulous attention to accuracy. It was a D.C.-based think-tank, started with a "C". Nice, detailed breakdown of all their numbers. $205 Billion was their number for the total cost of Bush's tax cuts in 2003.

So yes - our current deficit was caused by continued overspending - which needs to stop.

CkG

I agreed with you on this. The bulk of the overspending was on the tax loans and the Iraq invasion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah, the Feds are the reason, but definately not the tax-cuts..sure

Bowfinger - I take everything back. You don't have to prove your numbers and I'm not going to fight you on this anymore because you'll won't even acknowledge that the tax-cuts helped.

I don't believe they did help significantly, certainly not in comparison to the repeatedly lowered interest rates. Note, however, that you are putting words in my mouth -- again. I did NOT say the tax cuts didn't help. Not once. In fact, I explicitly stated they, "do little to help the economy" and "lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy." Your misrepresentation is just another straw man. I'll leave for others to decide whether this is a reading comprehension problem or whether you are a "partisan hack" who will invent or twist anything to support your boy in D.C.

You've proven time and again that you are a partisan hack(or just a plain Republican/Bush hater) and I wish to have no further discourse with you.

Good day.

It is now. My guess is you finally did your own research and discovered I was right all along about the effect the tax cuts and Iraq invasion had on the deficit.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I have looked at the data and you have yet to be accurate.

I bet you believe there was an actual "surplus" too

Have a nice day, I suggest you read up on this subject - you seem to be quite ignorant on alot of the issues.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I have looked at the data and you have yet to be accurate.

Oh, of course.

I bet you believe there was an actual "surplus" too

Not at all. I'm not as ignorant as you try to pretend. I think that's one of the reasons you're so frustrated with me. You aren't snowing me with your incomplete and misleading data, and I can be just as stubborn as you are.

Have a nice day, I suggest you read up on this subject - you seem to be quite ignorant on alot of the issues.

CkG

Whatever you say, Sir Cad.