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.
You forgot the . Mark Zuckerberg walked away from the Facebook IPO a multibillionaire. Then the people who actually bought the stock started losing their shirts. Did Mark earn every dollar with which he walked away?
Facebook has over 900 million users.
That's nearly three times the population of the U.S.
Any marketing firm with the money would have been glad to pay him as much as he's worth for access to that achievement.
The fact that some people took a risk and lost is their problem, not mine or yours. Are you suggesting we socialize their losses?
The dot.com bust happened in early 2000, and then there was the 9/11 attack in 2001, neither of which helped federal revenue growth. If you factor in population growth, it makes a little difference but not nearly enough to make your case.
Bottom line, as I stated before, total fed revenue was fairly flat during the Bush years. If you want to explain why deficits exploded, look at the spending side, not the 'Bush tax cuts.'
While you attribute high government revenue in 2000 to the dot.com bubble, you conveniently ignore the housing bubble, which was much bigger, that culminated in 2007. Even with the housing bubble, revenues took five years, with population growth, to match 2000 levels.
Since someone mentioned Paul Krugman, this is what the doctor had to say on this matter:
One thing I’m hearing a lot lately is the old line that tax cuts actually increase revenues, sometimes accompanied by a few out-of-context numbers. So a bit more history plus chart on all that.
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth.
It’s easy to correct for the first two; a bit harder to correct for growth, since part of what’s at issue is whether tax cuts do wonderful things for growth. So the chart below shows real federal revenue per capita — specifically, revenue in thousands of 2000 dollars per person — since 1993. All data from BEA.
What you see is that there was a huge revenue increase during the Clinton years. There was also the much-touted revenue surge of the later Bush years, but this followed a spectacular revenue plunge earlier. At this point real revenue per capita is only slightly higher than it was at the end of the 1990s. That’s actually abnormal: given the long-term growth of the US economy, we should have expected a continuing upward trend in revenues per capita.
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, Virginia, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
The dot.com bust happened in early 2000, and then there was the 9/11 attack in 2001, neither of which helped federal revenue growth. If you factor in population growth, it makes a little difference but not nearly enough to make your case.
Bottom line, as I stated before, total fed revenue was fairly flat during the Bush years. If you want to explain why deficits exploded, look at the spending side, not the 'Bush tax cuts.'
Not sure why you have used two of Clinton budget years and left of one on bush's budget years if your looking at the "results" of bush's budget policies.
Here is a better snap shot:
Total federal receipts from 2000 to 2008, inflation adjusted, looked like this:
Clinton
2000...2.310 trillion dollars
2001...2.215
BUSH
2002...2.029 DOWN $186 TRILLION
2003...1.901 DOWN $88
2004...1.950 UP. $49
2005...2.154 UP. $204
2006...2.324 UP. $170
2007...2.414 UP. $90
2008...2.288 DOWN $136
2009...1.899 DOWN $189 DOWN $326 from eight years earlier.
OBAMA
2010...1.928
2011...1.999
Fact is Bush's tax receipts barely returned to the level Clinton's revenues reached 6 years earlier. Take away the unregulated wall street feeding frenzy of 2004/2005 (that lead to the 2007/2008 great recession) and revenue would never have returned to pre bush levels.
Last edited by buzzards27; 06-17-2012 at 10:04 AM..
Nowhere did I attribute high revenue to the dot com bubble. What I intended to express was that revenue might have been higher post-tax-cut, but for the dot com crash (and the 9/11 attack).
Look, this isn't that complicated. Tax revenue was pretty close to flat following the Bush tax cuts, and the cuts didn't cause the big deficits of the Bush years. The spending did.
Not sure why you have used two of Clinton budget years and left of one on bush's budget years if your looking at the "results" of bush's budget policies.
Here is a better snap shot:
Total federal receipts from 2000 to 2008, inflation adjusted, looked like this:
Clinton
2000...2.310 trillion dollars
2001...2.215
BUSH
2002...2.029 DOWN $186 TRILLION
2003...1.901 DOWN $88
2004...1.950 UP. $49
2005...2.154 UP. $204
2006...2.324 UP. $170
2007...2.414 UP. $90
2008...2.288 DOWN $136
2009...1.899 DOWN $189 DOWN $326 from eight years earlier.
OBAMA
2010...1.928
2011...1.999
Fact is Bush's tax receipts barely returned to the level Clinton's revenues reached 6 years earlier. Take away the unregulated wall street feeding frenzy of 2004/2005 (that lead to the 2007/2008 great recession) and revenue would never have returned to pre bush levels.
Flat? Revenue fell during a growing economy. that's astoundingly bad.
Let's also remember that the CBO was predicting in 2001 (without the tax-cuts) that the entire public debt would be paid off by 2006. Had Gore been elected, that's exactly what would have occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Tax cuts enable people to SPEND money. That was the purpose of the Bush cuts..put more money in peoples pockets to spend.
These were tax-cuts that were borrowed. So we lent bonds that everyone will have to pay for in the future to give tax-cuts to rich people.
Nowhere did I attribute high revenue to the dot com bubble. What I intended to express was that revenue might have been higher post-tax-cut, but for the dot com crash (and the 9/11 attack).
Look, this isn't that complicated. Tax revenue was pretty close to flat following the Bush tax cuts, and the cuts didn't cause the big deficits of the Bush years. The spending did.
If revenue remained the same as Clinton's last year, $2,215 trillion, revenue would have been $761 trillion higher over bush's term.
And of course, without bush's great recession spending would never have reached the levels they are at now.
Flat? Revenue fell during a growing economy. that's astoundingly bad.
Let's also remember that the CBO was predicting in 2001 (without the tax-cuts) that the entire public debt would be paid off by 2006. Had Gore been elected, that's exactly what would have occurred.
These were tax-cuts that were borrowed. So we lent bonds that everyone will have to pay for in the future to give tax-cuts to rich people.
Yes the government had to borrow to cover the lost revenue. But you know what..don't implement tax cuts without thinking it won't effect your revenue.
You take in less money from the people then you better cut funding to your programs.
It's called "balancing", something our government just doesn't know how to do.
Not sure why you have used two of Clinton budget years and left of one on bush's budget years if your looking at the "results" of bush's budget policies.
Here is a better snap shot:
Total federal receipts from 2000 to 2008, inflation adjusted, looked like this:
Clinton
2000...2.310 trillion dollars
2001...2.215
BUSH
2002...2.029 DOWN $186 TRILLION
2003...1.901 DOWN $88
2004...1.950 UP. $49
2005...2.154 UP. $204
2006...2.324 UP. $170
2007...2.414 UP. $90
2008...2.288 DOWN $136
2009...1.899 DOWN $189 DOWN $326 from eight years earlier.
OBAMA
2010...1.928
2011...1.999
Fact is Bush's tax receipts barely returned to the level Clinton's revenues reached 6 years earlier. Take away the unregulated wall street feeding frenzy of 2004/2005 (that lead to the 2007/2008 great recession) and revenue would never have returned to pre bush levels.
The revenue from those boom times are BS. Those do not follow historical trends as you can see in this graph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
If revenue remained the same as Clinton's last year, $2,215 trillion, revenue would have been $761 trillion higher over bush's term.
And of course, without bush's great recession spending would never have reached the levels they are at now.
What you should find even more egregious are the assumptions of this White House that they're going to be growing revenue by an average of $290 billion a year over the next 5 years. Yes, this White House thinks the Federal Government is going to be pulling in $3.919 trillion a year in revenue in 2017 so they've planned to spend $4.531 trillion in that same year. Hell, they think from 2012 to 2013 they're going to increase revenue by $433.357 billion for that one year alone.
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.
. Mark Zuckerberg walked away from the Facebook IPO a multibillionaire. Then the people who actually bought the stock started losing their shirts. Did Mark earn every dollar with which he walked away?
