Consistent!

Posted on 02/07/2009 at 9:24 am by Bob Cesca

Many of the Republicans bitching about the size of the recovery bill had no problem supporting George W. Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 2001. Here’s how both items stack up, according to ThinkProgress:

2001 2009
Cost of package: $1.35 trillion $900 billion
Unemployment: 4% 7.6%
Percent of Population Living In Poverty: 12.7% 17%
Foreclosure Rates: .48% 1.19%
Americans Relying On Food Stamps: 17 million Over 30 million
This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.intoxination.net Jamie

    Yup and according to McCain, how can we pass these costs on to our children. Of course just 4 short months ago he was in such a hurry to pass these costs along that he even suspended his campaign.The Democrats just need to realize that the Republicans don’t want any kind of stimulus passed. They would rather the country fall into a depression this year and then they can come in next year and try to win back control saying “see – the Democrats put you in a depression”. Like I always say – their motto is “party above country”.

  • m4rk0

    *awaiting contradictory remark from Chris*

  • Alan4s

    Nah, Chris likes facts. He’ll ignore these details, and blather about something else.

  • The Colonel

    Great Point. If this were a military spending bill, or a basic tax rebate check, every Republican would be lining up to support it. It’s the fact that the money isn’t going primarily to their core constituency that has them freaked out.

  • Lyle

    The war on drugs and the war on terror have cost the treasury far less than the war on taxes. The redistribution of wealth was accomplished by taking a huge and permanently recurring annual loan from the treasury and giving it to the wealthy, while giving the poor and middle class the responsibility to pay it all back while suffering the consequences…or as a Republican might describe the lot of the poor, being personally empowered and free. That kind of freedom is like the line from Me And Bobby McGee unfortunately (Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose).

  • Booogie-Mann

    This has to be the dumbest comparison ever. Bob is just a partisan hack who is either just plain stoooopid, or a purposeful liaf.Bush’s tax cuts were spread over 10 years, this Obama package spends a TRILLION dollars in just 1 year. Revenues after the tax cut somehow continued to increase, so that needs to be subtracted from this so-called 1.35 trillion dollar “cost” Bob.Nice way to spread misinformation and “talking points” for the dumb, Bob.

  • jasperjava

    So revenues from the economic stimulus won’t increase next year, Boogie-Mann? How do you know that? “Trickle-up” projects where money is spent on the poor and middle-class won’t work as well as “trickle-down”, according to your discredited right-wing economic theory.The thing is, both parties believe in big government: the Democrats spend for infrastructure and job creation, while the Republicans like to help their rich friends buy yachts in Bermuda. I’m sure that gives a much-needed boost to the Bermudan economy. The Republicans also like to waste trillions of dollars by pouring money into black pits in the Middle-East. For some reason, such spending doesn’t provide jobs, healthcare, housing, education, or infrastructure back home. Huh. Would woulda thunk it?

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    Booogie-Mann, how can the bill spend “a TRILLION dollars in just 1 year” when the GOP is on every news channel complaining that it won’t spend enough quickly enough?Which is it: spends too much too quick, or doesn’t spend enough quick enough? It can’t be both.You have provided an important lesson for comment trolls everywhere: double-check your fantasies with the daily talking points from Lord Limbaugh before you post!

  • CS

    Lol, how dishonest. This crap isn’t even close to being factually correct.

  • ceu

    feel free to provide the “correct facts”. We’ll hold our collective breath.

  • Booogie-Mann

    JasperJava needs to take Economics 001, not 101 yet becase that’s too advanced for him … try ECO 001 first.I agree both parties spend a ton of money, but it is silly to assert that somehow Dems are all alone for the Working guy. Since you don’t understand Supply Side Economics or ‘trickle-down’ I won’t even bother esplaining. … never got a job from a poor man …Your assertions that Republicans are these Rich Corporate guys running around in Private Jets and all CEO’s of Corporations are false. The Top 6 richest Senator’s are all Democrats.Senate:1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $300,753,027 $336,885,513 $373,017,9992 John Kerry (D-Mass) $221,589,484 $267,789,805 $313,990,1273 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $43,351,040 $102,822,519 $162,293,9994 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $54,878,021 $90,713,011 $126,548,0025 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $49,392,297 $79,555,657 $109,719,0186 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $45,501,164 $79,051,090 $112,601,017All old inherited money … all limosine Liberals …

  • jasperjava

    You gotta laugh at these pathetic right-wing trolls who keep pushing their failed ideology despite the obvious wreckage all around them. They’re demagogues who are so insanely fanatical about their quasi-religious economic beliefs that they will continue to bang their heads against the same wall, expecting different results.Here’s an easy economics lesson. I don’t expect low-watt bulbs like Boogie-Mann to understand it, but whatever.If you give tax cuts to the rich, they MAY invest it in new ventures; or they MAY sock it away in their bank accounts in the Caribbean, waiting for better economic times, or they MAY use the money to outsource jobs to other countries or they MAY spend it offshore on luxuries, etc.If you give jobs (or even handouts, but jobs are better) to the poor and the middle-class, you’re almost 100% certain that they’re going spend it on goods and services. That spending stimulates the local economy. It encourages jobs in retail, transportation, manufacturing, etc. This helps profits for small business and corporations. Some of these profits get re-invested in new jobs. The new employees, in turn, spend money to stimulate the economy. That spending generates even more profits. This is how an economy grows, through the circulation of capital. The wealthy don’t have as much of an incentive to spend as the poor and the middle-class do.And the personal wealth of politicians is irrelevant. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rich, Kennedy was rich, yet they were more on the side of the working class than Hoover or Nixon and their ilk.I never said that Republicans are all rich; they’re just on the side of the rich and no one else. We’ve seen the result of their policies. They are an epic fail and they have zero credibility.