The US needs to borrow almost $300 billion this week

Care to speculate how much less the federal debt would be if Bush hadn't cut taxes on the rich?

 

No I don't and no it didn't. His tax rate cut produced the biggest increase in tax revenues in modern history 15% and helped bring the deficit down to a measly $161B for 2007. You are the one who is confused. It was the Democrats who then increased spending 9% and then 18% taking the deficit up to $1,400B in just two years not Republicans.

 

It would have been more. The tax rate cuts helped produce a HUGE increase in business activities and putting people to work paying taxes. Capital gains revenues were double that under Clinton at half his rate for instance.

 

That is nonsense. Look at revenues for the years after Bush's tax cuts.

 

Barney Frank (D) claimed that Freddie and Fannie were in "great shape." It was Democrats who were in charge of oversight of Freddie and Fannie.

You have the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 that lit the fuse for the financial institutions collapse in 2008 and Obama huffed and puffed and made that housing bubble even bigger back in 1998.

 

Nonsense tax revenues went up for one year. You are still confusing revenue with spending. Learn the difference!

 

Sorry but you are ignorant of what caused the collapse. It wasn't Fannie or Freddie it was collateralization of mortgage obligations. Do some research and educate yourself!

 

Yes, it's important to see the difference between how much the gang extorts and how much the gang spends. The difference is how much the gang earns in profit.

 

Look at who some of those Dems and a few Repubs who didn't support it.

- NOES 90 ---
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Carson
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
DeGette
Dingell
Doyle
Fattah
Flake
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Mack
Maloney
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Musgrave
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Royce
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Simpson
Solis
Stark
Tancredo
Towns
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

 

Good analogy although the government gang hasn't actually earned a profit since Clinton!

 

The "state" is nothing more than a gang writ large.

 

And here's links to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2009-04-02/html/CREC-2009-04-02-pt1-PgH4498.htm page HR4500

 

It's questionable how much the "recession" crashed revenue in 2001. In that year, the economy grew 3.3%, 1.0% real.

 

The facts, versus spin

Year - Revenues
1992 1,091.2
1993 1,154.3
1994 1,258.6
1995 1,351.8
1996 1,453.1
1997 1,579.2
1998 1,721.7
1999 1,827.5
2000 2,025.2

2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.1
2002 1,853.1
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,406.9
2007 2,568.0
2008 2,524.0

Revenues increased almost 100% after the Clinton tax increase, but only about 25% during Bush's term, after tanking by an unprecedented hundreds of billions with the Bush tax cuts.

Only in the Bluesguy world of conservative fantasy could it be said that "His [Bush's] tax rate cut produced the biggest increase in tax revenues in modern history ..."

 

Well as Trump may prove if the government spends enough money and increases the debt enough the GDP may increase!

 

So stealing more of people's money is a good thing?

 

And over 60% of the Dems supported the only Republican bill that passed a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress before the Bush WH killed it.

So what's your point?

 

So beating your wife is a good thing?

 

No. I'm pointing out the fallacy of the claim that a "recession" in 2001 is what caused revenues to tank by hundreds of billions from 2001-04.

 

No beating your wife is not a good thing.

And now, maybe you can tell us whether some people stealing other people's money is a good thing?

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

I thought the Democrats killed it in the Senate ?

 

The Bush recession was 2001?

 

What part of "Bush crash" don't you understand?

 

You're welcome.

It sucks though how all these statists use violence to steal other people's property.

But you're okay with these poopie-heads, right. You like taking other people's property to achieve your own ends?