Another Liberal myth exposed: Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasurey

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ok, page 27 shows an increase in receipts. Your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

 

[Robert]

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.

It says that spending increased at the same time DUH now why would that have taken place. Whats that say about the liberal idea of how to run an economy?

 

[GWV5903]

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....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you admit that external factors affect tax revenues. That was my point.

Anyone making simplistic cause and effect claims about tax cuts and revenues using raw numbers year over year, without taking into account external factors

has made a fallacious argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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....

Nothing you said refutes anything I said. Kind of makes me wonder what the point of your post was.

 

[Truthmatters]

To lie and pretend the republicans are correct and not lying

 

[PoliticalChic]

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

It is with great appeciation that I see that you went to the trouble to disprove the OP.
This is the way disagreement should be handled.

But the link is not quite dispositive, as they report "It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts...."

Preponderance of the evidence seems then to favor the OP. No?

 

[GWV5903]

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.

And 9/11 had no impact on our economy? I don't want to be accused of saying you're stupid, but keep it up and I won't have too....

 

[Truthseeker420]

Bush came in office riding the wave aof a Clinton surplus economy and left us with a destroyed economy. Anyone that thinks the Bush Tax cuts added to the revenue is ignorant. There might have been some short term benefit from the very liitle tax cuts to the working class but the net rusult is 55% of the national debt is from the Bush Tax cuts. And your stats,assuming they are true, don't prove your point.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

What is wrong with my reaction? I'm not an accountant or tax lawyer so your chart on page 27 is difficult for me to understand. Clearly receipts were down the first 3 years but then they rose. Taking 9/11 into account for the early decline I don't see your point as being factual. Tax receipts clearly rose on the second half of his term so where am I going wrong?

 

[Truthmatters]

You were wrong and so was the OPs author.

Now realize that the housing Boom caused Americans to pay more in taxes on their homes while the prices were inflated.

That is why tax revenue went up.

People took money out of their homes ( foolishly thinking that the prices were real and going to continue to increase) people were encouraged to spend away their homes equity.

Remember Bush telling everyone to go shopping and that it was patriotic?


The Bush SEC held back the protections in the GLB act so that the bubble could be built.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh BTW some people actually appologise when they discover they are wrong.

Some people even stop repeting the lies that were proven wrong.

Some people even chastise the person who lied to them in the first place.

 

[GWV5903]

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.

Again, and in lay mens terms, what is specifically "false, fallacious, and misleading" about the OP?

Take as much time as you need, re-writing history is a arduous task...

 

[boedicca]

Ryan Dwyer is a Washington lawyer and a fellow with the National Review Institute.

TMN is a partisan hack and an avid fan of Daily Kos.

 

[Sallow]

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?

Naw.

Sounds pretty paltry.

Considering the Clinton Administration added over 30 million jobs.

I wonder what life would have been like without the tax cuts.

 

[Truthmatters]

" he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded"


where and when did the economy respond ?