Ever notice how often liberals turn out to be right and cons turn out to be wrong?

Question

Liberals said giving massive tax cuts to the super rich would decrease revenue and balloon the deficit.
Cons said it would INCREASE revenue.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there were no WMD in Iraq and that Bush was lying.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said Iraq would not be a "cakewalk" and that the mission was NOT accomplished when Bush was strutting around the flight deck crowing success.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said invading Iraq would be a huge mistake that would weaken our military for decades.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Going back further in history....

Liberals said Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be good program that would help America build a strong economy and protect ordinary Americans from poverty.
Cons said it was a form of communism and that it would only hurt America.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.


Liberals said environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act would help fight air pollution and improve the health of all Americans.
Cons said it was unnecessary government regulation.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Answer 1

I wondered how long it would be before someone came up with the answer about record revenues. It never takes conservatives long to reach into the Sean Hannity book of right wing lies in order to try to justify a failed policy.

So let's look at what really happens. First the painfully obious. All things being equal as our economy grows, the tax base grows and so revenues grow. Pointing at "record revenues" does not mean they were created by tax cuts (that best friend of Republicans - the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument).

Rather in judging the idea that tax cuts lead to increased revenues while tax increases lead to reduced revenues we shall examine three two term presidents. Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. Reagan and Bush are famous for thier massive across the board (read mainly for the rich) tax cuts, Clinton for his increase (although he did substantially cut capital gains tax late in his administration). In order to remove the impact of inflation all figures quoted will be in constant 2000 dollars.
The revenues in the last year of the Carter administration totalled 1.028 trillion. Revenues had grown an average of 5.9% under Carter.
At the end Reagan's first term revenues had fallen to 1.017 trillion (the previous year was significantly lower), and revenues on average shrunk 0.1% over this term. Conservatives will argue that the initial impact of the tax cuts will be countered by the strong growth that comes later so let's look at Reagan's second term. By the end of the Reagan administration federal revenues stood at 1.236 trillion, an increase of 5.0% pa over Reagan's second term and 2.4% over the entire administration. So Carter, who conservatives love to pillory for his economic performance saw revenues grow twice as fast as Reagan, and faster even than Reagan when his tax cut years are disregarded.
Clinton's first term saw 5.0% annual real revenues growth, and in his second term 6.8%. This meant an average of 5.9% for his two terms. The smallest increases of the Clinton administration were in his first year before his tax policy took effect and immediately after his capital gains tax cut.
So Clinton was able to produce a record that significantly beat Reagan's in both consistency (revenues never fell during Clinton's reign, something that Reagan and neither Bush can claim) and output.
Bush's first term saw revenues fall 4.1% each year on average. Bush's second term has so far seen average revenue gains of 7.2% pa but sluggish growth this year will see this fall to about 5.9% for the entire of the second Bush term and approximately 0.9% for the two terms combined.
The inference is clear. Revenues generally rise but certain conditions/actions can cause savage reductions that take years to correct. These coincide exactly with tax cuts while consistent growth can only be aligned with either tax increases or no change.
Had the Bush administration merely maintained the 2000 revenue levels, an extra 1 trillion dollars would have been collected over the Bush administration. Had Bush maintained the revenue growth rate of Clinton our national debt would be nearly 6 trillion lower (or just one third of what it is).
On the outlays side- while Bush has increased the federal budget at a faster rate than any president since Carter - to blame this for our current balance sheet is simply wrong. Outlays have increased by 3.5% per annum - a number that could have been matched with a responsible taxation policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

Answer 2

No i don't notice that. Matter of fact you are wrong in 5 of your 6 statements. The tax cuts did increase revenue to the treasury. We did find chemical weapons and the means to produce them, a violation of both the surrender accords and UN resolutions. According to Iraqi documents Al Quada and Saddam had a working relationship. No one on the Conservative side ever said that Iraq had any connection to 9-11, (a liberal lie)
No liberal or conservative stated that Iraq would be a cake walk, even the President said that this would be a long fight.
And since liberals have made a point of weakening our military every time they are in power that last is a massive laugh.

Answer 3

Hmmmmmmmmm, you mean tax revenue didn't increase after that tax cuts ??

Then explain how we had over all tax revenue is way up ?

Explain how corporate tax revenue has increased 133% since 2001 ?

When it only increased 70% during the 90's ?

Wierd, senator clinton, senator kerry, president clinton alkl said Iraq had wmd.

I don't seem to remember bush ever saying iraq had anything to do with 911.

But a liberal judge in NYC sure did, when he awarded the families who lost loved ones on 911, a settlememnt from iraq for the deaths.

Liberals said we were bogged down in Iraq, 36 hours after the invasion started.

I don't seem to remember any liberals saying that invading iraq would hurt our military for a decade , before we invaded iraq, got any links to show ?

Yea, great liberal program, the clean air act, except the clean air act was a republican program passed by a republican congress and a republican president.

.

Seems everyone else was right and you were wrong.

Answer 4

In a word(or two) HORSECRAP!
1 Tax cuts produced MORE revenue to the Treasury.Cold hard fact.Look it up. Libs wrong. Here's your link
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=...

2 The libs said Iraq had WMD too!
Here's your link
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

3 Saddam WAS in bed with Al Qaeda here's your link
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

4 Who said there was a connection between Iraq and 911? didn't happen.

5 Who said it would be a cakewalk?

6 That statement about mistakes and "weakening" of our military is exactly whats wrong with the thought process of the left wing.

Answer 5

Lets see most of the libs voted for the war and agreed that Iraq had WMD. And the tax cuts did bring record revenue, we just spent it all.

Answer 6

definite, and that i've got additionally observed what number Cons won't be able to spell or shape a sentence properly (except they shrink and paste somebody else's comments). would desire to it truly is a rely of mind?

Answer 7

Excellent list, but don't expect any cons to be swayed by the facts, they'd sell their grandmothers for a 300 dollar tax swindle.

Answer 8

Liberals and some True Conservatives suspect a recession is on the horizon.

Answer 9

While I will not discuss my political beliefs on a site such as this one, I think that both groups have done their share of calling the other wrong.

Answer 10

Let me guess, you watched Fahrenheit 911.

Did you believe Shrek was a documentary as well??


PS America the Beautiful, that was great, you can tell the libs run Yahoo. low rating my butt! You hit them right in the chops!

Peace Love & Harmony? Oh please, Freedom of Speech is OK as long as others agree with you. Talk about hypocracy.