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

Fuzzy math to say it created 2 million jobs. Cambat missions have stopped, but we are still there with the same force, just a new name. Afgan was still ramped up with more troops.

1.2 trillion is a lie. $600 billion of that deficit was spending added onto the last Bush budget by Obama. As far as the recession is concered, talk to your liberal buddies about their institution of Freddy and Fanny starting the subprime home loans.

Talk about partisan talking points. There was a surplus only if you want to believe putting off payments on your debt is equal to balancing you budget. If you are over spending your revenue, try to stop your mortgage payments for a year or two and tell me if you really balanced you budget. That only increases your debt because of the interest you acrue from not paying the principle.

This is the first honest thing you said, but it isn't the whole truth. It wasn't just a slow down, it was a complete stop and recession. There was a loss in tax revenue, the first time in 50 years, caused by raising the taxes too much and causing the dot com bubble to pop. If you don't believe me, maybe I will go write a blog on Huffpo so you can call it "creditable."

Very true, he should have stopped fanny and freddy, but I guess the democrats incharge screaming it was solvant stunted his decission.

How do you figure?

But you will blame Bush for what he did, and ignore what Obama is doing? I don't like what Bush did, I just find it amazing that you can't give credit where credit is due when it goes towards Obama.

 

How about you try the truth out for size? Try going from the bottom of the recession that the tax cuts turned around and not from the top of Clinton's last year.

The first year of Bush's presidency(2001), the tax revenue was ~$2 trillion.

The last year was 2008, the revenue was ~$2.5 trillion.

That is acually a 20% increase overall for Bush.

But still, the low end of the 2000-2003 recession from the DOT com bubble was actually what the tax cuts helped turn around.

Revenues at the low point were ~$1.8 trillion.

And the hight of the Bush presidency in 2007, the revenue was ~$2.6 trillion.

So the tax cuts turned out to have an increase in revenue from 2003-2007 under Bush of ~44% increase in revenue. "Modest" indeed.

 

There was no surplus. Never was. There was a time for 1 year that the budget was actually had more revenue than there was spending. The other 3 years were "positive" because they still took out loans from the SS account that will need to be paid. And AGAIN, that is only because they DELAYED payments on several of their debts, which only increases spending in the long run. This is the governments version of subprime loans, only paying on the interest instead of also paying on the principle.

As far as the rest of the increase in spending from Bush, they were decreasing the deficit spending each year till their 2009 budget where the deficit spending went from $400 billion to $600 billion (the budget Bush signed), Obama added another $600 billion to the 2009 budget when he got into the office. So spending increased under Bush, sure, and I don't like the Rx drug care or the no student left behind or the patriot act, and we should have been out of Iraq and Afgan by now, but the spending was getting inline with revenues if the recession didn't happen. There is no future projections of revenues and spending meeting for Obama, or anyone at all, ever right now with the way Obama is increasing spending and NOT fixing the economy.

 

Federal Revenue 2000-2001 (Before The Bush Tax Cuts)


Bush took office in Jan. 2001.....The Bush Tax Cut wasnt even signed until June 2001......

Libs.....why were revenues declining before The Bush Tax Cuts were even signed?
.
.
.

 

Please identify what you claim I wrote which is not the truth.

Or are you just spouting baseless nonsense?

Which actually didn't even keep up with inflation.

What 2000-2003 recession?

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again?

Revenues at the low point were ~$1.8 trillion.

And the hight of the Bush presidency in 2007, the revenue was ~$2.6 trillion.

So the tax cuts turned out to have an increase in revenue from 2003-2007 under Bush of ~44% increase in revenue. "Modest" indeed. [/quote]

What about 2001-03 when revenues fell by hundreds of billions despite a growing economy? What about 2008? Why are you excluding those years?

[/QUOTE]

I agree if you cherry pick and exclude all the unfavorable bad data you can make the numbers look a little better.

 

The weren't.

..............

 

Because a surplus after Clinton's tax increase that vanished shortly after Bush's tax cuts would suggest that a tax increase, which increases revenues, would be a good thing to do to reduce deficits.

A taxi increase? Perish the thought!



http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

 

You're chart isn't even close to accurate.

Consider less biased sources if you want an accurate understanding of facts upon which to make your conclusions.

 

The Facts, Charts, and Truth are Lying again........

Federal Revenue (2000-2001)



......it was Bush's fault....but Bush wasnt even President yet......
.
.
.

 

Your chart is false and doesn't measure revenues throughout the year.

It shows revenues were higher in Clinton's last year and lower in Bush's first.

But you know that. You also know that the Bush tax cuts included $40 billion in rebates in 2001, as you admitted in our last discussion, and that is the reason why revenues went down in 2001.

I'll be happy to provide the link to anyone who is interested.

 

I provided proof and a graph, you choose to ignore.

20% revenue growth didn't keep up with inflation? What were you smoking?

Really? A reduction in revenue after the DOT com bubble in 2000 is not a recession? The months after 9/11, when the DJIA dropped to 8k wasn't a recession? 7% unemployment wasn't a recession? Ignoring (*)(*)(*)(*) again? And you even agree there was a recession later on in your post. Wow.

I didn't, the previous numbers included them. I was addressing your assertion that the 2003 tax cuts didn't produce revenues. And I said hight, not trying to exclude 2008, but show you that before this democratically caused disaster, there was a lot of increased revenue.

Really? Cherry picking? We were talking about the Tax cuts, and the data to support them are 2003 and on. Look at the graph again. I also included the entirity of his presidency, not just the "best parts", and I still showed you he had a 20% increase in revenue overall, or 44% increase AFTER the tax cuts, the tax cuts you claim did nothing for revenue.

 

The only part that I agree with you on is the last year of the graph, other than that, the numbers are all the same, and shows a negative trend when Clinton leaving office, and a positive trend for Bush till the housing collapse caused by democrats pets fanny and freddy.

 

is your chosen stance on the policies you don't agree with. There are numerous numbers and graphs of the last 2 pages and all you can say is "they are lies." This graph you choose to ignore takes only 1 year into account, and that is the last year of Clinton, where the revenues were decreasing all throughout that year.

 

Please explain the basis of your assertion that the chart "shows a negative trend when Clinton left office" when it improved every single year while Clinton was president.

Also, please explain how a surplus peaking in 2000, Clinton's last year in office, and dropping to almost a $500 billion deficit in 2004, represents "a positive trend for Bush"

Odd manners of interpreting data.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts OBVIOUSLY had a major roll in this deficit.
Fudged graphs mean nothing.

 

I said you deficit chart was inaccurate, which you agreed with.

I said that bad's chart did not show month to month revenues. It just takes the better figure from Clintons last year and the lower figures from Bush's first year and draws a line between two data points. Which does not prove that revenues between the data points were falling while Clinton was in office.

Feel free to demonstrate how I am wrong.

 

They like to pretend that tens of billions in tax refunds weren't mailed out that year.

 

That's the revenue from individual income taxes.

From your source, the totals are:
2000 -- 2,025,198
2001 -- 1,991,142
2002 -- 1,853,149
2003 -- 1,782,321
2004 -- 1,880,126
2005 -- 2,153,625
2006 -- 2,406,876
2007 -- 2,568,001
2008 -- 2,523,991

This aligns with Badmutha's graph:

Also, if we calculate inflation, it's still evident that revenues increase after the Bush tax cuts.

 

The Bush tax cuts continued beyond 2008.

2009 2,104,600
2010 2,161,700

The graph only shows between 2003 and 2007.

This is the revenue chart for the entire period the tax cuts have been in place.

That is false. Revenues failed to keep up even with inflation during the Bush administration, and lagged far behind economic growth.

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%

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

 

The last year of Clinton's budgets was 2001, he signed that one just like Bush signed a $600 billion deficit budget in 2008 for FY 2009. In the many years before Obama, the budget is signed for the FY prior to the years actually starting. So, the FY (Oct 1 - Sep 30) 2000 was the peak and was signed in 1999 (preferably before Oct 1st). The FY 2001 was signed in 2000 by Clinton. That showed a downward spiral of the economy cause there was less revenue and more spending that year.

You blame the recession from the popping of the 2000 dot com bubble on Bush, fine even though it happened under Clinton. But more than just that bubble happened in 2001. Remember that little event that happened on Sep 11th? That thing where 2 plane hit the world TRADE centers? That too caused a drop in the markets causing less revenue. That event also caused us to go retaliate against the country that allowed this militia to operate and organize these attacks. This was the start of a war that Bush got congressional UNANIMOUS support for. Although we should have been in and out faster than a 15 y/o having sex for the first time, we have stayed playing build-a-nation all the while people keep coming in and wrecking what we build. This is how we had a big deficit spending that only got smaller AFTER the tax cuts till the next financial crisis.

All I have been arguing with you about is that you claim the tax cuts didn't produce revenues. I have shown you that you are wrong, or at least your assertion that Bush only had a -1% revenue increase during his time in office is totally false.

 

Do you have a reading comprhession problem? I said only the last YEAR of the graph did I agree with on that was wrong. How did you get that I "agreed" with you that the whole thing is wrong?

FY 2001 was Clintons budget. Just like FY 2009 was Bush's which he signed for $600 billion in deficit spending.

 

Bush inherited a surplus. Obama inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

 

What about the $40 billion or so tax refunds that were mailed out that year after Bush became president?

Where did I say anything that would give you that idea?

9/11 was only 19 days before the end of the fiscal year. 1) What is your analysis of the effect of revenues of that event, and 2) even if it did have a major impact on revenues, how can you claim that affected revenues while Clinton was president to buttress your position that revenues were decreasing when he left office on Jan 20, 2000?

What does that have to do with "a negative trend when Clinton left office" or "a positive trend for Bush"?

Well, no, you claimed the chart "shows a negative trend when Clinton left office" and "a positive trend for Bush" before 2008.

I never said tax cuts didn't produce revenues. I said "Revenues under Bush only increased nominally. They didn't even keep up with inflation, and lagged far behind economic growth" and I've pointed to data proving that revenues under Bush didn't even keep up with inflation, and were abysmal compared to revenues under Clinton.

I posted this data to rebut the assertion that "as the tax rate on the 'rich' dropped, the 'rich' were willing to take more risks. Resulting in INCREASED revenue to the government."

 

And? How do you try to claim 2009 and 2010 is Bush, but say 2001 to 2003 weren't Clinton? Hypocracy much?

You are only talking about the Tax cuts time frame, but you are trying to say it all equates to his revenues. You are adding in numbers and years that don't belong to your argument.

Again, you are trying to extend Bush's policies into a 10 year window. How about if that is the case, you take 2000-2003 as Clintons declining revenues due to his Tax hikes?

You are wrong!!! The revenue for 2008 was 2,523,991,000
And why are still using Clinton's 2000 as Bush's number?

Bush's 2001 was 1,991,142,000

That equals a 20% increase in revenue from START (2001) to END (200. Bush was only president for 8 years.

 

I don't have a reading comprehension problem at all. I said your chart was inaccurate. I didn't say every bit of it was. You agreed that it was inaccurate. So what if it was just that last year? That was the most important year to your point about the deficit under Obama.

Why are you defending an admittedly accurate chart?

Ok, but what about the $40 billion or so tax refunds that were mailed out that year after Bush became president?

The total deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion, not $600 billion.