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

[NYcarbineer]

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...

The. claim. that. the. Bush. tax. cuts. CAUSED. increased. revenues.

 

[Truthmatters]

This country is doomed because these people just can not accept facts.

Thank the republican party for that

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And some people don't automatically assume that someone else is right or wrong based on their words alone. Some of your argument makes sense but I don't just take it at that without doing my own research. Sorry your ego requires you to have instant gratification.

 

[boedicca]

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

The Dot Com crash - have you heard of it?

9/11 - have you heard of it?

The Bush tax cuts helped the company recover from a double whammy, and did results in increased tax receipts as well as full employment.

And despite my opposition to his deficits, his 8 year total is less than one year of Obama's.

 

[Truthmatters]

I knew the REAL facts so I knew the OP and his writer were wrong.

The important question is why didnt you already know it?

 

[Robert]

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.

Before or after the bubble imploded?Ya people still remember what happened.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Clinton left Bush a $5.8 trillon national debt.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Before or after the bubble imploded?Ya people still remember what happened.

Palease.. these dummies think Clinton ran a surplus... you want rationality from them?

 

[Truthmatters]

And some people don't automatically assume that someone else is right or wrong based on their words alone. Some of your argument makes sense but I don't just take it at that without doing my own research. Sorry your ego requires you to have instant gratification.

You were wrong.

I was right.

i knew it the momment I saw the article.


I was ALREADY armed with the facts.

You were armed with a head full of lies.


Your reaction was to spew insults on me.

How messed up do you have to be to be angry at someone for giving you facts?

 

[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.

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

How "odd".

Your title conflicts with the first-line.

"A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squandered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich."

You "conservatives" need to find better ways to deal with your confusion; the difference between Reality & the ways you've decided things should be.

"The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess.

In fairness, Bush and his supply-side crowd believe with a zealot’s fervor that tax cuts spur such economic growth that future deficits never happen. Over history there are trillions of dollars of debt that prove them wrong. But there’s no persuading a true believer."

Bush Tax Cuts FOR The Wealthy​

 

[boedicca]

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.

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

Read some history bub. 9/11 occurred in 2001, and sucker punched the economy. Nor do tax cuts have an instantaneous impact.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

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.

But don't let that get in the way of your Fabian Socialist agenda.

 

[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

The Dot Com crash - have you heard of it?

9/11 - have you heard of it?

The Bush tax cuts helped the company recover from a double whammy, and did results in increased tax receipts as well as full employment.

And despite my opposition to his deficits, his 8 year total is less than one year of Obama's.

Prove cause and effect.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why is this never discussed?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....'cause it's BULLSHIT???!



JRK's desperate-effort, to "rewrite" documented-History, could only (obviously) impact someone like yourself.

"What newspapers/magazines do..." YOU read?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

The Dot Com crash - have you heard of it?

9/11 - have you heard of it?

The Bush tax cuts helped the company recover from a double whammy, and did results in increased tax receipts as well as full employment.

And despite my opposition to his deficits, his 8 year total is less than one year of Obama's.

Prove cause and effect.

Wait.. you really need proof that an economic crash decreases tax receipts?

REALLY???????????

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I knew the REAL facts so I knew the OP and his writer were wrong.

The important question is why didnt you already know it?

Because I'm not an economist and I'm new here so I don't know anyone's motives. I have to work much harder to discern the truth because of my lack of economic education. Having said that I am aware of some political realities.

Clinton had a republican majority to guide him and keep him in check which resulted in prosperous times. Bush allowed ridiculous spending and had 2 major crisis to overcome. Obama just spends money like it grows in the rose garden and NEVER even tried to keep his majority in check and as a result wants to blame the republicans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You left out 9/11 but of course the prospect of war didn't have any impact in the early Bush years, did it.

I'm being as concise as possible.

2001 - Bush passed his first tax cut.

2003 - US GDP increased 3.1%

2003 - US tax revenues FELL.



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry for 2003 For GDP

Read some history bub. 9/11 occurred in 2001, and sucker punched the economy. Nor do tax cuts have an instantaneous impact.

What part of GDP increasing 3.1% in 2003 did you not understand?

And, why are you insisting on using external factors to explain why Bush's tax cuts didn't work,
but don't consider them at all when you're trying to claim they did work?

How about, for example, tax revenues increased after 2003 because of the real estate boom, and because of the natural rebound of the business cycle, and because of the massive deficit spending by Bush that was pumping billions into the economy and thus creating jobs and the resultant tax revenue?

How about we add up all the effects of everything ELSE before we decide what the Bush tax cuts did or didn't do?

 

[Sallow]

The answer to this whooole debate comes down to this:

Do you think it is more important to:
a) Give more money to the government.
b) Leave more money in the hands of business owners.

That's it.

The government creates conditions that allows Business owners to do business. If government is underfunded it will cease to effectively to it's job.

Which is what is happening now.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Before or after the bubble imploded?Ya people still remember what happened.

Palease.. these dummies think Clinton ran a surplus... you want rationality from them?

If proper accrual accounting is used, the deficit has grown enormously for decades.