Those EVIL Bush tax cuts

I came across this info at a site called Human Events and thought everyone should have a look at it. I printed it out and carry a copy in my shirt pocket.

The next time some idiot liberal goes off on me about Bush's tax cuts, I'm going to hand them this, let them read it and then ask them to refute the numbers. I'll bet they either run away as usual or punch me in the nose. So here it is.

Seeing that the Democrats are reviving their favorite campaign talking point, let’s review the facts about “tax cuts for the rich.”

First off, what President Bush enacted into law cut taxes across the board on everyone, not just the upper echelon. The 15 percent rate dropped to 10 percent, 27 percent to 25 percent, 30 percent to 28 percent, 35 percent to 33 percent, and 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Now go ahead and ask a lib which income bracket received the highest cut. Oh, snap: That would be the lowest income threshold, which nosedived five percentage points.

The whole “tax cuts for the rich” is pure bunk, a lie that liberals shamelessly popularize. Not that this should surprise us one bit. Here we have a Democrat Party in America that couldn’t agree on a puny $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over a 10-year-period. That means that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s minions refused to slice off what amounts to $120 billion dollars a year of a federal budget nearly topping $4 trillion. Instead, they insisted that taxes be jacked up to pay for their statist programs.

Next up, we have the line that tax cuts blew the lid off of our deficit. That’s funny, because during the last year a Republican budget controlled Congress (fiscal year 2007), the deficit stood at a minuscule $161 billion dollars. $161 billion! {That’s at least five years into the tenure of those evil tax cuts.} Moreover, as HUMAN EVENTS has previously reported, federal tax receipts actually went up while the tax cuts were accelerating. In other words, the United States Treasury received more money not less because of the Bush tax cuts that we’re told ruined America’s economy.

See for yourself:

$1.88 trillion in 2004

$ 2.15 trillion in 2005

$ 2.4 trillion in 2006

$ 2.6 trillion in 2007

The last figure was actually the highest dollar amount brought into the Treasury Department… ever. That’s right, folks. While Democrats wail and whine about tax cuts as the main culprit for this country’s deficit woes, it turns out that we were bringing in bagfuls of money at historic proportions during that same time.


Then there are the politically-savvy, but totally fallacious, calls for "shared sacrifice." Naturally the Democrats don’t use that phrase to describe the nearly 50 percent of Americans who don’t pay any federal income taxes, but instead those who already pay the bulk of all federal, state, and local taxes. That aside, it’s the spending side of the lever that is completely out-of-whack, and has been so for a while. We’re now in our third straight year in a row with deficits exploding past $1 trillion dollars.

So when a lib is babbling to you about “shared sacrifice,” you can remind him that his great leader Messiah Obama shattered two spending records: Giving America her first-ever $1 trillion dollar deficit, and number two, extending that history-making deficit three consecutive years.

Heck, this guy has managed to increase the national debt by more than the first 41 presidents combined (George Washington to George Bush), and he’s managed to accomplish this feat in a mere 32 months.

You go, Barack!

And there you have it, the cutting evidence you need at your finger tips to eviscerate those unending lefty desires to slam us against the locker room and raid our wallets some more. Time to hit these Dems back with what they can’t get around -- a little something, something called: Facts.


Hauling Trash

Is anyone following what is going on with the Trash Hauling saga? Near as I can tell it has been re-bid two or three times since some folks didn't like the outcome the first two or three times.

Now I hear it has been awarded again after some of the rules were changed between bid requests!
Is that legal? Can you do that just because you didn't like the first three outcomes? Smacks of cronyism, or at least some other kind of "ism" that is not so savory to the olfactory senses.

And so I understand today that the other protagonist in the affair has filed , or is in the process of instituting another lawsuit, naming almost every one involved with the disaster.

For a change, I'm going to keep my big trap shut on this one as I have friends in both camps!

Although I will say that I just can't believe that much deep, nor far ranging thought went into the consequences of the actions taken was going to be! TIFN