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.
It's clear that the deficits that were incurred during the Bush years were directly tied to Bush era tax-cuts. That's indisputable.
If deficits and debts are what you are concerned about, then you can't possibly consider any of the GOP candidates, as all of their plans increase the deficit.
Why don't you hop into a time machine and ask GWB supporters that question?
The only division that I see in this country are the "old guard" of bigots who can not and will not accept that there is a "colored man" in the White House. The rest of us are united in pushing America out of the 1950s and into the 21st century. The wheels of progress can not and will be stopped.
Just as long as it's not solely because of his race. Obama needs to be seen for what he's done and not to be liked or disliked simply because of his race. He's done some things that I agree with so I'm on his side.
Your own post refutes what you say. You say that there was no increase in revenue but then you say that there was. The Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 with a second cut in 2003. Time was needed to get that revenue.
Here are the tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent. You can argue it all you want, but outlays (spending) increased during that time frame. So our problem is not the tax cuts, it is the spending.
I am not sure what invented source you are using but it seems to come from FantasyLand as so many liberal ideoligies do. Ground yourself back in reality and be a little more honest with yourself about the actual numbers.
I covered that in my post on page 10.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
As one can see, if we do not ignore inflation and the fact that the population grew since 2000, we see that revenues were actually lower in real terms under Bush than under Clinton. Therefore, the assertion that Bush's tax-cuts increased income tax revenue is unfounded. Cutting taxes reduces revenue.
In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. It took until 2005 for tax-revenue to catch up to 2000 tax-revenue, in raw terms -- all of this while GDP rose. It never caught up, adjusted for population growth and inflation, in all of Bush's term.
How is it possible to spend your way out of debt. Please inform me of how this is possible?
It's actually quite an easy answer.
For the same reason that one can't cut one's way to full employment.
When there is a severe recession, unemployment is high, which reduces tax revenue and also drains government resources because of additional unemployment benefit spending, add'l Medicaid spending, add'l Food Stamps spending, etc.
Thus, the major objective should be to get back to full employment and move GDP to potential GDP as quickly as possible. The way to do that is for the government to replace lost demand. The chart below shows the gap between GDP and potential GDP.
Austerity is actually counterproductive in fiscal terms (as the Europeans are finding out): it depresses growth, so that the debt position becomes worse because tax revenue falls even more and more people require aid -- deepening deficits.
I covered that in my post on page 10.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
As one can see, if we do not ignore inflation and the fact that the population grew since 2000, we see that revenues were actually lower in real terms under Bush than under Clinton. Therefore, the assertion that Bush's tax-cuts increased income tax revenue is unfounded. Cutting taxes reduces revenue.
In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. It took until 2005 for tax-revenue to catch up to 2000 tax-revenue, in raw terms -- all of this while GDP rose. It never caught up, adjusted for population growth and inflation, in all of Bush's term.
This is just some seriously screwed up thinking. You can try to rationalize it all you want but revenues grew 44%. Do you mean to tell me that inflation and the amount of population tied together equated for a rise of over 44%? You math and logic are simply blind as well as biased. I would say "nice try" but you are blundering through using lies so you don't even get that.
This is just some seriously screwed up thinking. You can try to rationalize it all you want but revenues grew 44%. Do you mean to tell me that inflation and the amount of population tied together equated for a rise of over 44%? You math and logic are simply blind as well as biased. I would say "nice try" but you are blundering through using lies so you don't even get that.
The numbers speak for themselves.
As you can clearly see from the per capita individual income tax receipts adjusted for inflation data, in 2000 and 2001 (e.g. Clinton rates) individual income tax receipts were higher than at any time during the Bush Administration -- all when GDP was on the rise.
During the Clinton years there was steady growth in revenues; much less during the Bush years, even if you stop the clock just before the housing bubble burst.
You can choose to believe what you want, but as I said, the data speaks for itself -- concluding that the theory that tax-cuts increase government revenue has no empirical support.
The only thing that I can say about your dismissal of clear evidence dispelling your theory is "cognitive dissonance." You have already made up your mind that tax-cuts increase revenue and when faced with clear evidence disproving that theory, you choose to dismiss the evidence instead of re-thinking your theory.
It's like cigarette smokers who when faced with studies linking smoking to cancer, dismiss the studies.
As you can clearly see from the per capita individual income tax receipts adjusted for inflation data, in 2000 and 2001 (e.g. Clinton rates) individual income tax receipts were higher than at any time during the Bush Administration -- all when GDP was on the rise.
During the Clinton years there was steady growth in revenues; much less during the Bush years, even if you stop the clock just before the housing bubble burst.
You can choose to believe what you want, but as I said, the data speaks for itself -- concluding that the theory that tax-cuts increase government revenue has no empirical support.
The only thing that I can say about your dismissal of clear evidence dispelling your theory is "cognitive dissonance." You have already made up your mind that tax-cuts increase revenue and when faced with clear evidence disproving that theory, you choose to dismiss the evidence instead of re-thinking your theory.
It's like cigarette smokers who when faced with studies linking smoking to cancer, dismiss the studies.
Actually, the lies you posted show nothing. You ignore the truth but most liberals do. Ignorance is bliss!!
Actually, the lies you posted show nothing. You ignore the truth but most liberals do. Ignorance is bliss!!
I see, data from established credible sources according to you are "lies." Why is that, exactly? Because the presented facts conclusively disprove your tightly held belief that tax-cuts increase revenue.
I must also point out that you have presented nothing to counter my data, except to call them "lies." That is exactly what I predicted you would do several posts ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The only thing that I can say about your dismissal of clear evidence dispelling your theory is "cognitive dissonance." You have already made up your mind that tax-cuts increase revenue and when faced with clear evidence disproving that theory, you choose to dismiss the evidence instead of re-thinking your theory.
It's like cigarette smokers who when faced with studies linking smoking to cancer, dismiss the studies.
For the same reason that one can't cut one's way to full employment.
When there is a severe recession, unemployment is high, which reduces tax revenue and also drains government resources because of additional unemployment benefit spending, add'l Medicaid spending, add'l Food Stamps spending, etc.
Thus, the major objective should be to get back to full employment and move GDP to potential GDP as quickly as possible. The way to do that is for the government to replace lost demand. The chart below shows the gap between GDP and potential GDP.
Austerity is actually counterproductive in fiscal terms (as the Europeans are finding out): it depresses growth, so that the debt position becomes worse because tax revenue falls even more and more people require aid -- deepening deficits.
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.
