No worries. I'm not pissed; I'm rejoicing since I have the ability to reason, which I can admittedly take for granted, until I see your uninformed ramblings.
Sure you don't want to brag about Bush's lack of leadership again? This seems like a good spot...
zappasguitar
Well-known member
You are so full of shit!
Listen to the partisan hack and his claim that there was a "precipitous" drop in the unemployment rate after the Bush tax cuts...LOL...if only!
AFTER the Bush tax cuts from 2001 were passed..."The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001", passed June 7, 2001, unemployment went UP!
Here are the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
The next round..."The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", was passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 28, 2003, FINALLY started to bring the numbers down from 6.3...however, Bush NEVER SAW NUMBERS AS LOW as he had at the beginning of his first term...BUT IF LOW TAXES CREATE JOBS, THEN WHY DID UNEMPLOYMENT GO UP?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Claims that Republicans make to bolster their support for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich show they either don't understand the data that's available or they're banking on a few super-rich small businesses and many more very wealthy investors to take their tax cuts and trickle the effect down onto the rest of the economy.
That's not an efficient method for creating jobs or boosting the lackluster economic recovery—as we experienced during the jobless recovery after the Bush tax cuts were first enacted.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/13/jobs-and-the-big-bush-tax-cut-bamboozle
That's not an efficient method for creating jobs or boosting the lackluster economic recovery—as we experienced during the jobless recovery after the Bush tax cuts were first enacted.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/13/jobs-and-the-big-bush-tax-cut-bamboozle
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What do you expect?
Dixie stated right here on these boards that he refuses to read or watch anything with information that might conflict with his already narrow view.
He's stated numerous times that his tiny mind is "closed" and he refuses to let in any new information.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The Republican plan is an exceedingly efficient way to oblige Americans in the coming decade to pay the cost of borrowing $830 billion so that the wealthiest Americans can enjoy another tax cut courtesy of the Republican Party.
Talk about budget-busting!
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/13/jobs-and-the-big-bush-tax-cut-bamboozle?PageNr=2
Talk about budget-busting!
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/13/jobs-and-the-big-bush-tax-cut-bamboozle?PageNr=2
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... seriously?
After the 2001 tax cuts, are you seriously claiming it was the tax cuts that caused unemployment to go up in the last quarter? Not 9/11, but the tax cuts? THAT is what you want to pretend was the cause?
As for 2003, the tax cuts enacted at the end of MAY as you stated.... the unemployment rate in JUNE went up.... did you really think they were going to have an IMMEDIATE affect? Take a look at the REST of 2003. What happened to the unemployment rate AFTER JUNE? Notice a particular direction it was heading?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Did you see anywhere in my post where I claimed it was the 01 tax cuts that caused unemployment to climb in 2001? One wonders why then you'd make such a ridiculous statement?
Maybe because your just a partisan hack who refuses to admit that the RightWing mantra that lower taxes creates jobs is just plain bullshit?
Maybe you could climb up Dixie's ass for his outlandish claims that unemployment under the Shrub "dropped precipitously to 4%" after the Bush tax cuts were enacted?
Nope, you'd rather play word games and make up bullshit so you can taunt another poster...we understand.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Bush said tax cuts would create jobs.
Boehner, McConnell and Cantor all chant the same refrain.
Perry, Bachmann and Romney sing the same tune.
Tax cuts have been in continuous effect for over a decade.
Where are the jobs?
Boehner, McConnell and Cantor all chant the same refrain.
Perry, Bachmann and Romney sing the same tune.
Tax cuts have been in continuous effect for over a decade.
Where are the jobs?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Obviously, if anyone had an actual answer, as opposed to the same old deflections and evasions, they'd answer...the silence speaks volumes!
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Over 10 years ago, Bush said that tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
He got them
Then Bush said that more tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
He got them.
Then Bush said that more tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
He got them.
Then the GOP said that extending the Bush tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
They got the extension.
Where is the prosperity?
Where are the jobs?
He got them
Then Bush said that more tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
He got them.
Then Bush said that more tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
He got them.
Then the GOP said that extending the Bush tax cuts would produce prosperity and jobs.
They got the extension.
Where is the prosperity?
Where are the jobs?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What they REALLY meant, but wouldn't say out loud is that...
They wanted and got prosperity...for THEMSELVES.
They wanted and got jobs...for THEMSELVES!
The American public doesn't matter in the least to Righties.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
10 years ago, George W. Bush signed the first of his large tax cuts into law, which President Obama temporarily extended last December.
And get this: In those 10 years -- under two different presidents and after more tax cuts -- the U.S. economy has lost a net of 1.1 million jobs.
Those 1.1 million jobs lost -- compared with more than 20 million jobs added during higher tax rates in the 1990s -- make the argument that lower taxes aren't always a guarantee for economic growth and job expansion.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/07/6806873-judging-the-bush-tax-cuts-10-years-later
And get this: In those 10 years -- under two different presidents and after more tax cuts -- the U.S. economy has lost a net of 1.1 million jobs.
Those 1.1 million jobs lost -- compared with more than 20 million jobs added during higher tax rates in the 1990s -- make the argument that lower taxes aren't always a guarantee for economic growth and job expansion.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/07/6806873-judging-the-bush-tax-cuts-10-years-later
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
since \\\troll/// claims people who ignore his posts and don't answer his questions have been PWNED, since he only responds to my posts to insult me and is too scared to answer the tough questions or discuss the tough issues i raise
i pwned the troll
i pwned the troll
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
then i can take your failure to address the dem thread as the same.....right
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
From 2001-2005, President Bush oversaw the slowest five-year period of economic growth since World War II; the following five years, with help from the downturn, were even worse.
Bush also presided over the first decline in median household incomes since the 1960s.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105100002
Bush also presided over the first decline in median household incomes since the 1960s.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105100002
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Probably because you stated "AFTER the Bush tax cuts from 2001 were passed..."The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001", passed June 7, 2001, unemployment went UP!"
How ever could I have thought you were trying to tie the two together?
Lower taxes is a stimulus effort that does indeed tend to create jobs. The unemployment rate did trend down after the second set of cuts. We remained at full employment until the financial crisis reared up. That said, tax cuts only work LONG term if there are corresponding spending cuts. Without them you end up with increased deficit spending. A point I have reiterated time and again on this site. So you can take YOUR partisan bullshit and shove it up your ass.
Again... you clearly were trying to tie the tax cuts to the increases in unemployment, otherwise what was your point of posting.... ".BUT IF LOW TAXES CREATE JOBS, THEN WHY DID UNEMPLOYMENT GO UP?"
Unemployment did NOT go up due to the tax cuts. PERIOD. It went up in 2001 due to 9/11. It went DOWN after the 2003 tax cuts.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Americans still blame President George W. Bush for the dismal state of the economy, according to a poll released Thursday, findings that help explain why President Obama's re-election hopes remain unchanged amid widespread economic turmoil.
The Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 51 percent of those surveyed said Bush should bear the brunt of the blame for the stagnant economy.
In comparison, 31 percent say Obama is most responsible.
If that attitude persists, it could bolster the president's chances for re-election…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...rs-blame-bush-not-obama-economy#ixzz1XDAENnol
The Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 51 percent of those surveyed said Bush should bear the brunt of the blame for the stagnant economy.
In comparison, 31 percent say Obama is most responsible.
If that attitude persists, it could bolster the president's chances for re-election…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...rs-blame-bush-not-obama-economy#ixzz1XDAENnol