Did Bush Tax Cuts Contribute Significantly To The Deficit? Yes/No

As yet another pawn in the game of politics, he also didn't secure the borders, even after 9/11, spent like a madman, and millions of jobs slipped through his fingers.
So YES.

 

If you keep a dollar in your pocket.......how much do you charge yourself?

So "tax cuts were debt spending"......except revenues almost doubled after The Bush Tax Cuts.
.
.
.
.

 

The tax cuts caused all that.......good call.
.
.
.

 

He also stood idle as one of the largest evacuations of manufacturing jobs took place right under his nose.

 

Nope.

Spending money we dont have created the deficit....

Its pretty obvious....

 

We borrowed money in order to fund the tax cuts.

 

They caused much larger deficits, and squandered the golden opportunity of the budget surplus Clinton left.

It is interesting to speculate on the housing bubble and dot com implosion.

The latter followed a large cut on investment taxes in 1997, and the former followed another large cut on investment taxes in 2003 (as well as other tax cuts in home ownership gains and mortgage deductions).

As a result, taxes on speculative investment in stocks or real estate (15% or less) are far lower than taxes on earned income (up to 35% plus FICA).

Is it any wonder our best and brightest are going into investment banking and hedge fund management instead of production and earning? That people focus on investment speculation rather than earning through employment?

Should it be any surprise we have had two devastating asset speculation bubbles in the past 12 years when our tax code so heavily favors investment speculation over earning?

Something to ponder.

 

LOL......

How much does it cost to keep a dollar?
.
.
.
.

 

OWNED!!!!

I love how those little peckers always cherry pick their data just right to try and refurbish the disastrous GW Bush regime.

Blast off! That is a fugly chart. The TRUTH hurts these ********** assclowns.

 

LOL...you maka me laff.....

The Truth...... the JFK, Reagan, and Bush Tax Cuts did yield three of the largest periods of job and revenue growth in US History.......is what exposes Liberalism as the complete lie and utter fraud it has always been and always will be.

......although it seems The Bush Tax Cuts did cause the .com bubble, 9/11, and the mortgage collapse in your book anyways.
.
.
.

 

For those interested in seeing an actual example of the largest revenue growth in history, lets look at real revenue growth under the last three presidents who served a full two terms --


Year - Revenues 2005$:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Cinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310..0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


One of those periods does indeed show one of "the largest periods of ... revenue growth in US History".

But it wasn't one of the persons on Bad's list.

 

Sooo... let me get this straight. After the dot com boom the stock market reached its lowest level over half a decade BEFORE 2008 and 9/11 happened well over half a decade BEFORE 2008 but they caused the unemployment rate to inexplicably shoot up all of a sudden in 2008?

Dude!

 

"Listen to me you little prick. TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES!!!"

-Alan Greenspan, Former Fed Chairman

 

The only way to know for sure is to go back and re-do those years without a tax cut. There are too many factors involved. Clinton presided over one of the biggest financial booms we've ever seen in this country. Who knows, maybe if he would have cut taxes it would have been even bigger. We keep trying to drive revenue based on how much we spend. That never works. It must be the other way around -- you spend based on your revenue.

 

Clinton did cut taxes (after he was dragged kicking and screaming anyways)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

And the economy grew faster after the tax cuts than after BJ's tax hike........



....just another chapter in the complete fraud and utter lie that is liberalism.
.
.
.
.

 

LMAO! How many posts have you lectured me on because I included 2001 with Bush tax cuts? Even though I have repeatedly pointed out that the 2001 tax cut had an effect that year because of tens of billions in tax refunds in the "rebate" program effected that year.

But here you present a graph which includes 1997, the year the 1997 minor tax cut was passed, with calculations showing economic growth after the tax cut, and includes 1993 the year the Clinton tax increase was passed, with the the calculations for economic growth with the tax increase.

Hypocrite much?

Let's compare it your way, with the effect taking place the year after the tax law was passed:

With Clinton tax increase:
1994 4.1%
1995 2.5%
1996 3.7%
1997 4.5%

Average: 3.7%

With the 1997 tax cut:
1998 4.4%
1999 4.8%
2000 4.1%
2001 1.1%

Average 3.6%

Source data: BEA.gov.

As we would expect, the very modest tax cut (mostly a capital gains tax cut) had very little effect on economic growth.

 

BTW, even using Heritage's time frame for the Clinton tax increase (1993-1996), the 3.3% real GDP growth average for years 1993-1996 (Heritage's figure of 3.2% is wrong) is much better than the low tax regimes of Bush1 (2.16%) or Bush2 (2.03%) or Reagan's first term (3.08%).

 

I had previously presented a table comparing real revenue growth of Reagan, Bush and Clinton. I didn't include Kennedy because changing the top marginal tax rate to 70% I agree would certainly produce more revenues.

But does Badmutha's claim hold water? Was the growth in revenues from the Kennedy tax cut really one of the largest?

The Kennedy tax cut was passed posthumously after his death in 1964. It dropped the top tax rate from 91% to 70% where it stayed until 1981.

So let's look at 8 years of the Kennedy tax cuts, and then we can compare it to the similar periods with the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton revenue experiences.



Year - Revenues 2005$:


Kennedy
1964 704.3
1972 908.1
% growth revenues: +28.9%

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Cinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310..0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The Kennedy tax cut to 70% did have better real revenue growth than either Reagan's or Bush's much lower tax cuts.

But still a long way from being the largest period of growth.

 

So where is 01 and 02? Oh that's right.... you don't want to show how after Bushed tax cuts, revenue FELL for a couple of years, so you just ignore that....

.... let me guess, you accuse global warming scientists of falsifying their data too.

Then after revenue bottoms out, it starts growing, you show that out of context that it is growning from the bottom of a valley Bush created.

The REALITY is that when Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue fell. It took 5 years just for revenues to get back to where they were.

 

LMAO! No, no cherry picking there!

I could have sworn though Bush took office in Jan 2001, and one of the first things he did was pass a huge tax cut and refund tens of billions of dollars with tax rebates.

Maybe someone can check me on that date.

 

Indeed he did......so WHY WERE REVENUES FALLING BEFORE BUSH EVEN TOOK OFFICE?

Federal Revenue (2000-2001) BJ Clinton's Last Year


.....pwned....
.
.
.

 

They weren't.

Hardly. All your graph shows is the effect of the Bush tax rebates.

 

The willfull ignorance of Obama *********s.......truely amazing.....

The EGTRRA tax cuts werent even signed until June 2001.....werent set to fully implement until 2006.....

The JGTRRA tax cuts were signed in 2003......and implemented all of the EGTRRA Tax Cuts and then some.......making the JGRRA Tax Cuts the BIG TAX CUT........

........and then we saw one of the greatest periods of economic and revenue growth in history.
.
.
.

 

Bush took office in 2001......the graph shows revenues during the year 2000.....

.....pwned....
.
.
.

 

Hardly. All your graph shows from year end FY 2000 to year end FY 2001 is the effect of the Bush tax rebates.