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

And we still haven't learned that stimuluses of this kind don't work? Only long term tax breaks allow people to keep spending money over all of the bad times.

Why do liberals try to speculate on what MAY have happened when their programs fail or when a conservatives program succeeeds? You don't know what the economy would have been like without the tax cuts, does anyone really know if the economy would have rebounded in 2003 without the tax breaks? Do the liberals have an "alternative time line traveling machine" cause they sure like to speculate on what "MIGHT" have happened if there wasn't a tax break, or if there wasn't a stimulus. I don't think "Captain Hindsight" is doing to well.

Even if you "revise" the numbers with inflation or some other numbers that shows Clinton to be all powerful? Can't wait for the revision of Obama's presidency, I bet it is going to show how he paid off the debt out of his own pocket.

 

Right... so Bush was in office for 8 years.

But revenue increased as soon as 80% of the taxes kicked in, eh?

 

taxes to a Liberal are like french fries to Michelle Obama.
There is never enough.

 

I'm sure glad we resolved that. Who says you can't learn anything about this forum.

Revenues increased after they tanked for a record 4 years with the tax cuts before the tax cuts stopped and they started growing again.

But I don't think they ever increased anything like 80% ever.

 

The Bush tax cuts were approx $70 Billion dollars a year over 9 years. Obama's stimulus was $840 Billion in 1 year. Medicare Fraud costs us $60 to $90 Billion dollars a year, every year. I hope this puts things in a little perspective.

 

The main problem is that the Delay branch of the Republican party decided that it was better to kiss up to K Street, rather than "the folks who brung them there." The tax cuts are the only thing that kept us from going into a full recession in the early 2000s

 

It's amazing to me the number of conservatives who write posts like these, and apparently have no clue of what a deficit is.

Rush and Sean are repeating this mantra, I'm guessing.

 

Revenue decreased from 2.7 Trillion to 2.15 Trillion after the Crash.

Thx Bush (-550 Billion)

DOD spending increased from 300 Billion to 700 Billion. Add in another 200 Billion for other items related to Military spending

Thx Bush (-600 Billion)

Income is 2.2 Trillion .. spending is 3.6 Trillion = roughly 1.4 Trillion deficit.

If we had that 1.15 Trillion spend back .. the deficit would be 250 Billion.

 

A declining (or lack of any) revenue is never, ever the CAUSE of a deficit. It is logically and mathematically impossible.

Only expenditures above revenue can cause a deficit.

Example:

You plan to buy a Ferrari with your annual bonus. You don't get the bonus as planned, yet still buy the Ferrari anyway and go into debt.

The lack of a bonus didn't CAUSE your debt, your refusal to reduce spending did.

Class dismissed.

 

No, by 2007 revenues were 44% higher than the low during the slowdown and recession that began before he was even elected, revenue growth was already falling, and 35% higher than when he took office. The deficit was down to $161 billion and we'd had 52 months of growth and full employment.

The falling deficit started with the Democrat take over of Congress and then grew to TEN TIMES where Bush and the Republicans had once they got the White House too.

 

A business slowdown and recession caused the drop in revenues and the resulting deficits as normally happen during recessions and slowdowns.

The proper question is did the Bush tax rate cuts help the economy get through the recession and did they result in higher revenues?

The answer is yes.

 

You do realize you confirm them.

Yes beginning BEFORE he was even elected because of the dot.com slow down and resulting recession. Note how they went up after we recovered and the rates of growth. All the while we were enjoying full employment and declining deficits.

My what we would give to have that back.

 

Well we had to borrow alot of money for the Iraq and Afghani wars.. So the interest was mounting and the value of the dollar was declining..



FACTS ABOUT THE US DEBT CEILING

• The debt ceiling has been raised 103 times since 1944

• It has been raised 51 times by Republicans, 52 times by Democrats

• Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling by 23 times, followed by Lyndon B Johnson with 13 times, Bill Clinton by 12 times and Jimmy Carter by 9 times

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...iling-historic

 

Oblivious to Reality

Agent Zero, AllEvil, Badgewearer, Bain, Ben Thinkin, bgb, Buzz62, caezar, Clint Torres, Colonel K, Come Home America, common sense warrior, creation, Dasein, DivineComedy, finnbow, Fred In Texas, frodly, GlobalHumanism, GoSlash27, Hard-Driver, iJoeTime, Inphormer, IrishLefty, JSNY818, junius, fils, jwhitesj, Kessy_Athena, Kimaris, krunkskimo, legojenn, magnum, Margot, NoPartyAffiliation, Osiris Faction, other guy, rahl, randlepatrickmcmurphy, ReasonOverIdeology, rsay32, S.D., signcutter, skeptic-f, Someone, Swensson, TarHeel, tehduder, TheTaoOfBill, toddwv, Wingless


Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts


We The People were allowed to keep a little more of our profits and allowances.........one of the greatest growths in government revenue in US History followed.
.
.
.
.

 

not really sure in the big picture, but getting a $600 check really helped me out in 2008 when I was laid off from April to June. It helped me out a lot.

 

The slowdown was 2001, when the economy only grew 3.4% The low for revenues was two years later, 2003.

year - Revenue growth
1991 2.2%
1992 3.4%
1993 5.8%
1994 9.0%
1995 7.4%
1996 7.5%
1997 8.7%
1998 9.0%
1999 6.1%
2000 10.8%

Falling like a stone.

"Down" to $161 billion from a surplus of $236 billion.

Wowsie.

Speaking of "slowdowns" wasn't there something that happened in 2008 and 2009?

 

And now, the whole picture of revenues and the Bush tax cuts:



Probably the worst period of revenue growth in modern history.

 

A "recession" in which the economy *grew* caused the drop in revenues?

That where I can never get an answer from our conservative friends.

They claim the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with revenues falling hundreds of billions in 2001-03 (because that would mean tax cuts contributed to the deficit problem we have) and argue, like Bluesguy does here, that it was the "recession" (from the "dot.com" crash or "9/11") that caused revenues to tank.

But here's the data on revenues and the economy:

Year - Revenues - %chng
2001 1991.2 -1.7%
2002 1853.2 -6.9%
2003 1782.3 -3.8%

Year - GDP - % chng
2001 10,286.2 3.36%
2002 10,642.3 3.46%
2003 11,142.1 4.70%

Maybe Bluesguy or some other conservative can explain how it was that an economy that grew 3.4-4.7% in 2001 thru 2003 caused revenues to fall by over $200 billion in that same time period?

And after they ignore, err, explain that, they can take a shot at why revenues in the 1991 recession, which was more severe than in 2001, did not fall:

Year - Revenues - % chng
1991 1055.0 2.2%
1992 1091.3 3.4%

Year - GDP - % chng
1991 5,992.1 3.30%
1992 6,342.3 5.84%

 

If he had gotten the bonus, there would have been no debt.

Take away the bonus, go into debt.

Class dismissed.

 

True. The question of this thread is illogical and your proposed question makes more sense to debate.

Or perhaps...Should the Bush tax cuts be renewed to help stimulate the economy?

I say the 28%, 25%, 15%, and 10% tax brackets should all be reduced to 5%:

Annual income of $0 - 174,400 (single) or $0 - $212,300 (married) pay 5% in taxes.

Anything above is taxed at 35%.

 

Because they did such a great job so far, right?

That should really improve the deficit picture.

 

The Bush tax cuts helped a little, but did not go far enough to have a significant impact on the economy.

As for my proposal sarcastically "improving the deficit picture"...that is illogical.

How is it that you don't understand this? Spending creates deficits, not reductions in revenue. This is economics 101 and not complicated at all.

 

I am absolutely floored at the raw arrogant stupidity.

How the hell could you possibly believe cutting revenues has no effect on the deficit? Wow. No economics class in the world would have the right mind to teach that. That's just dumb. Plane old dumb. Not even conservative economists believe that. Of course tea party members aren't following any economists. Liberal or conservative.

 

Have any of the leftists realized that Obama betrayed them by extending the Bush tax cuts for two years? Can any of the leftists explain how this action wasn't a betrayal?

 

Extending unemployment benefits was far more important than letting Bush tax cuts expire. Obama made a good compromise.