Score one for the Constitution

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Yup, those tax cuts are HORRIBLE for the deficit, aren't they? Leaving people and businesses more of THEIR money to spend and stimulate the economy works yet again.

Tax receipts 25% higher than the same period in 2006...

And I'm richer than the average wino.

Quote

18% higher than the previous record in April 2001... that'd be for tax year 2000... hmmmm.

Compounded that represents less than 3% increase per year under Bush. Compare that to revenue increase during the Clinton years and it doesn't look very good. Throw in the mountain of additional debt Bush has saddled us with and it looks pathetic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Yup, those tax cuts are HORRIBLE for the deficit, aren't they? Leaving people and businesses more of THEIR money to spend and stimulate the economy works yet again.

Tax receipts 25% higher than the same period in 2006...

And I'm richer than the average wino.

Quote

18% higher than the previous record in April 2001... that'd be for tax year 2000... hmmmm.

Compounded that represents less than 3% increase per year under Bush. Compare that to revenue increase during the Clinton years and it doesn't look very good. Throw in the mountain of additional debt Bush has saddled us with and it looks pathetic.

I'd say it's pretty damn good after having to recover from the Clinton recession, the post 9/11 on top of THAT, *AND* while having to pay for a war.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

*AND* while having to pay for a war.

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that.... but that has not worked out so well.. so its the Chinese who are financing it for us... but your children and their children will be paying for that.. not you.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Yup, those tax cuts are HORRIBLE for the deficit, aren't they? Leaving people and businesses more of THEIR money to spend and stimulate the economy works yet again.

Tax receipts 25% higher than the same period in 2006...

And I'm richer than the average wino.

Quote

18% higher than the previous record in April 2001... that'd be for tax year 2000... hmmmm.

Compounded that represents less than 3% increase per year under Bush. Compare that to revenue increase during the Clinton years and it doesn't look very good. Throw in the mountain of additional debt Bush has saddled us with and it looks pathetic.

I'd say it's pretty damn good after having to recover from the Clinton recession, the post 9/11 on top of THAT, *AND* while having to pay for a war.

ROFL!
I can't believe you are serious. No one HAD to pay for the war in Iraq, it was completely OPTIONAL (not to mention that it was sold to the US public based on falsehoods).

Govt. revenues increased consistently during the Clinton years, even after correcting for inflation and population growth.

Even Bush's own economists agree.

www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061023&s=chait102306

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Govt. revenues increased consistently during the Clinton years, even after correcting for inflation and population growth.

Even Bush's own economists agree.

CDIF? You're answering a question that wasn't asked...

Where did I say that revenues DIDN'T increase during Clinton's terms? All I stated what that tax receipts were at a record level, AFTER a tax cut.

As for your link...another one of those supposed "consensus" things, hmmm?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make this statement.

Therefore I can't respond to your post, but be assured, I'm both laughing and crying at the depth of knowledge within it.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Govt. revenues increased consistently during the Clinton years, even after correcting for inflation and population growth.

Even Bush's own economists agree.

CDIF? You're answering a question that wasn't asked...

Where did I say that revenues DIDN'T increase during Clinton's terms? All I stated what that tax receipts were at a record level, AFTER a tax cut.

ONLY if you ignore inflation and population growth, which you do consistently. There is NO evidence that tax cuts were responsible for anything except revenue loss for the first four years. Plenty of evidence that out of control spending (way outpacing revenue) combined with the tax cuts is responsible for the Bush deficit legacy.

Don't like my source? How about these?

“It is very rare and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues.”
– Former Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan
Testimony before House Budget Committee
September 8, 2004

“I don’t think that, as a general rule, that tax cuts pay for themselves.”
–Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Testimony before Joint Economic Committee
April 27, 2006

“As a general matter, most tax cuts do not pay for themselves.”
; OMB Director Nominee Rob Portman
Written Response to Questions Submitted
Prior to Senate Budget Committee
Nomination Hearing
May 10, 2006

“[There is] no credible evidence that tax
revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates.”
“[An economist claiming tax cuts pay for
themselves is like a] snake oil salesman who
is trying to sell a miracle cure.”
– Former Chairman of President Bush's Council of
Economic Advisers N. Gregory Mankiw
Introductory college economics textbook,
“Principles of Economics,” 1998

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Now, after your search, post the comments and names of those who think otherwise. Or do you dare?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

I never CLAIMED to be a economist - again, ALL I'M DOING IS REPEATING WHAT THE DAMN ARTICLE SAID!

Rather disengenious of you both - there's no problem with spouting off about any Democratic financial talking point exactly as it was printed in the papers, but when someone posts an article that ISNT slamming the Republicans and the questions pour in.

Disgusting - it can't be good news unless it makes the Republicans look bad, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I never CLAIMED to be a economist - again, ALL I'M DOING IS REPEATING WHAT THE DAMN ARTICLE SAID!

without citation and actually attributing it to me. That's just basic writing. I've merely asked you to show that the articles even exist.

And good luck showing that I accept "democratic financial talking points" at face value. But since the GOP had both houses for the past 12 years and the White House for 6, it's hard to find anything about the Democrats that doesn't show fiscal responsibility compared to their opposing party.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Govt. revenues increased consistently during the Clinton years, even after correcting for inflation and population growth.

Even Bush's own economists agree.

CDIF? You're answering a question that wasn't asked...

Where did I say that revenues DIDN'T increase during Clinton's terms? All I stated what that tax receipts were at a record level, AFTER a tax cut.

I think you really hit a nerve. Almost all of the rebuttals have contained some effort to go off tangent.

Good one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

*AND* while having to pay for a war.

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that.

Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I never CLAIMED to be a economist - again, ALL I'M DOING IS REPEATING WHAT THE DAMN ARTICLE SAID!

without citation and actually attributing it to me. That's just basic writing. I've merely asked you to show that the articles even exist.

And good luck showing that I accept "democratic financial talking points" at face value.

While you may not be a duck, walking and talking like one does have an impact.

Quote

But since the GOP had both houses for the past 12 years

According to who? Arianna Huffington? Markos Moulitsas?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

How much does that work out per living American?

I think it's about $5.62 each,

Give or take $560.00 LOL

Ooops. Got lost in the zeros I guess. When they get that high that's when the fuzzy math kicks in. Apparently larger debt figures are more acceptable. That reminds me, I wonder when they're going to increase the debt ceiling again. Gotta be any day now.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

*AND* while having to pay for a war.

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that.

Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth.

You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"?
When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just about the amount of only the most recent, off budget "emergency" spending request?

It's easier to make a list of the things they got right.
1).....

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

*AND* while having to pay for a war.

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that.

Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth.

You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"?
When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".

I see. It's simply a matter of filling in the blank with the most inflamatory option. I love it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth.

Wow now you are calling the White House a bunch of lefties???

They were the ones who were trumpeting that as a talking point about their excellent adventure.

And look who is calling names...tsk tsk tsk.. that the best you got ???

[NCclimber 0]

The White House said we were going to pay for the war in Iraq with Iraqi oil? Quote please.

BTW Has the supposedly corrupt administration used a single barrel of Iraqi oil to pay for our military efforts over there?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"?
When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".

I see. It's simply a matter of filling in the blank with the most inflamatory option. I love it.

What chu talkin' 'bout Willis? Everything they said about this war fits that description. They were wrong about ever assertion. Gotta love the internet. It's a great way to illustrate how they make themselves look like idiots.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"?
When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".

I see. It's simply a matter of filling in the blank with the most inflamatory option. I love it.

What chu talkin' 'bout Willis? Everything they said about this war fits that description. They were wrong about ever assertion. Gotta love the internet. It's a great way to illustrate how they make themselves look like idiots.

I see.

You want to make this about the war in Iraq being a quagmire, effectively sidestepping the point of Iraqi oil (not) funding our presence ther.

Lay on, Macduff.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

*AND* while having to pay for a war.

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that.

Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth.

You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"?
When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong".

I see. It's simply a matter of filling in the blank with the most inflamatory option. I love it.

So what do YOU think Wolfowitz meant? That Iraqi soybeans would pay for the war? Cattle? Tomatoes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The White House said we were going to pay for the war in Iraq with Iraqi oil? Quote please.

I tried earlier but you didn't seem to like it. How about this one from Wolfy in 2003?

"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The White House said we were going to pay for the war in Iraq with Iraqi oil? Quote please.

I tried earlier but you didn't seem to like it. How about this one from Wolfy in 2003?

"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Before the righties ask for a cite, that was from Wolfowitz's testimony to Congress, March 27, 2003.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I see.

You want to make this about the war in Iraq being a quagmire, effectively sidestepping the point of Iraqi oil (not) funding our presence ther.

Lay on, Macduff.

If I had read this before I posted my last post I would have levied a hearty "Boooooyahhhh" at the end of it. But to answer this one, no. All of their pre and most of their post war claims have all been utter bullshit. Especially with regard to their sales pitch for the war, they got EVERYTHING wrong! Why we were going in, how many troops it was going to take, how long we were going to be there, how it was going to be paid for, that we weren't going to be occupiers, we know where the weapons are....blah blah blah. If you missed all of that then I understand why you take the positions you do. The rest of us heard it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The White House said we were going to pay for the war in Iraq with Iraqi oil? Quote please.

I tried earlier but you didn't seem to like it. How about this one from Wolfy in 2003?

"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Before the righties ask for a cite, that was from Wolfowitz's testimony to Congress, March 27, 2003.

And I hate to be the one to point it out, (ok, that's a lie) but Wolfy's pie in the sky estimates of oil revenues, if realized, might have covered ONE of our "emergency" spending requests.