westvirginia Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So we can clearly not trust anything the CBO does? Good to know next time you quote them in support of your crusade to end the evil gubmnet rampage of the ANti-christ Obama . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 If this was so truthful, then why is it an OPINION article by a member of the Heritage Foundation: One would think this would be front page news across the spectrum that would call for the tax cuts to cointinue!!!! All hail the right wing spin doctors at the Heritage Foundation!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 If this was so truthful, then why is it an OPINION article by a member of the Heritage Foundation: One would think this would be front page news across the spectrum that would call for the tax cuts to cointinue!!!! All hail the right wing spin doctors at the Heritage Foundation!!! Thought I'd post something in here so it didn't appear that your senility had officially kicked in and were talking to yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 Wasn't John Kerry a war hero. We must believe him. He can do no wrong and tell no lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So we can clearly not trust anything the CBO does? I don't think so. I think we've all learned that their projections are not based on any reality we'd describe. The old computer addage "crap in, crap out" applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So we can clearly not trust anything the CBO does? The CBO is a lot like Rolling Stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So what you're telling us is the tax cuts were an even more irresponsible act than we thought given that those revenue projections were overly optimistic? Thanks for reaffirming the fiscal incompetence of the the Bush regime. I'm sure that's what you were going for right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So what you're telling us is the tax cuts were an even more irresponsible act than we thought given that those revenue projections were overly optimistic? Thanks for reaffirming the fiscal incompetence of the the Bush regime. I'm sure that's what you were going for right? Are those the same tax cuts Obama is looking to extend? Some yahoo from his cabinet was on TV Sunday talking about extending all of the Bush cuts - not just those for households earning under $200k. "A serious case can be made for doing that considering the state of the economy." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 I don't think so. I think we've all learned that their projections are not based on any reality we'd describe. The old computer addage "crap in, crap out" applies. Are you talking about the Heritage Foundation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 Are you talking about the Heritage Foundation? So, something can only be factual if it comes from NOW, the chair of the DNC, the current white house press secretary, Obama himself, a member of the democrat party or an "independent" climate research panel? I'm just checking to see which sources I can cite things from, please feel free to add any I may have missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 Are those the same tax cuts Obama is looking to extend? Some yahoo from his cabinet was on TV Sunday talking about extending all of the Bush cuts - not just those for households earning under $200k. "A serious case can be made for doing that considering the state of the economy." I actually agree with the yahoo, at least for the next couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So, something can only be factual if it comes from NOW, the chair of the DNC, the current white house press secretary, Obama himself, a member of the democrat party or an "independent" climate research panel? I'm just checking to see which sources I can cite things from, please feel free to add any I may have missed. The only factual sources that should be accepted by all is the Rev. Moon's Washington Times and World Net Daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So, something can only be factual if it comes from NOW, the chair of the DNC, the current white house press secretary, Obama himself, a member of the democrat party or an "independent" climate research panel? GMOZ!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 The only factual sources that should be accepted by all is the Rev. Moon's Washington Times and World Net Daily. Noted and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 GMOZ!! C'mon, man, I at least respond to your posts with an actual reply... You could at least extend the same courtesy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 You could at least extend the same courtesy to me. I didnt' think it was worthy of a reply, so you should really feel honored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 I didnt' think it was worthy of a reply, so you should really feel honored. I am always worthy of a reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. Very weak. So like bushwacker said, I guess we can't trust the CBO. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007. Runaway spending like Cheney's Haliburton charging $100 to do a load of laundry? Or maybe the unjustified war in Iraq when we have real problems at home? The real threat was the Taliban. Not Saddam's army of flying camels that could drop nukes anywhere around the world. how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion).... So it wasn't Bush's fault, but the old and the poor who have all the power of deciding the budget? Gotcha. Edited July 14, 2010 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So, something can only be factual if it comes from NOW, the chair of the DNC, the current white house press secretary, Obama himself, a member of the democrat party or an "independent" climate research panel? I'm just checking to see which sources I can cite things from, please feel free to add any I may have missed. It was an OPINION article. OPINION. Op-eds are great in where they dont have actual footnotes or citable research, cause y'know . . its just my OPINION. verifiable research often contains citations and references to the actual documents where the information was cherry picked from. I can post on op-ed that can be "factual" but at the same time intellectually dishonest, which when it comes to purely partisan organizations like the DNC, GOP, Heritage Foundation or Keith Olbermann . . . often is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 It was an OPINION article. OPINION. Op-eds are great in where they dont have actual footnotes or citable research, cause y'know . . its just my OPINION. verifiable research often contains citations and references to the actual documents where the information was cherry picked from. I can post on op-ed that can be "factual" but at the same time intellectually dishonest, which when it comes to purely partisan organizations like the DNC, GOP, Heritage Foundation or Keith Olbermann . . . often is. So prove it wrong - I don't have the time right now but did the 5.6 trillion surplus exist - yes or no? Did the CBO make projections on tax revenue that did not come true? Yes it may be OPINION but that OPINION could be accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 So prove it wrong - I don't have the time right now but did the 5.6 trillion surplus exist - yes or no? Did the CBO make projections on tax revenue that did not come true? Yes it may be OPINION but that OPINION could be accurate. I really dont want to waste my time refuting an OPINION article. if it was legit, then mainstream news orgs would be all over it. But sadly enough, like most op-eds, it will say as such. If you have that much time to dig up info on op-eds gbfan, have at it . . . and good luck finding his citations for where he got his information . . Or should I post some outlandish statement, sprinkle some misrepresented facts that I twist for partisan reasons, and then challeneg YOU to "prove my opinion article wrong"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 Very weak. So like bushwacker said, I guess we can't trust the CBO No, I think Bushwhank said GAZONMG, or something witty like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 I really dont want to waste my time refuting an OPINION article. if it was legit, then mainstream news orgs would be all over it. But sadly enough, like most op-eds, it will say as such. If you have that much time to dig up info on op-eds gbfan, have at it . . . and good luck finding his citations for where he got his information . . Or should I post some outlandish statement, sprinkle some misrepresented facts that I twist for partisan reasons, and then challeneg YOU to "prove my opinion article wrong"? Just like the mainstream media was all over Van Jones, the Black Panther/DOJ, etc..? Seriously when has the CBO not been overly optimistic? I can't think of a single time where there projections were more pessimistic than what actually ended up occurring. Can you think of any of significance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 Just like the mainstream media was all over Van Jones, the Black Panther/DOJ, etc..? Seriously when has the CBO not been overly optimistic? I can't think of a single time where there projections were more pessimistic than what actually ended up occurring. Can you think of any of significance? And not only the CBO. In the December 13, 2002, briefing, deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the "'the cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.'" [7] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.