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

What about the fact that tens of billions in taxes were refunded in 2001 by the Bush tax rebates?

You've been informed of this several times and continue to pretend like it never happened.

 

....the graph shows the begining of 2000 to the end of 2000......



....Im embarassed for you.....
.
.
.
.

 

You mean that $40 Billion in tax rebates?

Oooooh wowwwww......
.
.
.
.

 

That is correct. Those rebates you continually continue to ignore.

And now we can look the surplus/deficit from 2000 (Clinton's last full year) to 2001 (the year the Bush tax cuts were passed and the $40 billion in revenues were refunded):

Year - on budget surplus/deficit:
2000 86.4
2001 -32.4

Source: CBO.gov

And we can add that $40 billion back into to 2001, and we would have a $8 billion surplus, instead of a $32 billion deficit.

And then we can look at revenues:

Year - revenues:
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2

Source: CBO.gov

And we can see that if we add that $40 billion back into revenues, we have revenues in 2001 of $2,031 instead of $1991.2, and an increase in revenues that year, instead of a decrease.

So we can now see that the fact that the economy went from surplus to deficit from 2000 to 2001, and that revenues decreased from 2000 to 2001, can be directly attributable to Bush's tax policies.

Where you saying something about pwned?

 

C'mon dude. You can't really be serious. That graph takes a figure from the end of FY2000 and a figure from FY2001 and draws a straight line between them.

It doesn't show a continual trend every month over the year.

Clinton was only president during 3 1/2 months of that FY, Bush for 8 1/2 months.

You are taking two discrete points a year apart, drawing a line bewteen them, and attributing the decrease to Clinton based on a line between the two points.

We have proved in the preceding post that the decrease in revenues from 2000 to 2001 can be attributed to Bush's tax rebates, none of which were effected when Clinton was president.

So your argument that because a line between two year end data points goes down that proves revenues were decreasing during the first 3 1/2 months while Clinton was president is inane, at best.

 

Good gawd.......amateur hour......

Fiscal Year 2000 ended September 30, 2000 I believe.....and Fiscal Year 2001 ended in September 2001. With that said.......

.......WHY DID REVENUE DECREASE......BEFORE THE BUSH TAX CUTS?

Federal Revenue FY 2000--BJ's Last Year

.
.
.
.

 

You chart doesn't show that revenues decreased before the Bush tax cuts. That's the point you apparently cannot comprehend.

All your data shows is that revenues for FY2001 were lower than FY2000. It doesn't show when the revenues got lower. It doesn't show that revenues were lower during the 3 1/2 months Clinton was president.

You are simply extrapolating the change in revenues by drawing a line. That is not a demonstrated accurate extrapolation.

Why? Because we know that Bush gave about $40 billion in refunds in 2001, and that but for that revenues would be higher. So it is a fair assessment that revenues were higher before the Bush tax cuts.

 

Actually the "rich" paid more,as a percentage of income, after the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba606

that's the systemic problem with the Left. They seem to think that all money belongs to the government, and we are allowed to keep what they allow us to keep.

 

Your source is wrong. The Bush tax cuts were not passed in 1986.

Effective Individual Income Tax Rate [top 1%]

Year - %
2000 24.2
2001 24.1
2002 23.7
2003 20.4
2004 19.7
2005 19.4

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls Table A1.

Contrary to your assertion, the rich paid less as a percentage of their income after the Bush tax cuts.

That's the systemic problem with the Right. The believe the BS propaganda from conservative sources.

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...truth_about_the_bush_tax_increases_98625.html

Try again.

 

No need.

That biased article, despite its numerous deceptive and unfounded assertions, in no way contradicts the data I posted.

 

You missed it entirely, didn't you? as the tax rate on the "rich" dropped, the "rich" were willing to take more risks. Resulting in INCREASED revenue to the government. BTW, the Bush tax cuts took almost 4 million poor off the tax rolls completely. But why do you believe that all money belongs to the government, to be doled out as it sees fit?

 

Good point.

 

I am surprised on how many Americans don't realize how much of our dollars have been send overseas. Mostly to muslim countiries.
Obama alone has banked rolled the USA in just 3 years.

 

They don't realize it because it's not true. Our foreign aid budget is significantly less than 1% of the budget. Humanitarian aid is somewhat less than 0.5%. Unless you count money going to Iraq and Afghanistan as foreign aid, Israel is the largest single recipient.

 

The answer is simple. If you take in less money than you need to cover the mortgage and bills you will be screwed. If you cover your bills by using your credit card, you will be screwed even sooner than you think.


Clinton took away a lot of corporate tax cuts and raised taxes just like Boosh #1 did. However during the Clinton years the result was a decline in the debt that Regan and Boosh#1 created. In addition, there were more jobs created during that period than today. There was only one USA war during that period and it lasted only 30-60 days in Cosavo. Total cost of the war was equal to one week in Iraq. You do the math. IF you can.

 

President G.W. Bush raised the debt $5.365 trillion dollars in 8 years!

http://www.newsrake.org/index.php/topic,4543.msg73045.html#msg73045

 

And Obama has risen it $4 Trillion in 3 years. Whats you point?

 

No he hasn't....

 

What was the debt at when he took office? What is it now? Or are you saying cause there has been no budget in 2 years it is not his fault that we are spending more than we ever have in history?

 

What policies have Obama's signature on them? How much do those policies cost? Or are we going to pretend America was founded Jan 20th 2009.

 

Really? Stimulus bill ring a bell? Cash for clunkers? Lybian war. The troops still in Iraq. The surge in Afgan. Obamacare. What ever spending that has been done since Jan 20th 2009 is Obama's spending, Just like everything from when Bush took office to the time he left is Bush's, all ~$5 trillion of it. But you think that because Obama has been either on the golf course or on vacation for 50% of the time he has been president, none of the $4 Trillion in deficit spending since Jan 20th 2009 is his fault?

 

The stimulus created 2million jobs. Combat missions in Iraq are over and Afghanistan is coming to a close.

Your way of calculating who spent more is partisan and unfair. Obama inherited a recession and a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. Bush inherited a 150 dollar surplus and an economy just starting to slow down from a massive boom. He had about 3 years to react to what almost every economist predicted was a housing bubble and his failure to act led us into the harshest recession since the great depression. It's a given that Obama is spending more. Ron Paul would spend more than Bush under your scale. The president doesn't have infinite power. He can't just sign spending out of existence. It's not that simple.

 

Revenues under Bush only increased nominally. They didn't even keep up with inflation, and lagged far behind economic growth

Real revenues grew -1% under Bush and about +57% under Clinton.

If the Bush tax cuts so stimulated the "rich" as you claim, why was revenue growth so CRAPPY under Bush?

Year - Revenues 2005$:

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

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

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

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

 

The Republicans under Bush increased spending *faster* than the Democrats.


Spending - Democrat controlled Congress:
2006 2,655.4
2010 3,456.2
Increase over 4 years: 30.2%

Spending - Republican controlled Congress.
2002 2,011.2
2006 2,655.4
Increase over 4 years: 32.0%

Source: CBO.gov

The only reason the debt wasn't even worse under Bush is that he inherited a budget surplus. Which was quickly squandered.