Phreakwars really got me when he said new taxes on tobacco and tanning beds did not count as new taxes.......I don't care where the new tax is imposed, it is a new tax, but because the new tax is on something Phreakwars does not like, that is not considered a new tax.......the Progressive mind is difficult to understand sometimes.
Anyway, even if we don't count the new taxes Phreakwars says don't count, we still have new taxes on medical devices, new taxes on health insurance, and new taxes on gold sales, massive deficit spending, the list goes on for a long time but all of it represents increased taxes from consumers.
And you wonder why he thinks you're an idiot? Oh, and I hope you like long posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
President Bush implemented three tax cuts during his term in office: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) reducing taxes by $1.6 Trillion Dollars, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA) reducing taxes by an additional $1.8 Trillion Dollars, and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) reducing taxes by $70 billion.
During his first term, Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval for three major tax cuts.
These temporary cuts, scheduled to expire a decade after passage, increased the standard income tax deduction for married couples, eliminated the estate tax, and reduced marginal tax rates. The cuts are currently scheduled to expire a decade after passage. Bush has asked Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, but
others want the cuts to be wholly or partially repealed even before their scheduled expiration, seeing the decrease in revenue while increasing spending as fiscally irresponsible.
Bush's supporters claim that the tax cuts increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation. They also claim that total benefits to wealthier individuals are a reflection of higher taxes paid. Individual income tax rate provisions in the 2001 law, for instance, created larger marginal tax rate decreases for people earning less than US$12,000 than any other earners.[51]
His opponents contest job prediction claims, primarily noting that the increase in job creation predicted by Bush's plan failed to materialize. They instead allege that the purpose of the tax cuts was intended to favor the wealthy and special interests, as the majority of benefit from the tax cut, in absolute terms, went to earners in the higher tax brackets. Bush's opponents additionally claim that the tax cuts are a major reason Bush reversed a national surplus into a historic deficit.
In an open letter to Bush in 2004, more than 100 professors of business and economics at U.S. business schools ascribed this "fiscal reversal" to Bush's "policy of slashing taxes - primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution."[52]
By 2004, these cuts had reduced federal tax revenues, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, to the lowest level since 1959. The effect of simultaneous record increases in spending and tax reductions was to create record budget deficits in absolute terms, though as recently as 1993, the deficit was slightly larger than the current 3.6% of the GDP.
In the last year of the Clinton administration, the federal budget showed an annual surplus of more than US$230 billion.[53] Under Bush, the government returned to deficit spending. The annual deficit reached an absolute record of US$374 billion in 2003 and then a further record of $413 billion in 2004.[54][55]
Spending
President Bush expanded public spending by 70 percent, more than double the increase under President Clinton. Bush was the first president in 176 years to continue an entire term without vetoing any legislation.[56]
The tax cuts, recession, and increases in outlays all contributed to record budget deficits during the Bush administration. The annual deficit reached record current-dollar levels of US$374 billion in 2003 and US$413 billion in 2004. National debt, the cumulative total of yearly deficits, rose from US$5.7 trillion (58% of GDP) to US$8.3 trillion (67% of GDP) under Bush,[57] as compared to the US$2.7 trillion total debt owed when Ronald Reagan left office, which was 52% of the GDP.[58]
According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget Projections,[59]
the budget deficits will decrease over the next several years. In this projection the deficit will fall to US$368 billion in 2005, US$261 billion in 2007, and US$207 billion in 2009, with a small surplus by 2012. The CBO noted, however, that this projection "omits a significant amount of spending that will occur this year ? and possibly for some time to come ? for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities related to the global War on Terrorism."
The projection also assumes that the Bush tax cuts "will expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010."
If, as Bush has urged, the tax cuts were to be extended, then "the budget outlook for 2015 would change from a surplus of US$141 billion to a deficit of US$282 billion."
Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and a half years. Non-defense spending increased 18% in that time.[60] Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about US$450 billion are planned to be spent on defense. This level is generally comparable to the defense spending during the cold war.[61] Congress approved US$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in November, and had approved an earlier US$79 billion package last spring. Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries.
----------------------------------------------
I guess you now want to waffle on at length about how Obama should not be compared to Bush?
What would you prefer to compare him to? A bucket of rocks?
The only comparison a president has, it to his predecessor, who handed him the seat by losing the election, for grossly outspending his welcome, among other things.
You'll be back in the box within the month if you don't wise up and read, arsehole. :nuke:
