Bush lowered taxes while increasing spending under the brilliant position that “deficits don’t matter”.

bayam on March 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Obama’s doing the exact same thing to a far greater degree. I have seen absolutely no one from the left has had a problem with it.

Thomas Jefferson

1) Bush inherited a weak economy, that was made weaker after 9/11. Economists, even those of the left credit the tax cuts with rescuing the economy.

2) The budget was only balanced because SS surpluses were added to it.

3) It’s awful strange of you to complain about Bush’s deficits, while at the same time championing Obama’s, which are 10 times larger.

4) Bush’s deficits were coming down fast, until the Democrats took over congress.

Turbo Tax states that the income tax rates will reset to the 2001 rate

2001- when the federal budget was balanced? I mean, what do you really expect- that the nation continue adding to the already massive federal debt? Bush lowered taxes while increasing spending under the brilliant position that “deficits don’t matter”. If the US had entered this massive economic crisis with only $5 trillion in debt (what Clinton left behind along with an annual surplus), the US could enact much larger stimulus spending bills and force the economy back on track. But Bush and Cheney decided to take that option off the table for us by straddling the nation with so much debt that our options now are greatly limited.

Although I do agree with you that these policies do NOT live up to his campaign promises. I suspect that Obama will argue that the middle and lower income tax brackets will not be affected.

All the Democrats inherited from Bush was their own policy failures.

Looking forward to March’s 2 trillion in new debt financed spending.

No filibuster-proof majority.

sethstorm on February 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

So that is your defense?

The dems in control of congress and spending for the last two years.

Johan Klaus on February 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

No filibuster-proof majority.

sethstorm on February 28, 2009 at 7:39 PM

The dems in control of congress and spending for the last two years.

You were left a $160 billion deficit and a growing declining economy.

Chuck Schick on February 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM

“The economy really doesn’t have any momentum going into the first quarter,” Wachovia economist John Silvia said. “To the extent the economy may have been weaker, then the impact of the stimulus would be more muted.”

Which was the argument Krugman and others were making for a much larger stimulus package.

Thanks gop.

getalife on February 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The GOP sucks, but when it comes to useless stimulus that was all socialist/dems.

getalife on February 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Did the stimulus work when FDR tried it?

REGARDLESS of age and income, NO ONE LIKES HIGHER TAXES, and everyone’s taxes will rise to meet the Obama demands to spend.

It may be true that that segment of the population without heirs, the professionally single working class who avoid parenthood like a plague, love Obama along with the welfare loafers who refuse to work because they’ve got da man by da balls already, and a prolific drug trade on the side.

When all plays out, they will find themselves at the butt of loud majority‘s opinion. The “popularity” they deem themselves will be the opposite of their dream, having broken stability, opening Pandora’s Box.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Enough!

You idiots passed $600 billion in stimulus last year too. They dont work.

You guys have run Congress since January 2007. So for over 2 years youve been in charge of budgets, taxes, laws, regulations, oversight, banking committees, finance committees, banking committees, commerce committees and spending. All Bush could do was veto or play along.

You were left a $160 billion deficit and a growing economy.

If you had any aspirations in life beyond babbling fingerpointing dullard you would of course know that.