LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Why do Repubs insist that Obama tax cuts are spending while Bush tax cuts are not?

mercury14

mercury14

Pragmatic Metaphysician
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Posts
22,158
One-third of the stimulus is tax cuts, or about $258 billion. So now republicans suddenly say it makes sense to call cutting taxes "government spending".

Okay fine. The GOP party platform is now to increase spending. Got it.


Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.8 TRILLION according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman. This includes the cost of financing the debt incurred by these cuts, since the Republicans never bothered to pay for any of this.

Furthermore, "over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed." And of course they would be debt-financed.

Heritage Foundation demigod Brian Reidl claims that about 25% of that $1.8 trillion could be shaved off when you account for increased economic activity from the tax cuts. So $1.35 trillion.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/


So using the Republican's own rationale here, they increased government spending by either $1.35 trillion or $1.8 trillion dollars over the technical figure. And now they're advocating (still advocating) for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, leading to another $4.4 Trillion in spending over a mere ten year period.

Is there a way for the GOP to be more hypocritical?
 
Last edited:
look at Bell CA, why don't you fly there and demand that the citizens accept a tax increase







mercury14 said:
One-third of the stimulus is tax cuts, or about $258 billion. So now republicans suddenly say it makes sense to call cutting taxes "government spending".

Okay fine. The GOP party platform is now to increase spending. Got it.


Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.8 TRILLION according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman. This includes the cost of financing the debt incurred by these cuts, since the Republicans never bothered to pay for any of this.

Furthermore, "over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed." And of course they would be debt-financed.

Heritage Foundation demigod Brian Reidl claims that about 25% of that $1.8 trillion could be shaved off when you account for increased economic activity from the tax cuts. So $1.35 trillion.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/


So using the Republican's own rationale here, they increased government spending by either $1.35 trillion or $1.8 trillion dollars over the technical figure. And now they're advocating (still advocating) for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, leading to another $4.4 Trillion in spending over a mere ten year period.

Is there a way for the GOP to be more hypocritical?
Click to expand...
 
why can't the left wing nuts, cut down the size of government?


Accept the fact that it is time to kill the government pension program and move that into a 401k


PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE FAT ASS GOVERNMENT WORKERS/GOVERNMENT LEADERS




mercury14 said:
One-third of the stimulus is tax cuts, or about $258 billion. So now republicans suddenly say it makes sense to call cutting taxes "government spending".

Okay fine. The GOP party platform is now to increase spending. Got it.


Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.8 TRILLION according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman. This includes the cost of financing the debt incurred by these cuts, since the Republicans never bothered to pay for any of this.

Furthermore, "over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed." And of course they would be debt-financed.

Heritage Foundation demigod Brian Reidl claims that about 25% of that $1.8 trillion could be shaved off when you account for increased economic activity from the tax cuts. So $1.35 trillion.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/


So using the Republican's own rationale here, they increased government spending by either $1.35 trillion or $1.8 trillion dollars over the technical figure. And now they're advocating (still advocating) for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, leading to another $4.4 Trillion in spending over a mere ten year period.

Is there a way for the GOP to be more hypocritical?
Click to expand...
 
Jen, maybe we ought to look at the 401K model..

Ask Tony Hayward of BP what his pension will look like. These corporate maggots fuck their customers, employees and shareholders, and lubricate themselves.

I would venture a guess that the private sector spends more on pensions than does government. The difference is the private sector largesse goes to a select few...:eek:
 
jeninflorida said:
why can't the left wing nuts, cut down the size of government?


Accept the fact that it is time to kill the government pension program and move that into a 401k


PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE FAT ASS GOVERNMENT WORKERS/GOVERNMENT LEADERS
Click to expand...


Why not ask why right wing nuts can't cut down the size of government as well? After all, they campaign heavily on that point and then turn around and expand the government every day of their term.

Why doesn't the hypocrisy of the right bother you?
 
mercury14 said:
One-third of the stimulus is tax cuts, or about $258 billion. So now republicans suddenly say it makes sense to call cutting taxes "government spending".

Okay fine. The GOP party platform is now to increase spending. Got it.


Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.8 TRILLION according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman. This includes the cost of financing the debt incurred by these cuts, since the Republicans never bothered to pay for any of this.

Furthermore, "over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed." And of course they would be debt-financed.

Heritage Foundation demigod Brian Reidl claims that about 25% of that $1.8 trillion could be shaved off when you account for increased economic activity from the tax cuts. So $1.35 trillion.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/


So using the Republican's own rationale here, they increased government spending by either $1.35 trillion or $1.8 trillion dollars over the technical figure. And now they're advocating (still advocating) for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, leading to another $4.4 Trillion in spending over a mere ten year period.

Is there a way for the GOP to be more hypocritical?
Click to expand...

this makes ZERO sense:cool:
 
busybody
This message is hidden because busybody is on your ignore list.
 
busybody said:
this makes ZERO sense:cool:
Click to expand...

To you maybe, but ponder this for a moment,

Bush got us into two wars, swelling our militery budget to fight an enemy we can't identify, find, or beat by conventional means and spent nearly a quearter of our budget on national defence, a larger percentage then we spent during WWII. Bush created a whole new Department, something presidents rarely, if ever, do. Bush made tax cuts for the people who needed them the least, and had a bailout which was fully supported by Republicans.
 
swordandsandle said:
To you maybe, but ponder this for a moment,

Bush got us into two wars, swelling our militery budget to fight an enemy we can't identify, find, or beat by conventional means and spent nearly a quearter of our budget on national defence, a larger percentage then we spent during WWII. Bush created a whole new Department, something presidents rarely, if ever, do. Bush made tax cuts for the people who needed them the least, and had a bailout which was fully supported by Republicans.
Click to expand...

... and spent a nearly a couple trillion dollars on tax cuts.
 
I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq for one.

He didn't cost a trillion in tax cuts! He made 2 trillion cus lowering taxes increases revenue!:D:D:D:D:D:D

Or haven't you gotten the words to the song yet. It makes sense within the context of finding the perfect balance I suppose, you know like putting things on sale makes more people buy them but selling then beneath cost costs money.
 
Sean Renaud said:
I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq for one.

He didn't cost a trillion in tax cuts! He made 2 trillion cus lowering taxes increases revenue!:D:D:D:D:D:D

Or haven't you gotten the words to the song yet. It makes sense within the context of finding the perfect balance I suppose, you know like putting things on sale makes more people buy them but selling then beneath cost costs money.
Click to expand...

it was right after 9/11

we were worried that more terror attacks would come

possibly and likely with WMD's etc

and that terrorists would get them from Iraq..............no one disagreed, virtually all the DUMZ agreed as well.............hell, they said that stuff dating back to 1998

to NOT have done

what was done

would have been suicidal

that the CIA messed up, that ALL INTEL agencies messed uo and NO WMD's were found was known AFTER THE FACT

PS

The WMD's are in Syria nd the Bekka valley, Im sure you know
 
Just cus everybody was scared and made a stupid decision doesn't make it less stupid. It just means scared people are irrational. We should have left Saddam alone until after Afghanistan.
 
258 billion dollars of the Obama tax plan is tax cuts. That's compared to 1.8 trillion dollars worth of Bush tax cuts.

Why is it that 1.8 trillion dollars worth of Bush tax cuts, a figure which includes interest on the debt that is used to finance those tax cuts, is compared to 258 billion dollars worth of Obama tax cuts, which presumably doesn't include interest?
 
Daehreppoc said:
Jen, maybe we ought to look at the 401K model..

Ask Tony Hayward of BP what his pension will look like. These corporate maggots fuck their customers, employees and shareholders, and lubricate themselves.

I would venture a guess that the private sector spends more on pensions than does government. The difference is the private sector largesse goes to a select few...:eek:
Click to expand...

Thats exectly what is wrong with you liberal pussies. You spend half your time hating the winners and the rest handing free money to the losers. One day you will tax the succesful so heavily that there will no longer be any incentive to try and Ill just be better off collecting my welfare check with the rest of you.
 
mercury14 said:
Why not ask why right wing nuts can't cut down the size of government as well? After all, they campaign heavily on that point and then turn around and expand the government every day of their term.

Why doesn't the hypocrisy of the right bother you?
Click to expand...

Dude are you serious... So far Obama has taken over healthcare, most of the auto industry, as well as the financial sector. Wake up, there is no comparison
 
lascivious87 said:
Dude are you serious... So far Obama has taken over healthcare, most of the auto industry, as well as the financial sector. Wake up, there is no comparison
Click to expand...

Cept he hasn't done any of these things. He hasn't taken over health care at all. He hasnt' taken over ANY of health care.

GM and Chrysler are hardly MOST of the auto industry. Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Hundai, Honda, have you ever heard of any of these brands? So again lie.

The financial sector? He has done nothing of the sort. You sir are a liar.
 
Sean Renaud said:
You can't actually be stupid enough to believe that CAN happen.
Click to expand...

The only problem with communism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money. You're right about that my scenario being unrealistic though.... I'd starve before I'd collect welfare.
 
lascivious87 said:
The only problem with communism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money. You're right about that my scenario being unrealistic though.... I'd starve before I'd collect welfare.
Click to expand...

That's a quote about socialism, you retard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
MAGAs try to pass a budget
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
M
Payments on the National Debt
Replies
3
Views
297
adrina
adrina
JohnEngelman
A conservative condemns Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, by John Engelman
Replies
7
Views
426
JohnEngelman
JohnEngelman
JohnEngelman
How Supply Side Economics Exploded the National Debt While Increasing Economic Inequality, by John Engelman
Replies
0
Views
283
JohnEngelman
JohnEngelman
someoneyouknow
Con artist tax cuts are a failure. Just like him.
Replies
2
Views
371
someoneyouknow
someoneyouknow
Back
Top