Teeing up the middle Class

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, actually...Bush had the tax cuts set to expire in 2010 so he wouldn't have to declare their full cost when the GOP made the proposal under his watch. This is more a lie than misinformation.


-spence

another Spence Whopper..do you just make this stuff up?
the democrats demanded a sunset provision for the tax cuts,

Bush wanted permanent tax cuts
.......their "full cost"??.. that's hilarious...the full cost of tax cuts is record revenues flowing to the treasury.....what's the "full cost " of Obama's insane spending going to be ??? When will his spending increases have to sunset so that he can aviod declaring the actual cost?

Spence, you are spreading lies and misinformation and I'm reporting you to flag.whitehouse.brownshirtobama.gov

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

another Spence Whopper..do you just make this stuff up?
the democrats demanded a sunset provision for the tax cuts,

Similarly to the current situation with the Dems, the Republicans had a significant majority in Congress and at the time that the tax cuts were enacted, the Dems did not have enough support to "demand" anything.

Your post is just a long-winded version of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;704327]Similarly to the current situation with the Dems, the Republicans had a significant majority in Congress and at the time that the tax cuts were enacted, the Dems did not have enough support to "demand" anything.]

Not similar at all. At the time of the Bush tax cuts, there were 49 Democrat Senators, 49 Republican Senators, and 2 Independents. The sunset provision was structured into the tax cuts in order to avoid the Byrd Rule which allows Senators to block a bill if it creates budget deficits past ten years. The Byrd Rule requires 60 Senate votes to overide it, which the Republicans DID NOT HAVE. The only way to get the bill passed with enough votes on board was to include the sunset povision.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your post is just a long-winded version of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

Actually, your post is what Spence would call a deke. Spence was trying to call out Bush, not the Republican Senators. Scott defended Bush, WITH CORRECT INFORMATION, and you dodged that parry by deflecting, INCORRECTLY ( is that, precisely, a blatant lie?), the burden to those Senators.