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

Please identify the post were I ever claimed 2010 is Bush.

Lie much?

Like what years? My chart contains all the years the Bush tax cuts have been in palce.

No I'm not. I pointed out those are the years his tax cuts have been in effect.

Sorry if my notation was a little cryptic. Others more familiar with my posts would understand.

"Revenues 2005" in my chart means revenues in inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars, as the Tax Policy Center chart I linked to lists.

2001 - 2008 was only 7 years.

And a 20% increase is nothing to brag about. Revenues increased 85% during the 8 years Clinton was president.

 

Misleading on BOTH accounts.

Bush had a fictional surplus, we already covered this yet you keep promoting this fallacy. Then, you mislead it by leaving out that there was a decline in revenue leading into Bush's term, and that little terrorist attack that happened in the first year of his presidency.

Next part, Obama only received a $600 billion budget deficit, Obama then DOUBLED it to $1.2 trillion when he signed a few expenses his first day in office. Yes, Obama was receiving a crappy economy just like Bush did, but Obama has side expanded the problem all on his own passing his liberal democratic agenda because he had the House AND the Senate.

 

What was the amount of the decline in revenue leading into Bush's term that you claim?

 

Seriously? This one right here where you are blaming the decrease in revenue on Bush that goes into 2010.

Do you remember it now?

You are talking about the tax cuts of 2003, but are adding in years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and Bush wasn't even in office in 2000.

Right, and you are trying to blame Bush for time that he isn't even in office for. Why don't you blame Clinton for the fall in revenues from 2000-2003? Clinton's tax hikes were still in effect then too.

Ok, still, 20% increase in revenue over the entire 8 years didn't keep up with inflation? I was working and paying for my own things, I never saw the price of anything jump 20% (other than gas) in the past 8 years. Me thinks you are using a skewed scale.

Really? I need to spell this out for you?

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Looks like 8 years to me.

 

Are you purposely this dense?

2000 -- $2.02 trillion
2001 -- $1.99 trillion

^^^^^Seems like the second number is LESS than the first.

 

The recession hit at the end of 2007, so obviously revenues went down then. The only relevant years are from 2003-2007. I only brought 2008 into that because the poster I was responding to had put those same years.

That's from 2000-2008 -- there was a fall from 2000-2003. Since the tax cuts took place in 2003, why don't you recognize the facts from there to 2007?

 

And 2000 wasn't even when Bush was in office.

 

No but that's for pointing out the baselessness of your assertion.

You said I claimed 2010 was Bush, which you have not established was completely false, as my post clearly showed what my chart measured was not Bush, but the Bush tax cuts.

I included nothing for 2000. The chart starts with 2001. I'm talking about the Bush tax cuts of 2001 as well.

Dude, again, I didn't say that entire period was "Bush." I said:

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

Your perceptions are not the measure of inflation. Try an inflation calculator.

But I didn't calculate the inflation adjusted numbers. The source I cited did. Though their figures are consistent with rough inflation numbers.

LOL. Count again.

 

2000 was the last full Clinton year. And thus the baseline for comparisons.

 

Are you intentionally this thick?

That period includes Bush's term. In fact, only a small portion of it is Clinton's term.

You claimed: "there was a decline in revenue leading into Bush's term, "

So let me ask again: What was the amount of the decline in revenue leading into Bush's term that you claim? What is the amount of decline in revenues during Clinton's term, before Bush's term, that you claim there was.

 

Bush took office in 2001 and one of his first acts was to pass a big tax cut. He left office at the begginning of 2009.

I agree you can cherry pick the data to make it look more favorable.

The tax cuts took place in 2003?

Is that what Rush and Sean are telling you guys?

How big were the Bush tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush—the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html


Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

In addition to the tax cuts implemented by the EGTRRA, it initiated a series of rebates for all taxpayers that filed a tax return for 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

Any of this ringing a bell?

 

Right, not Bush, but what Bush did. Still sounds like you are blaming Bush, or his actions. But I don't know how you blame actions but not the person, but it happens all the time in court cases, so I guess you are par for the lib course.

Seeriously? You didn't say

Looks like you included the year 2000 with Bush, me thinks you are lying.

Anyways, your thought about the 2001 tax cuts, really had zero effect on anything other than giving everyone up to $600 who worked and filed taxes the previous year. The 2003 legislation just expedited that process that was supposed to take 5 years to get the tax % down to what was voted on.

You are still blaming Bush. The fall in revenue in 2009 and 2010 is not Bush's fault, nor is it the Tax cut's fault.

There is no way there was a 20% inflation from 2001-2008. None.

Rough is code for stretching of the truth isn't it? The largest growth of revenue in 20 years, 2003 to 2007, was negated by an unheard of super inflation not seen since the great depression and no one saw it this time either?

This is how I know I can just put you on ignore when you start talking about numbers. You can't even count to 8. lets try it with single digits.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Did you catch that? 8, 8 numbers, hah hah hah.

 

It wasn't a "big tax cut" in 2001. It was a drop of 3% points over 6 years. Only the lowest class got a "big tax cut" from 15% to 10%.

The 2003 tax break just sped up the time line for the tax breaks from 6 years to 3 years cause the economy needed the stimulus faster.

Why is it ok for liberals to give a stimulus only to their buddies and unions, giving away $1 trillion in less than a year, but it was wrong for Bush to give a tax break to everyone that turned around and actually help the economy in the long run?

 

No, once again, the period of time under the Bush tax cuts. Because if we are going to put up little charts and graphs as evidence of the effect of the Bush tax cuts, then let's put them up for the whole time they have been in effect.

No, we are talking about the bar chart: Post #101: "Like what years? My chart contains all the years the Bush tax cuts have been in palce."



That chart starts in 2001, not 2000.

Now, if you want to take about the data showing percentage growth, you start with a baseline from which to compare the percentage change. 2000 was Clinton's last full year in office and is the baseline. The year 2000 is not included in the percentages, since it sets the starting point.

Multiply $600 times scores of millions of filers and you get a significant number.

Where the Bush tax cuts in effect in 2009 and 2010 or not?

No way? None?

CPI Inflation Calculator
$100.00
in 2001
Has the same buying power as:
$121.57
in 2008

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

21.57% inflation in prices over that period.

Remind me not to rely on your factual assertions.

What are you babbling about? What super inflation?

I always get a kick when smart assed folks make a complete ass of themselves.

Let's use your list:

From 2001 to
2002 - is 1 year
2003 - 2 years
2004 - 3 years
2005 - 4 years
2006 - 5 years
2007 - 6 years
2008 - 7 years

When you take a refresher course on how to count you can come back and maybe not make such a complete ass of yourself.

 

With out me including 2009, and you knowing the president is inaugurated early in the year, I guess I was expecting too much for you to figure out that I was counting 2001-2008 as full years in and of them selves, guess I will spell things out more precisely for you next time.

 

This might help:

 

Yeah, that "inflation" calculation can just skew everything depending on where you put your "constant". I bet the numbers change if you use 1995 as the "constant" for Clinton, just as Bush's numbers changed using 2003 as the "constant."

 

President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:

* A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;
* An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000;
* A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010;
* A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621

Let's see how that compares to the 2003 tax cuts you guy like to pretend was the first one:

President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

The 2001 "wasn't a big" tax cut was the biggest since 1981 and far bigger than the 2003 tax cuts.

Don't you get tired of being wrong so often?



As to the effect of the Bush tax cuts, the Citizens for Tax Justice calculated their effect as follows:

Year - Tax cut in billions
2001 -55.2
2002 -124.7
2003 - 223.8
2004 - 253.3
2005 - 205.0

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

So let's add back in that $55.2 billion loss of revenues to total revenues in 2001:

Revenues in 2001 were $1,991.2 + 55.2 billion decrease from Bush tax cuts = $2,046.4 billion.​

$2,046.4 billion would be the revenues in 2001 without the Bush tax cuts.

The actual revenues in 2000 were $2025.2 billion.


So without the Bush tax cuts, revenues would have increased, not decreased, in 2001.

So much for the claim that revenues were on "a negative trend when Clinton left office".

 

The numbers would change, but the percentages shouldn't change at all.

 

It is when you write:

If you start with the 2001 figure and end with the 2008 figure, that is 7 years you are calculating.
.

 

2001 <-- that's one year considering Bush took office in January
2002 <-- up to two now
2003 <-- 3
2004 <-- 4
2005 <-- 5
2006 <-- 6
2007 <-- 7
2008 <-- 8
Obama took office in 2009.

So, you see, that's 8 years. Yay, we learned how to count

The tax cuts weren't substantial enough until 2003 to actually be factored in (although the earlier tax cuts did plan to cut taxes substantially in the future). This is why most people consider the tax cuts to have not taken place until 2003.

It doesn't matter if I used 1876 as a constant -- the percentages would be the same.

On a side note: is it just me or does everyone who thinks the tax cuts didn't increase revenue either can't count or can't do math to save their lives?

 

Another counting expert chimes in. How do you figure that from 2001 to 2001 is one year?

2001 was the starting base year for a percentage comparison, not the first year. From 2001 to 2002 is one year.

So let's take your own example to verify:

So according to your methodology, that 2% decrease you calculated for 2001 was for the change over a period of two years, and not one year?

Data cited in post #118 proves otherwise.

Year - Revenues
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2 <-Big Tax cut
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3 <-Smaller Tax cut

Source CBO.gov

Sure. Show us the math to save you life of how revenues increased with those tax cuts.

 

I never said "2001 to 2001" is a year -- I said 2001 is a year, which is true. Bush took office from the beginning of 2001 to 2009 if you want to look at it that way.

Yes, the tax cuts were planned in 2001 but the majority of those taxes did not take place until 2003. Here's something written in 2002:

Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts&#8212;averaging just under $12,000 each this year&#8212;80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won&#8217;t take effect until after this year​

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm​

 

Right. 2001 to 2001 is not one year. 2001 to 2002 is one year. and 2001 to 2008 is 7 years not 8.

Anyone else want to make smart assed comments about counting?

2001 to 2009 would be 8 years.

There were tax refunds sent out in 2001 as part of the Bush stimulus program.

The page you cited calculates the impact of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 as $58 billion.

If you add that back into revenues in 2001, you see revenues going up, not decreasing from 2000 to 2001.

While other factors may have had a role, your source verifies that but for the Bush tax cuts revenues would have increased.

Therefore, revenues were not trending down but trending up when Clinton left office.

 

I thought when you used the 2003 as the constant vs the 2005, the percentage changed? This really just seems like accounting tricks, but I will admit that I haven't taken this in economics or accounting or what ever class this maybe taught in.