Thomas Sowell knocks down yet another lefty meme: the Bush tax cuts were a major cause of deficits. (NAFTA, Baby Boomers)
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.
The Bush/Obama tax cuts raised revenues as has been proven over and over again. Some people on this board know this full well and still continue to ignore that fact. The bottom line is that we had economic growth after these tax cuts, more people were working due in part to these tax cuts and government revenues improved.
Since government spending is part of the calculation of GDP, we can see that any comparison of revenues versus GDP is skewed.
To say that the Bush Tax Cuts were the cause of this economic recession is just plain fallacy and a liberal fabrication. The facts don't lie and the big picture tells the whole truth.
Exactly!!
It is unbelievable listening to the left trying to twist the truth when the truth is smacking them, and everyone else, in the face. How long can they stand with their hands covering their eyes and ears and pretend their land of lies is true?? Very frustrating.
And now they have put BO back in office and this situation is only going to get worse. I hope the left is made to reap what they have sowed in a BIG way.
According to the graphic I posted in post #8, the bush era tax cuts were the #1 cause, the economic downturn was #2 and the wars number 3. Not really that far off from a factual standpoint
Huh??? The graphic you posted in #8???
First of all, it's unsourced--I don't see where you ID where you got it from. And it looks way off to me. Secondly, the graph runs from 2009 to 2019, so depending on when it was created, it's either all or mostly projections. Yet you're now referencing it using past tense ("the bush era tax cuts were the #1 cause").
My gosh, all I can say is that I hope this is a case of PUI. I know you're smarter than this. It's 5:54 here on the west coast, and assuming MTA means MTA in NYC, it's about 3:00AM where you are. So we'll chalk this up to PUI, am I right?
The Bush/Obama tax cuts raised revenues as has been proven over and over again. Some people on this board know this full well and still continue to ignore that fact. The bottom line is that we had economic growth after these tax cuts, more people were working due in part to these tax cuts and government revenues improved.
Since government spending is part of the calculation of GDP, we can see that any comparison of revenues versus GDP is skewed.
To say that the Bush Tax Cuts were the cause of this economic recession is just plain fallacy and a liberal fabrication. The facts don't lie and the big picture tells the whole truth.
Bull, the bush tax cuts "increased" revenue the same way that a huge sales at Macy's does. Before the sale consumers hold back from purchases waiting on the better deal. Once the sale begins it is like black Friday, everyone racing to take advantage of the deals while it lasts. Soon the available cash for transactions evaporates and the actual take is as small or smaller than before the sale began. Money is finite.
The cuts only temporarily altered behavior, there was no long term increase in tax revenue. I think others will chime in an add that overall tax revenues fell below the natural trend line soon after the cuts.
The Bush/Obama tax cuts raised revenues as has been proven over and over again. Some people on this board know this full well and still continue to ignore that fact. The bottom line is that we had economic growth after these tax cuts, more people were working due in part to these tax cuts and government revenues improved.
Since government spending is part of the calculation of GDP, we can see that any comparison of revenues versus GDP is skewed.
To say that the Bush Tax Cuts were the cause of this economic recession is just plain fallacy and a liberal fabrication. The facts don't lie and the big picture tells the whole truth.
How could the tax-cuts be responsible for higher revenue when revenue dropped immediately after they went into effect? Moreover, it wasn't until 2007 that real revenues came close to 2000 revenues -- even though GDP was higher.
So, to believe that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues has not only NOT been proven, it clearly a zombie myth -- a myth that no matter how many times it's killed, someone will get up and repeat it as if it was fact.
Quote:
Federal agencies have published similar statements regarding the effect of tax cuts on federal receipts. From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,†the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.â€
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
source: FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin
Just another example of how the right lives in a universe with its own set of facts, like Romney will win in a landslide.
First of all, it's unsourced--I don't see where you ID where you got it from. And it looks way off to me. Secondly, the graph runs from 2009 to 2019, so depending on when it was created, it's either all or mostly projections. Yet you're now referencing it using past tense ("the bush era tax cuts were the #1 cause").
The graphic (copy below) is clearly marked in the graphic Cbpp.org, which is the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
How could the tax-cuts be responsible for higher revenue when revenue dropped immediately after they went into effect? Moreover, it wasn't until 2007 that real revenues came close to 2000 revenues -- even though GDP was higher.
So, to believe that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues has not only NOT been proven, it clearly a zombie myth -- a myth that no matter how many times it's killed, someone will get up and repeat it as if it was fact.
Just another example of how the right lives in a universe with its own set of facts, like Romney will win in a landslide.
I imagine a chart showing the trend line continuing off of Clinton's 8 years thru today over actual revenues would show just how big the revenue gap is, how much was lost.
The Iraq war accounted for about 3 percent of federal spending while it lasted. Hardly a major cause of the national debt.
That is almost a trillion dollar over a decade (and since borrowed money, add interest over time). Add Afghanistan war expenses. But, let us look at federal tax revenue over last 35 years (again):
1977 1,054.8
1978 1,113.6
1979 1,187.3
1980 1,197.6
1981 1,251.4 <- Tax Cut
1982 1,202.8
1983 1,113.6
1984 1,174.3
1985 1,250.9
1986 1,277.7 <- Tax Reform (closing loop holes/tax increase)
1987 1,375.7
1988 1,421.1
1989 1,494.0
1990 1,508.7
1991 1,473.0
1992 1,467.5
1993 1,511.5 <- Clinton Tax Rates
1994 1,617.7
1995 1,691.4
1996 1,775.5
1997 1,889.9
1998 2,040.9
1999 2,136.4
2000 2,310.0
2001 2,215.3 <- Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA)
2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1 <- Bush Tax Cuts (JGTRRA)
2004 1,949.5
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,324.1
2007 2,414.0
2008 2,288.1
2009 1,899.0
2010 1,927.9
It is understandable that an economy in recession will show lower revenue. We can discount 1982-83, 1991-92, 2001 and 2008-2009 for that. Now go ahead and explain why federal tax revenue was lower than its previous peak in 1984, 1985 (and barely over 1981 level in 1986), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 (and barely over 2000 level in 2006 AND 2007). Were we in a recession ALL those years?
The graphic (copy below) is clearly marked in the graphic Cbpp.org, which is the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Well that answers that question. Still unanswered is how you think a graph that is runs from 2009 to 2019 is the best way to look at the effects of the policies of W Bush, who was prez from 2001 to 2009. Not to mention how the Iraq and Afgan wars will continue to drive the deficits until 2019, long after we are presumably out of both countries. And last but not least, still unanswered is the PUI question.
According to the link "tax revenues went up - not down - after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit".
I guess the author forgot the housing bubble and the profound impact it had on the economy during that time period. Anyone who could spell concrete was employed. People were sucking the premature paper equity out of their homes and living substantially beyond their means which created and sustained jobs for a moment in time.
Wall street was selling sub prime junk traunches and making a killing. Insurers were reinsuring the risks, Everyone in the pipeline was rewarded and spent like there was no tommorow.
Real estate brokers/agents, loan officers, home inspectors, appraisers, lawyers and more generally did quite well in that blip of time and it had nothing to do with tax cuts.
You cannot tax your way out of this.
You cannot cut your way out of this.
You cannot grow your way out of this.
There has to be a balance.
Simpson-Bowles ends the the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. And note that they do that before they reform the tax code. The expiration of the tax cuts is built into their baseline. That way, their reform of the tax code starts from a revenue level that includes the revenue from those upper-income Bush tax cuts.
The 100 CEO Committee generally supports Simpson-Bowles which calls for eventually taxing long terms capital gains and dividends as ordinary income as a part of revising the tax code.
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.
