Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A large tax cut across the board under the premise of supply-side economics - which caused federal revenues to fall, not rise.
Inaccurate. While revenues fell from 2000-2003 (and a little thing called 9/11 played a key role there), revenues rose DRAMATICALLY after 2003.
Quote:
A long war in Afghanistan, which became inevitable in late 2001 when the CIA operative on the ground at the battle of Tora Bora had Osama Bin Laden within his sights near the Pakistani border and the White House balked at providing American troops to catch him.
This war was the only one I supported and so does the current administration as they have continued efforts there, despite calls for troop withdrawals supposedly for this summer.
Quote:
]A long war in Iraq, chasing after weapons of mass destruction which were revealed to not exist.
This war was a joke and I never supported the invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
A Medicare prescription drug program that was called at the time the greatest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years; with a total price tag approaching $7 trillion.
I think this was a mistake in general as well. Medicare is in need of serious reform.
Inaccurate. While revenues fell from 2000-2003 (and a little thing called 9/11 played a key role there), revenues rose DRAMATICALLY after 2003.
This war was the only one I supported and so does the current administration as they have continued efforts there, despite calls for troop withdrawals supposedly for this summer.
This war was a joke and I never supported the invasion of Iraq.
I think this was a mistake in general as well. Medicare is in need of serious reform.
The overall income tax revenue increase during the Bush administration was the worst since Hoover, total increase was 19.6%, compared to 110% under Clinton.
Inaccurate. While revenues fell from 2000-2003 (and a little thing called 9/11 played a key role there), revenues rose DRAMATICALLY after 2003.
That graph is total government revenues - which INCLUDES the payroll taxes. And it's not adjusted for inflation. AND it doesn't show revenue up to present day, because GW's tax cuts are still in place.
Notice that over the nine year life of the GW Bush tax cuts federal government revenue from income taxes only exceeded the revenue of 2000 in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 - the years of the housing bubble. Credit that increased revenue to Ben Bernanke, not George W Bush.
But that graph still isnt' adjusted for inflation.
Here's a better graph of income taxes...
The blue line indicates income tax receipts, the red line indicates income tax receipts as a basis of GDP. That's important because comparing to GDP not only removes the inflation factor but it also demonstrates the efficiency of the tax.
The blue line above shows that income taxes didn't recover to 2000 levels until 2006, 5 years after the tax cuts were made into law. And 2005 was the beginning of the housing bubble. All of that revenue was due to the over-heated housing market; it was simply scavenging taxes from the sales that would have occurred in 2008 and 2009 if there hadn't been a bubble.
The red line shows that the Bush tax cuts dropped revenue to levels lower than Ronald Reagan's lowest tax cuts had.
And as for 9/11? That didn't even produce a true recession. But it did lead to two wars - one which should have been over within a year and the other which never should have happened.
Quote:
This war was the only one I supported and so does the current administration as they have continued efforts there, despite calls for troop withdrawals supposedly for this summer.
Everyone supported that war.
The point is that the GW Bush administration could have ended it all in November 2001 except that they chose not to commit a brigage of paratroopers. The question is whether they lost their nerve or they needed to prolong the conflict so that they could ramp up for the next war.
Either way, they starved that war of men and supplies with their Iraq war and left the next administration a total fuster-cluck to deal with in Afghanistan.
For the record, the tax revenue figures are always adjusted for inflation. They have to be, otherwise they would not be comparable. GDP relative to tax revenue is not always reliable, either.
And 2005 was NOT the start of the housing bubble, you are about 10 years too late. The exponential rise in housing prices began in 1995 and 1996. Arguably 2005 could be used as the first year that housing bubble started to burst, not when it started. However, claiming that all tax revenue was because of the housing bubble is a pretty lame deflection, since growth there would have been reflected primarily in the capital gains tax revenue, not income tax revenue.
For the record, the tax revenue figures are always adjusted for inflation. They have to be, otherwise they would not be comparable.
The tax revenue figures used by the source quoted by both wxjay and myself (www.usgovernmentrevenues.com) does NOT adjust for inflation.
Quote:
GDP relative to tax revenue is not always reliable, either.
Tax Revenue as a percentage of GDP is used by economists all the time because this method removes inflation from the comparison and it allows for evaluating the efficiency of tax law in markedly different time periods.
Quote:
And 2005 was NOT the start of the housing bubble, you are about 10 years too late. The exponential rise in housing prices began in 1995 and 1996. Arguably 2005 could be used as the first year that housing bubble started to burst, not when it started.
The housing bubble started out as a housing boom in 1996, comparable to the housing booms of the 1970's and of the 1980's. Both of those booms exhibited housing prices that were 10% to 20% above long term pricing averages when adjusted for inflation.
The housing boom of the 2000's changed to a housing bubble about 2001 or 2002 and from 2001 onward it was fed by historically low interest rates, easy credit and lax regulation of the mortgage and financial industries (blame whomever you want for the lax regulation).
The housing bubble definitely peaked by 2006 at more than twice the long term average of historical housing prices, but it only partially deflated in 2007 - the definite pop of the bubble occured in 2008.
Quote:
However, claiming that all tax revenue was because of the housing bubble is a pretty lame deflection, since growth there would have been reflected primarily in the capital gains tax revenue, not income tax revenue.
The income revenue source used by wxjay and myself includes capital gains tax revenue - capital gains is reported as income on 1040 tax forms. Still, many home owners wouldn't report any income increases on their 1040's as they rolled their capital gains tax free into new housing.
The big boom in income revenue occurred in the paychecks and corporate income statements of the building industry, the building supply industry, the real estate industry, the mortgage industry and the finance industry.
What do you think happens? Political stalemate for 4 years? When was the last time a liberal president had to deal with 2 conservative bodies in congress? What happened then?
Can a vigilant congress make changes despite Obama?
Can a progressive Obama make his changes despite Congress?
This scenario seems highly likely to me and I'm just trying to forecast what kind of dynamic that creates, especially with such volatile conditions in The United States and abroad these days.
Normally, there would be gridlock. But this President will continue
to bypass Congress and try to institute his agenda by regulatory action.
He won't let Congress or the courts get in his way.
Normally, there would be gridlock. But this President will continue
to bypass Congress and try to institute his agenda by regulatory action.
He won't let Congress or the courts get in his way.
I think this is what scares me the most about his being re-elected. God only knows what kind of country he will hand us when he finishes his second term. It won't be good, that I feel sure about.
I think this is what scares me the most about his being re-elected. God only knows what kind of country he will hand us when he finishes his second term. It won't be good, that I feel sure about.
Nita
Well W. Bush was re-elected and somehow we survived.
Well W. Bush was re-elected and somehow we survived.
GW didn't want to turn our country into a socialistic one and he did not push for government controls on everything.
Nita
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
