Let’s take a look at the budget deficits again, keeping in mind that the last Republican budget was the 2007 budget. In January of 2007, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, and all spending was in Democrat control until January of 2011, when the Republicans took back the House.
Next, let’s see what impact the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 had on tax revenue:
From the chart:
- Revenue in 2001 was 2.0 trillion in the year of the first round of tax cuts
- Revenue in 2003 was 1.8 trillion in the year of the second round of tax cuts
- Revenue then rose in each subsequent year, ending at 2.6 trillion in 2007, when the Democrats took over the House and Senate
- In 2007, Bush was only spending about 2.8 trillion – very close to what he was taking receiving in tax revenues
- The budget deficit went down in each year after both tax cuts were in place (2004), until the Democrats took over the House and Senate
- Obama is currently spending over 3.8 trillion per year, but he is only receiving about 2.2 trillion in revenue.
- It’s a spending problem, not a revenue problem
Doug Ross explains:
According to the OMB’s own figures, the Bush tax cuts resulted in an explosion of revenue to the U.S. government.
That’s not to say Bush wasn’t a profligate spender — he was. But in virtually no cases were Democrats arguing that he spend less (unless you count national security).
In fact, fiscal conservatives opposed Bush’s absurd policies on spending, amnesty and the expansion of Medicare.
But no one in world history has ever spent money like Barack Obama.
These statements are indisputable.
Which is why they are certain to be rejected by the diminishing cadre of Obama-Democrat drones, who appear to be completely immune to facts, logic and reason.
And let’s just see what happened to the unemployment rate since the Democrats took over spending in January of 2007:
There are a lot of people who don’t know about these numbers because they watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on the Comedy Channel, or Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz on MSNBC.
I actually spoke to someone who voted for Obama about these numbers. He said that 2.6 trillion in tax revenues was worse than 2.0 trillion in tax revenues. And he said that a 4.3% unemployment rate was WORSE than a 9.2% unemployment rate. And he also said that a $160 billion dollar deficit was WORSE than a $1650 billion dollar deficit. Ok I just made that up, but still. That’s how Democrats think. Tax and spend.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Wintery, I have a secular humanist friend who also is an example of this kind of thinking (more debt, more taxes, more spending). He says that Obama should have spent more and its the Repbulicans stopping him from doing that – which caused the economic problems. I think this is laughable yet horrible thinking. Why is economic responsability looked on as something that is holding liberal democrats back? It amazes me that my friend can look at these numbers, criticize the numbers (that came from the whitehouse) and say they are fabricated, then when challenged, ad hominem’s the sources who post the number, then blatently dismisses all blame and points the finger at Republicans. I just don’t get it…
LikeLike
See these:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/harvard-economists-explain-how-obama-created-10-2-unemployment-in-new-study/
And check out these posts as well:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/?s=deficit+unemployment
LikeLike
I think we also have to consider WHAT the Bush spending was! I mean Democrats are always about government creating jobs, and how do they do that? When government creates jobs they spend government money to do it. Democrats typically create government jobs that expand government and hurt the tax payer and the economy at the same time, whereas the Bush spending was quite different. Bush spent that money on the war effort. The kind of jobs created by a war effort span right out into the private sector and stimulate the economy. Historically countries have had very good economies throughout war times (with some exceptions). It was also the buffer America needed to coast over the Clinton sub-prime loan mess that was occurring and America was able to avoid feeling the pain of the Clinton administration until two years before Bush was out of office. But that’s the difference between when a conservative spends money and when democrats spend money. The Bush tax cuts were what allowed businesses and foreign investors to bring and invest money, in a post 911 America, they make a big difference. The leadership we had under Bush was in no way Reaganesque, but compared to Obama, Bush was I G.I. Joe, a real American Hero!
LikeLike
I don’t know if we can attribute all of the increased revenues to the effects of being involved in a war. Worse, that’s just the kind of thing a lefty would focus on to discredit Bush’s tax policy, that without the war it would have had no effect but a negative one. Maybe WK could re-post that Thomas Sowell piece wherein he explains the effects of tax cuts on the economy, or perhaps he has something else that would show a more detailed analysis of the impact of Bush’s tax rate cuts on all business. I’d do it myself, but I’m lazy. :)
LikeLike