Has Bush accomplished anything?

[spidey07]

Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

So decreasing taxes while increasing costs (war, etc) is a good thing?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

So decreasing taxes while increasing costs (war, etc) is a good thing?

That's not what I said. Decreasing taxes increases revenue. Spending is a whole nutter can of worms that should not be opened in this thread.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

From all indications, the lesson of this presidency will be that the President's powers truly are unlimited, and, as long as he doesn't get caught in sexual misbehavior, he can commit any high crime or misdemeanor - even the highest international crime of unprovoked, aggressive war, and get away with it. He just has to surrender that power when his term is up.

The Nixon White House argued during Watergate that for a limited time the President of the United States is an absolute monarch. The Supreme Court at the time rejected that argument, but the Democrats who now control the Congress, along with our supposed guardians in the mainstream press, are tacitly endorsing it by giving the Bush White House a free pass to junk the Bill of Rights, bankrupt the nation, wreck the economy, and launch pirate raids on sovereign states.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

So decreasing taxes while increasing costs (war, etc) is a good thing?

Spending for the Iraq war is a good thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

So it looks like you substituted your rag for another.

"It is well known" isn't evidence. It's your claim.

Find official unbiased sources that accurately and conclusively back your claim with primary sources. Then we'll see what is "well known"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

So decreasing taxes while increasing costs (war, etc) is a good thing?

Spending for the Iraq war is a good thing.

In your opinion. In mine it's a cluster fuck.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

I'm not even going to bother researching this because your argument is absurd on its face: What matters is whether TOTAL income tax revenues increase after a tax cut. Even assuming your citation is correct, all you've done is shown that a COMPONENT of income tax revenue increased. But you seem to think that if, say, income taxes on capital gains increase, say, by $50 billion but TOTAL taxes on income (including capital gains) DECREASES by $200 billion, that shows tax revenues went up?

Are you insane?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

So it looks like you substituted your rag for another.

"It is well known" isn't evidence. It's your claim.

Find official unbiased sources that accurately and conclusively back your claim with primary sources. Then we'll see what is "well known"

Hey, if somebody uses NYT as their source I use heritage as mine. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

So it looks like you substituted your rag for another.

"It is well known" isn't evidence. It's your claim.

Find official unbiased sources that accurately and conclusively back your claim with primary sources. Then we'll see what is "well known"

Hey, if somebody uses NYT as their source I use heritage as mine. Turnabout is fair
play.

I used a non-partisan CBO analysis, and quoted the bottom-line table from that analysis. The NYT article merely distilled the complete results of the much longer CBO document.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

So it looks like you substituted your rag for another.

"It is well known" isn't evidence. It's your claim.

Find official unbiased sources that accurately and conclusively back your claim with primary sources. Then we'll see what is "well known"

Hey, if somebody uses NYT as their source I use heritage as mine. Turnabout is fair play.

What credentials does heritage have? I mean, NYT reports on dead marines the moment they hit the floor, what about Heritage?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

I'm not even going to bother researching this because your argument is absurd on its face: What matters is whether TOTAL income tax revenues increase after a tax cut. Even assuming your citation is correct, all you've done is shown that a COMPONENT of income tax revenue increased. But you seem to think that if, say, income taxes on capital gains increase, say, by $50 billion but TOTAL taxes on income (including capital gains) DECREASES by $200 billion, that shows tax revenues went up?

Are you insane?

Nobody cares where the tax revenue came from. If we lowered Income Taxes by 1 Billion but our revenue increased from the Elmer Fudd Tax by 2 Billion, the net tax revenue to the government is still +1B.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
What is with Bush fan boys that causes them to act like someone called their wife ugly anytime there's a critical eye cast on GWB.

It's because they all look like morons by this point and they haven't the balls to admit they were wrong.

Anybody who argues for tax cuts when we are so far in debt is a punk little bitch. It's time for the next generation to step up to the plate and fix the total fuck up that the baby boomers have made and are. Let them cry like little children while they spend their children's money and when they are all finally dead or such a small voting block we might be able to change if they haven't infected to many of us with their self centered childish minds.

Pathetic simple humans.

 

[spidey07]

Sorry to sidetrack, somebody start a new thread if facts need to be beaten over the head of moonbats regarding tax cuts and their resulting revenue increase.

Remember folks, these people want to take more of your money and give it to others. Communism failed, get that shit outta here - VOTE!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

I'm not even going to bother researching this because your argument is absurd on its face: What matters is whether TOTAL income tax revenues increase after a tax cut. Even assuming your citation is correct, all you've done is shown that a COMPONENT of income tax revenue increased. But you seem to think that if, say, income taxes on capital gains increase, say, by $50 billion but TOTAL taxes on income (including capital gains) DECREASES by $200 billion, that shows tax revenues went up?

Are you insane?

Nobody cares where the tax revenue came from. If we lowered Income Taxes by 1 Billion but our revenue increased from the Elmer Fudd Tax by 2 Billion, the net tax revenue to the government is still +1B.

But our TOTAL income tax revenue DECREASED. Why can't you fools get that through your heads?

As to the capital gains "increase," try looking at this little chart, which show that capital gains have DECREASED 15% in constant dollars:

Capital gains over time

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
What is with Bush fan boys that causes them to act like someone called their wife ugly anytime there's a critical eye cast on GWB.

It's because they all look like morons by this point and they haven't the balls to admit they were wrong.

Anybody who argues for tax cuts when we are so far in debt is a punk little bitch. It's time for the next generation to step up to the plate and fix the total fuck up that the baby boomers have made and are. Let them cry like little children while they spend their children's money and when they are all finally dead or such a small voting block we might be able to change if they haven't infected to many of us with their self centered childish minds.

Pathetic simple humans.

Keep you hands off of my money. Let me prosper in this free country, my prosperity creates growth. Communism is bad.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shira
Capital gains over time

LOL!!!! Another liberal source!!!! A blog no less.

It doesn't get any better than this.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spidey07
Nice use of googling something that fits your agenda. Here's my common sense and facts..

It is well known that decreasing taxes increases revenue. But good job on using New York Times to prove a point that leaves out facts, it makes my point that much easier when you use that rag as a source.

"Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut."
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

This thread is about what President Bush accomplished and the tax cuts were IMHO one of the biggest and most important things.

I'm not even going to bother researching this because your argument is absurd on its face: What matters is whether TOTAL income tax revenues increase after a tax cut. Even assuming your citation is correct, all you've done is shown that a COMPONENT of income tax revenue increased. But you seem to think that if, say, income taxes on capital gains increase, say, by $50 billion but TOTAL taxes on income (including capital gains) DECREASES by $200 billion, that shows tax revenues went up?

Are you insane?

Nobody cares where the tax revenue came from. If we lowered Income Taxes by 1 Billion but our revenue increased from the Elmer Fudd Tax by 2 Billion, the net tax revenue to the government is still +1B.

But our TOTAL income tax revenue DECREASED. Why can't you fools get that through your heads?

As to the capital gains "increase," try looking at this little chart, which show that capital gains have DECREASED 15% in constant dollars:

Capital gains over time

Why do you keep harping on Total Income tax? Income tax is only part of the equation.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
What is with Bush fan boys that causes them to act like someone called their wife ugly anytime there's a critical eye cast on GWB.

It's because they all look like morons by this point and they haven't the balls to admit they were wrong.

Anybody who argues for tax cuts when we are so far in debt is a punk little bitch. It's time for the next generation to step up to the plate and fix the total fuck up that the baby boomers have made and are. Let them cry like little children while they spend their children's money and when they are all finally dead or such a small voting block we might be able to change if they haven't infected to many of us with their self centered childish minds.

Pathetic simple humans.

Keep you hands off of my money. Let me prosper in this free country, my prosperity creates growth. Communism is bad.

You are a true believer. You are immune to what the figures actually tell us. You insist that tax cuts equal "prosperity" because, well, that's what you WANT to believe.

 

[JSt0rm]

They just want more money in their pockets. They don't care about social programs, infrastructure or returning veterans. They are the weak among us and trying to pretend as if they are strong. The "I gots mines" mentality is strong in this country. i would like to see how any of these people would fair in a African country with little to no civil structure. I'll bet most of them would be missing a leg and arm by this point begging in the street but they still refuse to help pay for the environment that actually allowed them to make a decent living in the first place.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
They just want more money in their pockets. They don't care about social programs, infrastructure or returning veterans. They are the weak among us and trying to pretend as if they are strong. The "I gots mines" mentality is strong in this country. i would like to see how any of these people would fair in a African country with little to no civil structure. I'll bet most of them would be missing a leg and arm by this point begging in the street but they still refuse to help pay for the environment that actually allowed them to make a decent living in the first place.

My friend, you've been lied to by the Democratic party.

wall street journal

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Sorry to sidetrack, somebody start a new thread if facts need to be beaten over the head of moonbats regarding tax cuts and their resulting revenue increase.

No need. We've had several past threads thoroughly debunking the tax cult propaganda point that tax cuts cause increased tax revenue (will insert links in an edit). In fact Spidey, you've participated in at least one of them, something you've conveniently forgotten.

This particular piece of propaganda is usually justified by pointing to years with tax cuts and observing total tax revenues went up. Unfortunately, correlation does not demonstrate causation. According to CBO data, the plain, simple, inarguable fact is that federal revenues reach record levels almost every year. Yes, revenues usually increase after tax cuts. They also increase after tax increases, and when taxes are not materially changed. Why? Because of inflation and a growing economy.

In fact, the only notable exception over the last 50 years has been the first four years of the Bush administration. From 1955-2000, federal revenue hit new record highs 91% of the time -- 41 out of 45 years -- through good economies and bad, after tax increases and tax cuts alike. Your favorite villain Clinton had eight straight years of record revenues, in spite whining about his "big tax increases". In 2000, the economy weakened ... and then Bush cut taxes. The result? An unprecedented four-year string of lower revenues, finally ending in 2005.

So, once and for all, there is no objective data supporting the free lunch tax cuts myth. It is a claim of religious faith, not a statement of sound economic analysis. If anything, the data from GWB's term tends to suggest exactly the opposite, that cutting taxes reduces revenue.

Remember folks, these people want to take more of your money and give it to others. Communism failed, get that shit outta here - VOTE!

As opposed to the Bush faithful who want to take more of your children's money? Feudalism failed, get that shit outta here.


Edit - Links to previous threads:
Dow extends record run
Democrats in the House introduce PAYGO

(I know there are others, but FuseTalk Search doesn't quite cut it.)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Follows what he knows is right, not just what some polls tell him.

That's kind of a scary thought, don't you think?

How is that an accomplishment?

A leader who leads... when was the last time Democrats had one?

First, he's not a 'leader who leads'. You sound like one of those people who worship criminals and such, impressed by any 'action' right or wrong.

He sells out most policy - he promised right-wing groups he'd do what they want on foreign policy if they backed him, he promised corporate interest groups he'd back their desires if they backed him, he promised the religious right he'd push their agenda if they backed him - selling out the nation's government and policies isn't 'leadership'. What it got us was war, corrupt and huge deficit-increasing spending, and the government helping the religious right's harmful agenda.

The democrats have tons of leaders. Dennis Kucinich; Bernie Saunders; Barbara Lee; Pete Stark; John Kerry; Al Gore; Barack Obama; John Edwards; Edward Kennedy, et al.

Carter was flawed, but a leader - he put the man in charge of the fed who got inflation under control, he got rid of the US-backed tyrant in Iran, he got the Camp David peace accord for Israel and Egypt, he pushed the need for energy policy reform (undone by Reagan) and he increased the US's leadership on global human rights (undone by Reagan, backing death squad terrorism).

LBJ was flawed, but a leader - he permanently cut the poverty rate in the US by a third, he got the civil rights bill passed, he greatly increased Medicare, and much more.

JFK was a great leader - from early efforts at detente and the Nuclear Test Ban, to shifting the US's policies from backing brutal colonialism to backing liberty, and much more.

We can keep going if you want - there are plenty examples for Truman, FDR and earlier.

They can be comared to the disasters Republicans have had as president since Eisenhower.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, he's not a 'leader who leads'. You sound like one of those people who worship criminals and such, impressed by any 'action' right or wrong.

Yeah i worship criminals and such. I also play chicken with the elderly, try to murder blacks and jews for being blacks and jews whenever i get a chance to. Any other assinine things you can come up with or should I just admit some more on my own for your demented convenience?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
They just want more money in their pockets. They don't care about social programs, infrastructure or returning veterans. They are the weak among us and trying to pretend as if they are strong. The "I gots mines" mentality is strong in this country. i would like to see how any of these people would fair in a African country with little to no civil structure. I'll bet most of them would be missing a leg and arm by this point begging in the street but they still refuse to help pay for the environment that actually allowed them to make a decent living in the first place.

My friend, you've been lied to by the Democratic party.

wall street journal

None of you appear to realize that Bush is the *culmination* of brilliant strategy set out first by Ronald Reagan and his "voodoo economics" - first called such by Daddy Bush and later embraced by him.

By saying Bush and Cheney have "dismantled" America on purpose to sell to for their friends is not saying they are "traitors"... they look at themselves as the Visionaries and Architects of 21st Century Politics fused with Mega Business. Like Ronnie, they simply do not trust the "stupid common man" - although they were that Party once - to vote and shape Own Own Destiny. They feel that their Great Leaders will do it more efficiently than we "simple folk" with our stupid "welfare programs" and unnecessary encumbrances like "government restrictions and oversight" that cripple free trade and free enterprise in their lofty opinions.

What we have is the USA ready to be purchased by the Super Rich .. and Bush delivered on his true Campaign Promises to Them - His Own Owners.
He can truly say "mission accomplished" when he leaves office and his place in history is only assured after much scrutiny looking backwards 100 years - if we are still here, that it. i tend to disagree with their analysis and have a much better one that adapts to changing conditions - unlike their rigid ones.