Posted on 08/07/2011 1:53:18 PM PDT by MsLady
What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A made-up tax cut amount as an “expenditure”?
What a fool. What a clown.
Every Washington policy is measured and evaluated on how much it will cost to government or how much it will impact deficit. Why not measure them on how much they will cost to private sector and tax-payers? Because each of Obama’s initiative and policy costs tons to the private sector - that should be the true litmus test of any government policy and regulation.
They should be called the Bush-Obama tax cuts. Obama could’ve let them expire. He didn’t.
Tax cuts are an incurred debt. okaaay.
Thanks so much for the info. This will come in quite handy ;)
WOW, there is so much meat in the bible. I’ve read the bible over and over again and don’t remember seeing this tasty little treat, thanks ;)
When you start a new job and there’s a steaming bag of stink on the desk, it’s the prior occupant’s fault.
When it’s still there two years later, and accompanied by a couple more such bags, it’s not the prior occupant’s fault.
Last three years under Clinton
1998 - 1,017 - 1,721
1999 - 1,064 - 1,827
2000 - 1,211 - 2,025
Eight years under Bush
2001 - 1,145 - 1,991
2002 - 1,006 - 1,853
2003 - 925 - 1,782
2004 - 998 - 1,880
2005 - 1,205 - 2,153
2006 - 1,398 - 2,407
2007 - 1,533 - 2,568
2008 - 1,450 - 2,524
First two years under Obama
2009 - 1,053 - 2,105
2010 - 1,154 - 2,173
What I was amazed at was the difference in revenues between the Clinton years and after the Bush tax cuts. The media always says the Bush tax cuts reversed the "Clinton Surplus". In reality, the revenues were larger under Bush. Unfortunately, he had to deal with 911, the Iraq war, and he the congress implemented homeland security and put prescription drug benefits into medicare which made goverment spending skyrocket more than the increased revenues.
Thank you so much, I’m going to post this to my fb page. So many dumbies out there and people who just plan don’t know anything when it comes to what’s going on. They will fall for anything unless they know the truth.
Oh, can you provide a link for me to post on my fb from the Fed’s website please?
Well right out of the gate, Tax cuts are listed as spending under Bush.
If My employer cuts my paycheck my accountant counts that as less income, not more bills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.