Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[ThoughtCrimes]

This thread is a prime example of liberals avoiding facts, citing errant or misleading data, and then pronouncing themselves the winners. A few facts, taken from federal budget data and from Federal Reserve reports (the federal budget data are carried on the Tax Policy Center's website; the Federal Reserve reports are cited with separate links):

* In the 4 years following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue grew more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency. After 2003, revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $780 billion (I mistakenly typed $480 billion in previous replies, but I have the correct number in my article). During the best 4 revenue years of Clinton's tenure, revenue rose from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000, an increase of $557 billion. That's $780 billion under Bush vs. $557 billion under Clinton.

* Even though liberals here seem to assume that Clinton did nothing but raise taxes, in point of fact Clinton raised some taxes but substantially cut other taxes. Clinton created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%, the largest reduction in the capital gains tax up to that point in history.

* In Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue went from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion. (My earlier comparison was based on 3-year periods, not 4-year.) So Bush's revenue growth came close to Obama's revenue growth, even though he slashed taxes across the board, whereas Obama has raised taxes on the top two brackets and has imposed a host of other tax hikes. And, of course, under Obama, taxpayers have less money in their pockets than they did under Bush, since Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with his tax hikes. Liberals gauge success by how much money the government has, whereas conservatives gauge success by how much money people get to keep of their own money.

* Bush's federal revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the real unemployment rate (the U-6).

* Obama's federal revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (which has included two quarters of negative GDP growth--1Q 2014 and 1Q 2015), a decline in median family income, a weakened labor force participation rate, and a historically high real unemployment rate (U-6). Indeed, the average U-6 rate under Obama has been much higher than it was under Bush, as anyone can confirm by checking the U-6 rate for Bush's and Obama's presidencies.

* The 2008 recession was not "Bush's recession." That is ridiculous. The major cause of the recession was Freddie and Fannie's disastrous intervention in the housing market, which led to Freddie and Fannie securing or financing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky home loans. As a Federal Reserve report notes, "By 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for 52.3% of all residential mortgage loans outstanding" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf.). In addition," during 2001-2003, the GSEs [i.e., Freddie and Fannie] funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated; from 2004-2006, the GSE share of new mortgages was 47%, 41%, and 40%, respectively" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf).

As a result of this massive federal intervention, the number of higher-risk home loans (sub-prime and Alt-A) exploded, starting in 2003. I quote from another Federal Reserve report:

Despite these concerns, lending to risky borrowers grew rapidly in the 2000s, as shown in Table 1. The number of subprime mortgages originated nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2003 to 1.9 million in 2005. Near-prime Alt-A originations grew at an even faster rate, from 304,000 in 2003 to 1.1 million in 2005. In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier (Inside Mortgage Finance, 2008). (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

And, as the Republicans had repeatedly warned, this explosion in high-risk loans led to disaster. I again quote the Federal Reserve report:

The share of subprime mortgages that were seriously delinquent increased from about 5.6 percent in mid-2005 to over 21 percent in July 2008. Alt-A mortgages saw an even greater proportional increase from a low of 0.6 to over 9 percent over the same time period. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

These failed high-risk home loans were then bundled into the "toxic assets" that did so much damage to the financial sector and the economy.

Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine.

So we can place most of the blame for the recession squarely on those who refused to stop Freddie and Fannie's fatal intervention that greatly accelerated the increase in high-risk home loans. If there had not been so many bad home loans, there would have been far fewer such loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

Does this post relate/support to the points you cobbled together in the OP? You know, your debunked assertions that a period of record Treasury receipts were SINGULARLY a result of the 2003 Bush tax cuts? Now you've shifted to a third premise since the two previous were resoundingly debunked.

This time you've chosen to move the goal posts once again to avoid answering, responding, speaking to, any of points made debunking your oversimplified and faulty assertions. That is a silent declaration by you that you simply won't because you can't negate any of the counter arguments heaped at your feet. And I'm not going to take the time and energy to correct the factual errors, point to the logical errors and deride the absurd conclusions in your post above!

Have a nice Day!

 

[Rustic]

The federal government never had a right to those taxes from the start... So how can the federal government have a claim on those money's.

The income tax is unconstitutional... Plain and simple.

Embrace the suck

 

[Dad2three]

The federal government never had a right to those taxes from the start... So how can the federal government have a claim on those money's.

The income tax is unconstitutional... Plain and simple.

Embrace the suck

 

[Rustic]

The federal government never had a right to those taxes from the start... So how can the federal government have a claim on those money's.

The income tax is unconstitutional... Plain and simple.

Embrace the suck

As an American Indian I a unique prospective on reasons to totally distrust the federal government from the very start... I had to go to a plethera of federal schools moving from one res to the next.

I have embraced the stuck for many, many years.

 

[Dad2three]

The federal government never had a right to those taxes from the start... So how can the federal government have a claim on those money's.

The income tax is unconstitutional... Plain and simple.

Embrace the suck

As an American Indian I a unique prospective on reasons to totally distrust the federal government from the very start... I had to go to a plethera of federal schools moving from one res to the next.

I have embraced the stuck for many, many years.

Can't help if over 100+ years later, YOU can't help yourself Bubba

 

[mikegriffith1]

[SNIP]
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS HAS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES, THAN IF THERE WERE NO TAX CUTS. NONE!

That is your "response" when confronted with the actual revenue numbers themselves?! You're just going to keep quoting Establishment-line economists whose claims are refuted by readily available federal revenue data? And what about all the economists who point out that, as a matter of fact, every major tax cut in the last 100 years has been followed by a sharp rise in revenue?

AGAIN, in 2003 federal revenue was $1.78 trillion and 4 years later, in 2007, it was $2.56 trillion, an increase of nearly $780 billion ($778 billion, to be exact). Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by right around $550 billion ($552 billion, to be exact)--from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000. Which is more--$778 billion or $552 billion?

Wanna check these numbers for yourself? Here's the link:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

And how about Obama's revenue numbers? Obama's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $846 billion, from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014. So with Obama's massive tax hikes, his best 4 years of revenue barely beat Bush's best 4 years of revenue: $846 billion to $778 billion.

And look at the price we've paid for that rise in revenue: Under Obama, median income has dropped, whereas under Bush it rose. Under Obama, we have had the weakest recovery in modern history, a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth (1Q 2014, 1Q 2015), whereas under Bush we had 52 consecutive months of economic growth. Under Obama, the U-6 unemployment rate has been around 10% and has gone as high as 17.1%, whereas under Bush it hovered around 8% most of the time and never went higher than 14.2% (and it only did that in his last month in office, as the Freddie-Fannie-induced recession was in full swing).

Indeed, the lowest that the U-6 unemployment rate has ever been under Obama is 9.6%, and that was just last month. Before last month, the U-6 rate had never dropped below 10% since Obama took office. In fact, from January 2010 to August 2014, the U-6 ranged between 12% and 17%, i.e., for 56 months in a row (during the weakest recovery in modern history). In contrast, under Bush, the U-6 dropped as low as 7.9% and ranged between 7.9% to 8.7% for 27 months in a row during the Bush recovery.

Wanna check the U-6 numbers for yourself? Here are two links:

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
US U-6 Unemployment Rate

If tax cuts don't lead to increased revenue, how did revenue go from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 after the Bush tax cuts? How did Bush's best 4 years of revenue top Clinton's best 4 years and nearly equal Obama's? And, on an aside note, why do you suppose that revenue as a percentage of GDP has been much lower under Obama than it was under Bush? (I ask this only because you and others sought to dismiss the rise in tax revenue under Bush by citing the fact that revenue as a percentage of GDP declined. So, using your logic, we should dismiss the rise in revenue under Obama. Of course, we can also point out that that increase has come with a historically weak recovery, a drop in median family income, and a historically high U-6 unemployment rate.)

Is it starting to dawn on you that when people are able to keep more of their paychecks, they have more money to spend and invest, which in turn, naturally, leads to more purchases and investments and hence an increase in economic growth? By the way, here are some articles by economists and financial experts on the fact that major tax cuts have been followed by increases in federal revenue and by substantial economic growth:

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s
The Tax-Cut Payoff in Carolina
The Laffer Curve: Will Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? | Foundation for Economic Education

Many more such articles could be cited.

 

[mikegriffith1]

My unanswered reply from yesterday morning, with some links to more articles to document the fact that every major tax cut in the last 100 years has been followed by an increase in federal revenue and economic growth:

Dad2Three:[SNIP] NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS HAS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES, THAN IF THERE WERE NO TAX CUTS. NONE!

That is your "response" when confronted with the actual revenue numbers themselves?! You're just going to keep quoting Establishment-line economists whose claims are refuted by readily available federal revenue data? And what about all the economists who point out that, as a matter of fact, every major tax cut in the last 100 years has been followed by a sharp rise in revenue?

AGAIN, in 2003 federal revenue was $1.78 trillion and 4 years later, in 2007, it was $2.56 trillion, an increase of nearly $780 billion ($778 billion, to be exact). Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by right around $550 billion ($552 billion, to be exact)--from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000. Which is more--$778 billion or $552 billion?

Wanna check these numbers for yourself? Here's the link:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

And how about Obama's revenue numbers? Obama's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $846 billion, from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014. So with Obama's massive tax hikes, his best 4 years of revenue barely beat Bush's best 4 years of revenue: $846 billion to $778 billion.

And look at the price we've paid for that rise in revenue: Under Obama, median income has dropped, whereas under Bush it rose. Under Obama, we have had the weakest recovery in modern history, a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth (1Q 2014, 1Q 2015), whereas under Bush we had 52 consecutive months of economic growth. Under Obama, the U-6 unemployment rate has been around 10% and has gone as high as 17.1%, whereas under Bush it hovered around 8% most of the time and never went higher than 14.2% (and it only did that in his last month in office, as the Freddie-Fannie-induced recession was in full swing).

Indeed, the lowest that the U-6 unemployment rate has ever been under Obama is 9.6%, and that was just last month. Before last month, the U-6 rate had never dropped below 10% since Obama took office. In fact, from January 2010 to August 2014, the U-6 ranged between 12% and 17%, i.e., for 56 months in a row (during the weakest recovery in modern history). In contrast, under Bush, the U-6 dropped as low as 7.9% and ranged between 7.9% to 8.7% for 27 months in a row during the Bush recovery.

Wanna check the U-6 numbers for yourself? Here are two links:

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
US U-6 Unemployment Rate

If tax cuts don't lead to increased revenue, how did revenue go from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 after the Bush tax cuts? How did Bush's best 4 years of revenue top Clinton's best 4 years and nearly equal Obama's? And, on an aside note, why do you suppose that revenue as a percentage of GDP has been much lower under Obama than it was under Bush? (I ask this only because you and others sought to dismiss the rise in tax revenue under Bush by citing the fact that revenue as a percentage of GDP declined. So, using your logic, we should dismiss the rise in revenue under Obama. Of course, we can also point out that that increase has come with a historically weak recovery, a drop in median family income, and a historically high U-6 unemployment rate.)

Is it starting to dawn on you that when people are able to keep more of their paychecks, they have more money to spend and invest, which in turn, naturally, leads to more purchases and investments and hence an increase in economic growth? By the way, here are some articles by economists and financial experts on the fact that major tax cuts have been followed by increases in federal revenue and by substantial economic growth:

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s
The Tax-Cut Payoff in Carolina
The Laffer Curve: Will Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? | Foundation for Economic Education
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Tax Cut Revenue Rewards | Technology and Democracy Project
1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues

Many more such articles could be cited.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I just want to note that it appears that we have established that the Bush tax cuts did not increase the deficit, that they were followed by a huge increase in federal revenue, and that Bush's economic record is better than Obama's:

My unanswered reply from a couple weeks ago, with some links to more articles to document the fact that every major tax cut in the last 100 years has been followed by an increase in federal revenue and economic growth:

Dad2Three:[SNIP] NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS HAS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES, THAN IF THERE WERE NO TAX CUTS. NONE!

That is your "response" when confronted with the actual revenue numbers themselves?! You're just going to keep quoting Establishment-line economists whose claims are refuted by readily available federal revenue data? And what about all the economists who point out that, as a matter of fact, every major tax cut in the last 100 years has been followed by a sharp rise in revenue?

AGAIN, in 2003 federal revenue was $1.78 trillion and 4 years later, in 2007, it was $2.56 trillion, an increase of nearly $780 billion ($778 billion, to be exact). Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by right around $550 billion ($552 billion, to be exact)--from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000. Which is more--$778 billion or $552 billion?

Wanna check these numbers for yourself? Here's the link:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

And how about Obama's revenue numbers? Obama's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $846 billion, from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014. So with Obama's massive tax hikes, his best 4 years of revenue barely beat Bush's best 4 years of revenue: $846 billion to $778 billion.

And look at the price we've paid for that rise in revenue: Under Obama, median income has dropped, whereas under Bush it rose. Under Obama, we have had the weakest recovery in modern history, a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth (1Q 2014, 1Q 2015), whereas under Bush we had 52 consecutive months of economic growth. Under Obama, the U-6 unemployment rate has been around 10% and has gone as high as 17.1%, whereas under Bush it hovered around 8% most of the time and never went higher than 14.2% (and it only did that in his last month in office, as the Freddie-Fannie-induced recession was in full swing).

Indeed, the lowest that the U-6 unemployment rate has ever been under Obama is 9.6%, and that was just last month. Before last month, the U-6 rate had never dropped below 10% since Obama took office. In fact, from January 2010 to August 2014, the U-6 ranged between 12% and 17%, i.e., for 56 months in a row (during the weakest recovery in modern history). In contrast, under Bush, the U-6 dropped as low as 7.9% and ranged between 7.9% to 8.7% for 27 months in a row during the Bush recovery.

Wanna check the U-6 numbers for yourself? Here are two links:

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
US U-6 Unemployment Rate

If tax cuts don't lead to increased revenue, how did revenue go from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 after the Bush tax cuts? How did Bush's best 4 years of revenue top Clinton's best 4 years and nearly equal Obama's? And, on an aside note, why do you suppose that revenue as a percentage of GDP has been much lower under Obama than it was under Bush? (I ask this only because you and others sought to dismiss the rise in tax revenue under Bush by citing the fact that revenue as a percentage of GDP declined. So, using your logic, we should dismiss the rise in revenue under Obama. Of course, we can also point out that that increase has come with a historically weak recovery, a drop in median family income, and a historically high U-6 unemployment rate.)

Is it starting to dawn on you that when people are able to keep more of their paychecks, they have more money to spend and invest, which in turn, naturally, leads to more purchases and investments and hence an increase in economic growth? By the way, here are some articles by economists and financial experts on the fact that major tax cuts have been followed by increases in federal revenue and by substantial economic growth:

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?
Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s
The Tax-Cut Payoff in Carolina
The Laffer Curve: Will Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? | Foundation for Economic Education
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Tax Cut Revenue Rewards | Technology and Democracy Project
1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues

Many more such articles could be cited.