No, all the receipt outlay shows is raw dollars. It does not take into account the actual measurement of revenue as it relates to the budget demand. If the percentage decreases to the size of the economy, then it indicates there is shortage in covering the budget.Are you kidding me? No links? And okay sure, it's an understandable rule we wouldn't act like the copy and paste queen known as PoliticalChic but you left me no choice but to prove you wrong about tax cuts blowing up the deficit. So no, Bush's tax cuts didn't produce more revenue because by the time his term was over, the deficit was massive. A deficit that Obama successfully reduced by the way.
Here's a key piece of info you may not be aware of: The tax receipt figure is NOT the proper way to measure revenue. The receipt model is a measure of raw dollars. When measuring revenue in terms of the budget, inflation and the size of the economy has to be taken into account. it has to be computed as a percentage of the GDP. When Bush took office in 2000, revenue as a percentage of GDP was at 20%. When he left office, it was around 15%-16%.
So yeah, that graph that shows the huge increase of tax receipt over the years may seem like revenue levels are too high, but because of inflation, that graph at its peak wasn't an adequate amount to cover the nation's expenses. That's why Bush left office with a big deficit.
You didn't prove me wrong about tax cuts blowing up the deficit because I never made any claims about tax cuts relating to deficits. Deficits are the result of spending money we don't have. Tax revenues are the monies collected in taxes based on tax rates. To compare annually you do need to factor in inflation which my tables do. We're strictly looking at whether cutting the tax rates produce more or less revenue in taxes. The data shows it produces more. It doesn't matter how much we spent... that's spending, not the tax rate. It also doesn't matter how much the GDP grew. We're only looking at rate of taxation and revenue produced by it.
Now we can certainly debate spending and how running up a massive national debt with Keynesian policies is a really stupid economic plan, but that has nothing to do with the fact that more tax revenue is produced by lowering top marginal tax rates.
And yeah, Bush's 700 billion tax not only blew up the deficit and contributed to the debt, but it failed to make any stimulus into the economy. The biggest cuts went to the top earners. Obama's tax cut for the middle class was bigger than Bush's by comparison.