What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy

[DeclinetoState]

Harry Truman said, "No man should be allowed to be president who doesn't understand hogs." That's never been more true than it will be for the man or woman who walks into the White House on January 20, 2009.

If you've ever entered an enclosed, industrialized hog facility where hundreds of fattening porcines live out their short lives, you know that the smell of pig excrement completely redefines "stink." This stench will knock you to your knees, sear your lungs and brain, and make you scream for mercy. . . .

The 3 biggest hits to the economy


BUSH'S TAX CUTS for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs by $300 billion each year.
BUSHCHENEY'S OCCUPATION of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million a day. Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over $2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the past seven years.
BUSHITES HAVE FINISHED OFF the deregulation of banking that began in earnest during Bill Clinton's presidency.
More at Jim Hightower (http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603).

[Nutrider99]

I didn't have to read past "Tax cuts for the rich." to know that this fool had no clue what he was talking about.

[Kathy30]

Me either! I think the term "rich" applies to everyone not on welfare.

[TheIrishman]

I think "rich" applies to the top 5%??

And I agree. They didn't need a "refund" in a lower tax.

Until they get the taxes back to the level in 1942 they are just screwing around. And it screws the little guy.

[Nutrider99]

Everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. BTW, Anyone who thinks that the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent building of alliances with former enemies is not preferable to having them harbor and sponsor terrorists who launch attacks against our cities is a fool. If any democreep had done what this administration has done, they would be builing a monument to him right now.

[Kathy30]

If ecomonic answers are called for, it isn't questions about 8 years of Bush/Cheney, but TWO years of democrat control of Congress! Are you better or worse off than you were TWO years ago? Now democrats want MORE.

Did you notice how neither democrat could explain how tax revenues go up as capital gains taxes are cut? NEITHER of them. Instead they launched into a dissertation of RAISING capital gains taxes. Democrats aren't running on taxing the rich, but punishing everyone of us because some are rich and they will be punished too.

I'll tell you flatly and frankly, I'm glad there are rich people. I wish I was in an area where there are more rich people. Rich people buy things, they are the ones who pay me to groom their dogs. When I was a lawyer, they paid me to handle their legal matters. A country cannot run on poverty. That's Africa, it's South America, it's India.

[Kathy30]

Here ya go:

In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.

[Naturalized-Texan]

We should all remember that President Bush inherited from his predecessor a recession and a stock market in free fall, as well as the terrorist threat that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. Bush's tax cuts brought us out of that recession and brought unprecedented gains in the stock market (DJIA up from about 7,500 at its low point to nearly 13,000 today). The first quarter of this year marked the 26th consecutive quarter (6 1/2 years) of sustained economic growth.

[DeclinetoState]

Jim Hightower used to have an overnight radio talk show. I believe he was dumped in favor of Bernie Ward, also a flaming liberal but also far more obnoxious.

[BarkleUSA]

1. BUSH'S TAX CUTS for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs by $300 billion each year.

Umm, every single American that pays taxes benefited from the tax cuts. As for spending I don't know any conservatives defending Bush's spending record - and that he only vetoed one (1) bill in 7 years!

As the charts below reveal, what's needed is another Contract with America that forces Congress to be fiscally responsible.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_C/C-1.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_C/C-2.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_C/C-6.gif

Source (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartBook/charts_c/c1.cfm)

[Wyatt_Junker]

From a recent email...

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html (www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

Taxes under Clinton 1999: Taxes under Bush 2008:

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750


Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75k - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250


If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Most of the increase in discretionary spending under President Bush has been to rebuild the military, after 8 years of neglect, and to fight the War on Terror - World War IV - including homeland security. The rate of growth of non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending has declined since 2001 and such discretionary spending has been virtually flat for the past 2 or 3 years.

Mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP) is where the largest increases have taken place.

For example, here are some numbers from the FY 2009 Budget. Proposed spending for FY 2009:

Discretionary
--- National Security: $730 Billion
--- Non-Security: $484 Billion
Total Discretionary Spending: $1,202 Billion

Mandatory
--- Social Security: $644 Billion
--- Medicare: $408 Billion
--- Medicaid and SCHIP: $224 Billion
Total Mandatory Spending: $1,636 Billion

Net Interest: $260 Billion

Total FY 2009 Spending: $3,107 Billion

Looking at the projections through 2013, Discretionary Spending is projected to decline to $1,026 Billion, Mandatory Spending is projected to increase to $2,034 Billion, and Net Interest is projected to increase to $302 Billion. Total spending is projected to increase to $3,399 Billion.

[BarkleUSA]

Looking at Wyatt's numbers as a tax percent, a married couple making 60K (rich) paid 28% tax under Clinton and 15% under Bush.

The super rich married couple making 75K paid the same 28% as the 60K couple under Clinton (tax break for the rich?).

Under Bush that same rich married couple actually paid 10% more (25% vs 15%) compared to the married couple earning 60K (Bush soaking the rich).

So the TRUTH of the matter is that Bush taxed the rich more then Clinton did!!!

As for the super, super rich married couple earning 125K Clinton made them pay only 3% more then the 60K married couple (Clinton's tax breaks for the super, super rich?).

Bush made that same 125K couple pay 10% more (25% vs 15%) then the 60K couple - over three times the percentage increase when compared to Clinton (So it is Bush that is soaking the rich!).

Income Clinton Bush Clinton Bush
60000 $16,800 $9,000 28.00% 15.00%
75000 $21,000 $18,750 28.00% 25.00%
125000 $38,750 $31,250 31.00% 25.00%

[Nutrider99]

As for spending I don't know any conservatives defending Bush's spending record - and that he only vetoed one (1) bill in 7 years!
Too bad we didn't have conservatives controling spending when the Republicans held both houses of Congress, authorized every budget and signed off on every penny that was spent.

[Lubbock]

I didn't have to read past "Jim Hightower."

[DoctorDoom]

BUSH'S TAX CUTS for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs by $300 billion each year.And the clue-bereft arschloch "thinks" that's awful? What "public needs" are constitutionally addressable by the fedgov? What "public needs" expenditures have done anything whatsoever to reduce the "need" of the people for federal tax money? What feel-good liberal programs have actually achieved their purported purposes?

Hightower is just another blind, craniorectally-impacted, liberal fool whose opinions about anything are as relevant as a flea's fart in a wind tunnel.

[BarkleUSA]

A good start would be to deport all the illegals along with their anchor babies and save us 70 billion a year. - all money that should be refunded to the American Taxpayer along with an apology from the government for not doing their enumerated Constitutional duty.

Another good measure would be to end all farm subsidies paid to Manhattan farmers that get paid for not farming. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government has a right to take money from people's wages to give to people for not farming.

Also, why on earth are we still funding NPR with tax payer's money - a leftist propaganda organization spewing nonsense about global warming.

[Lazarus]

Man, this guy's foolish story got shot thru with so many holes we could market it as a swiss cheese...

And make more profits..............

And thus create more tax revenue for the government...............

Free Market economics in action...:thumb: