Let's REALLY Compare Bush And Obama

For all the jaw flapping from the White House about how the "Bush Tax Cuts" hurt job growth, how about a dose of the truth for a change instead of propaganda and lies?

Get the picture?

Comments

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

This post of yours irked me greatly so I am going back to the well for a third time.

I went back and did a little math.

When Bush took office, Defense spending was approximately 400 billion. Since 2001 (10 years) expenditures have exceeded that annual budget by approx. 1.5 trillion
In education that figure for the past ten years has been approx. $500 billion more. The prescription drug program for the past ten years has cost approx. $600 billion.

That is 2.6 trillion.

These figures are just in added expense that Bush added to government expenditures in only three line items of the budget.

And that is subtracting out the already base lined budget from the previous recent years. This is over and above what was scheduled to be spent.

The Bush tax cuts over that same time (10 years) are estimated to have saved tax payers just under $1 trillion.

There is no other word to describe this other than ... slavery.

You are supporting policies that promote slavery.

My kids will work hard and receive nothing in return. What do you call that?
I call it slavery.

God Bless

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Once upon a time there was a land divided into three kingdoms, all of which figured out a way to securitize their unborn citizen’s future labor and net worth and use it as collateral to borrow and spend on its current citizens.

The first kingdom decided that it would spend this borrowed money on fish to feed its most needy of citizens.

The second kingdom decided that it would spend this borrowed money to help train its most needy of citizens how to fish.

The third kingdom decided that the important issue was not on how to spend the wealth gained by selling their children and grandchildren into slavery to the moneychangers. The question the third kingdom thought was most important was whether to ban slavery even if it meant some people would starve and the powerful could no longer enrich their family and friends.

Obama wants to hand out fish.

GWB paid some people to teach the needy people how to fish.

I say they both engage in the slave trade.
I thought the slavery issue was settled with the 14th amendment. I guess I was wrong.

I guess you could call me a single issue voter. I would call myself an optimist.

You see … In my mind … If my fellow citizens wish to live in a society completely contrary to the one in which I wish to live and raise kids … As long as slavery has been abolished in all aspects … eventually I will have my turn. I have the laws of mathematics on my side.

If you want the government to hand out welfare to the needy … go ahead.

If you want the government to hand out welfare to the rich in order to employ the needy … go ahead.

Eventually that stuff stops …
AS LONG AS SLAVERY IS NOT PERMITTED.
Eventually that stuff stops …
AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOUND MONEY.
Eventually that stuff stops …
WHEN THE FED NO LONGER EXISTS.
As a bonus … the endless wars will also end.

God Bless

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Once again ...

You revert to talking points.

What is that axiom called? The one which states that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct?

It comes down to math. Very simple.

When did the GWB administration begin to ramp up deficit spending? Check that chart and then cross check it with the chart you provided above.

Of course your "talking point" argument has some credibility because you are allowing the productive sector to keep more of its money, but 95% of the growth can be directly attributed to the additional deficit spending that the administration added to the economy (Healthcare/drug program, Education, and building more kill machines).

Let me fill all your readers in on a little secret ...

Since the early 1970s (break down of Bretton Woods) virtually every dime of sustained GDP growth has come from Federal Government deficit spending (i.e. the printing presses). And that can't go on forever because that is a direct tax on main street and a tax credit to Wall Street. That means it is going to end very badly (A very violent Revolution) unless the ship is righted politically.

It's time to choose the strong medicine ...folks ... before the prognosis is terminal.

We are going on forty years of this crap and the wealth gap has steadily increased (not because of capitalism but because of crony capitalism), but it is beginning to spike and as my college professors used to say "the only way to start a Revolution is via a sudden and drastic drop in the standard of living"

When the FED begins to run out of tools and slowly loses control of the slow burn ... watch out.

Marcus you are doing a disservice to your country because of your loyalties to your status-quo Republican friends.

God Bless

[Bill Adkins]

No, no, no -- the Housing Market and it's white hot boom helped drive that employment -- and when that bubble burst it went with it. BTW, revenue fell and the economy grew much slower than it should have, almost foretelling 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?_r=0

"Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.

In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/