Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #21
Ok, page 27 shows an increase in receipts. Your point?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can imagine you wont be back to this thread now.
What is conveniently left out of these fallacious Bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenues arguments is that revenues actually FELL
in 2001, 2002, and 2003. One of the only times in history that revenues fell 3 years in a row.
Two points about that:
1. What does that say about the Bush 2001 tax cuts?
2. How much of that represents the natural rise and fall of the business cycle? And thus, how much of the revenue increases post-2004 were a function of the business cycle?
Oh, and btw, revenues also fell in 2008 and 2009, still, of course, while the Bush tax cuts were in place.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the 03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.
This all false, fallacious, and misleading.
Revenues peaked in 2000, at just over 2 trillion dollars.
Bush revenues never reached 2 trillion dollars until 2005.
Bush deficits, however, totaled 1.2 trillion from 2002 thru 2005.
The loss of revenues from Bush's tax cuts prevented the natural increases in tax revenues - that occur when the economy is growing - from from keeping up with the government spending that was also increasing.
Historical Tables | The White House
What is conveniently left out of these fallacious Bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenues arguments is that revenues actually FELL
in 2001, 2002, and 2003. One of the only times in history that revenues fell 3 years in a row.
Two points about that:
1. What does that say about the Bush 2001 tax cuts?
2. How much of that represents the natural rise and fall of the business cycle? And thus, how much of the revenue increases post-2004 were a function of the business cycle?
Oh, and btw, revenues also fell in 2008 and 2009, still, of course, while the Bush tax cuts were in place.
I can imagine you wont be back to this thread now.
LOL I'm not some child that hides if I can't prove a point or when I'm wrong. I take it thats how you operate?
What is conveniently left out of these fallacious Bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenues arguments is that revenues actually FELL
in 2001, 2002, and 2003. One of the only times in history that revenues fell 3 years in a row.
Two points about that:
1. What does that say about the Bush 2001 tax cuts?
2. How much of that represents the natural rise and fall of the business cycle? And thus, how much of the revenue increases post-2004 were a function of the business cycle?
Oh, and btw, revenues also fell in 2008 and 2009, still, of course, while the Bush tax cuts were in place.
You left out 9/11 but of course the prospect of war didn't have any impact in the early Bush years, did it.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the 03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.
This all false, fallacious, and misleading.
Revenues peaked in 2000, at just over 2 trillion dollars.
Bush revenues never reached 2 trillion dollars until 2005.
Bush deficits, however, totaled 1.2 trillion from 2002 thru 2005.
The loss of revenues from Bush's tax cuts prevented the natural increases in tax revenues - that occur when the economy is growing - from from keeping up with the government spending that was also increasing.
Historical Tables | The White House
No it isn't....
Obviously you can't read the link you provided....
It is amazing how blind the left is when it comes to growth....
What is conveniently left out of these fallacious Bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenues arguments is that revenues actually FELL
in 2001, 2002, and 2003. One of the only times in history that revenues fell 3 years in a row.Two points about that:
1. What does that say about the Bush 2001 tax cuts?
2. How much of that represents the natural rise and fall of the business cycle? And thus, how much of the revenue increases post-2004 were a function of the business cycle?
Oh, and btw, revenues also fell in 2008 and 2009, still, of course, while the Bush tax cuts were in place.
I can imagine you wont be back to this thread now.
LOL I'm not some child that hides if I can't prove a point or when I'm wrong. I take it thats how you operate?
Wow so this is how you react when you have been proven wrong?
Look at the other fools in this thread.
They ignored the facts and are now just saying the information doesnt say what it says.
Bush did not create more revenue by cutting taxes.
This all false, fallacious, and misleading.
Revenues peaked in 2000, at just over 2 trillion dollars.
Bush revenues never reached 2 trillion dollars until 2005.
Bush deficits, however, totaled 1.2 trillion from 2002 thru 2005.
The loss of revenues from Bush's tax cuts prevented the natural increases in tax revenues - that occur when the economy is growing - from from keeping up with the government spending that was also increasing.
Historical Tables | The White House
No it isn't....
Obviously you can't read the link you provided....
It is amazing how blind the left is when it comes to growth....
Nothing you said refutes anything I said. Kind of makes me wonder what the point of your post was.
Ryan Dwyer is a Washington lawyer and a fellow with the National Review Institute.
Ryan Dwyer is a Washington lawyer and a fellow with the National Review Institute.
1. $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007,
2. median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
3. Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts
4. tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
5. income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
6. the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax
So....you don't like the messenger, but have found no error in the message?
Sounds kind of intellectually lazy at best.
Is that the methodology taught to Liberals?