10 myths about the "Bush" tax cuts

[jreeves]

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
The Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Rep*resentatives must decide whether to write a budget extending, expiring, or repealing the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts have provided a convenient scapegoat for the nation's budget and economic challenges. Despite a 42 percent spending increase in 2001, critics charge that the tax cuts have starved popular pro*grams. Despite surging economic growth and 5 million new jobs since 2003, critics also charge that the tax cuts have not helped the economy. Finally, despite making the income tax code more progressive, critics charge that the tax cuts have widened inequality.

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:

The tax cuts have not substantially reduced cur*rent tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre–tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre–tax cut baseline in 2006;
The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.
Setting optimal tax policy requires governing with facts rather than popular mythology, which is why it is important to set the record straight by debunking 10 myths about the Bush tax cuts.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

In fact, "Bush's" tax cuts increased tax revenues....go figure

 

[Chris]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

 

[jreeves]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

Your a broken record tonight aren't you. I would do that too, if all I had to rely on were lies. Again, the Democratic Congress passed and appropriated every single dollar of debt under the Reagan Presidency.

 

[Chris]

Your a broken record tonight aren't you. I would do that too, if all I had to rely on were lies. Again, the Democratic Congress passed and appropriated every single dollar of debt under the Reagan Presidency.

The Republicans voted in lockstep for Reagan's budget and were joined by a few Southern (Democrats in name only). It was Reagan's fantasy, supply side economics.

Even more interesting is that Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

 

[jreeves]

The Republicans voted in lockstep for Reagan's budget and were joined by a few Southern (Democrats in name only). It was Reagan's fantasy, supply side economics.

Even more interesting is that Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democrats were the majority party, they controlled all spending. They didn't even have to give tax cuts a vote, for example see Pelosi holding up offshore drilling by not allowing a floor vote....

 

[jreeves]

The Democrats were the majority party, they controlled all spending. They didn't even have to give tax cuts a vote, for example see Pelosi holding up offshore drilling by not allowing a floor vote....

Nice hijack btw what does a Democratic Congress creating deficits have to do with....

The "Bush" tax cuts producing higher tax revenue??

 

[editec]

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Some actual numbers to support that might be nice.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

I believe that.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

I do so wish someone would explain that to the neocons who insist otherwise. Tax cuts MAY stimulate the economy, but then, too, they may not. they may instead simply create bubbles in various markets as the more affluent invest their tax savings, rather than spend them.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Absolutely believable. A huge number of investors weren't selling their assets because they didn't want to pay thecapital gains. They saw those rates lowered and a lot of dead wood was probably sold to take advantage of that opportunity.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Where's that enormous reserve in social Security that the people invested over the last thirty years? Where did it go? Into paying for foolish policies and tax cuts, I think.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Well its one way to raise revenue quickly, but likely does end up slowing down the economy, I'll grant that.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Plausible, I suppose. I'd have to see the numbers.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

The American economy is 66% driven by consumer spending. A quick fix (but not a lasting one, I suspect) is getting money into the hands of the consumer.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

The economy is in the crapper. One of us is wrong.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

The taxx cuts were tilted toward the rich. The richer are richer than ever.

In fact, "Bush's" tax cuts increased tax revenues....go figure

I'd love to see the numbers.

 

[jreeves]

Some actual numbers to support that might be nice.
Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical aver*ages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:

18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,
18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and
18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]
While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.





I believe that.



I do so wish someone would explain that to the neocons who insist otherwise. Tax cuts MAY stimulate the economy, but then, too, they may not. they may instead simply create bubbles in various markets as the more affluent invest their tax savings, rather than spend them.

Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.



Absolutely believable. A huge number of investors weren't selling their assets because they didn't want to pay thecapital gains. They saw those rates lowered and a lot of dead wood was probably sold to take advantage of that opportunity.



Where's that enormous reserve in social Security that the people invested over the last thirty years? Where did it go? Into paying for foolish policies and tax cuts, I think.

America's long-term budget path is well known. HoweThe unsustainability of ver, a common misperception blames the massive future budget deficits on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In reality, revenues will continue to increase above the historical average yet be dwarfed by historic entitlement spending increases.

Well its one way to raise revenue quickly, but likely does end up slowing down the economy, I'll grant that.

Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a per*cent of GDP.

Plausible, I suppose. I'd have to see the numbers.

Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim.

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 bil*lion.[14] (See Table 2.) These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and minimizing any new revenues.


The American economy is 66% driven by consumer spending. A quick fix (but not a lasting one, I suspect) is getting money into the hands of the consumer.


The Keynesian fallacy is that government spend*ing injects new money into the economy, but the money that government spends must come from somewhere. Government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy, so all the new spending just redistributes existing income. Similarly, the money for tax rebates—which are also touted as a way to inject money into the economy— must also come from somewhere, with government either spending less or borrowing more. In both cases, no new spending is added to the economy. Rather, the government has just transferred it from one group (e.g., investors) in the economy to another (e.g., consumers).

Some argue that certain tax cuts, such as tax rebates, can transfer money from savers to spenders and therefore increase demand. This argument assumes that the savers have been storing their savings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings, thereby financing businesses investment, or deposit the money in banks, which quickly lend it to others to spend or invest. Therefore, the money is spent by someone whether it is initially consumed or saved. Thus, tax rebates create no additional economic activity and cannot "prime the pump."

This does not mean tax policy cannot affect economic growth. The right tax cuts can add substantially to the economy's supply side of productive resources: capital and labor. Economic growth requires that businesses efficiently produce increasing amounts of goods and services, and increased production requires consistent business investment and a motivated, productive workforce. Yet high marginal tax rates—defined as the tax on the next dollar earned—serve as a disincentive to engage in such activities. Reducing marginal tax rates on businesses and workers increases the return on working, saving, and investing, thereby creating more business investment and a more productive workforce, both of which add to the economy's long-term capacity for growth.

Yet some propose demand-side tax cuts to "put money in people's pockets" and "get people to spend money." The 2001 tax rebates serve as an example: Washington borrowed billions from investors and then mailed that money to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, this simple transfer of existing wealth caused a temporary increase in consumer spending and a corresponding decrease in investment but led to no new economic growth. No new wealth was created because the tax rebate was unrelated to productive behavior. No one had to work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. Simply redistributing existing wealth does not create new wealth.

In contrast, marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989.[15] More recently, the 2003 tax cuts helped to bring about strong economic growth for the past three years.

Policies which best support work, saving, and investment are much more effective at expanding the economy's long-term capacity for growth than those that aim to put money in consumers' pockets.


The economy is in the crapper. One of us is wrong.

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

The taxx cuts were tilted toward the rich. The richer are richer than ever.
Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house*holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut

I'd love to see the numbers.

Just a little food for thought, tax cuts that are structured carefully do in fact bring about tax revenue growth.

 

[midcan5]

Ten facts about Bush's tax breaks for the corporations and the wealthy:

Their impact has been negative, creating enormous deficits that make America weaker as a nation, and create a burden on future generations, while allowing the infrastructure our nation to deteriorate, and the gap between rich and poor to match a third world nation.

Repeat above 9 more times.

CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End

 

[jreeves]

Ten facts about Bush's tax breaks for the corporations and the wealthy:

Their impact has been negative, creating enormous deficits that make America weaker as a nation, and create a burden on future generations, while allowing the infrastructure our nation to deteriorate, and the gap between rich and poor to match a third world nation.

Repeat above 9 more times.

CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End

Do you have numbers to show how the wealthy actually paid less taxes or is this just more babble from the message board clown?

 

[Chris]

CBS/AP) President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class," Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said at a campaign event in Springfield, Oregon. "The middle class is paying more taxes."

The White House defended Mr. Bush's tax cuts, saying those in lower- and middle-income brackets also benefited.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

 

[TopGunna]

This WSJ article is telling a different story.

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%.

I know the same data can be massaged to tell any story you want, but the reality is that those earning the most income are shouldering more of the tax burden than ever.

 

[bornright]

There is only one just way to tax just the wealthy and that is through removing certain tax deductions. Ronald Reagan did this in the 80's with the democrats screaming all the way. These deductions were not of the ones we average people use. My question is why did Kerry, Kennedy and the lot argue against these deduction removals if they were so interested in the poor and middle class in this country? Perhaps they enjoyed the financial benefits from such tax write-offs. After all democrats feel Americans are too stupid to understand such things.

In the 80's I obtained 3 registered Arabian horses from a large horse farm. One of the horses was valued at $140,000.00 prior to these deductions being removed. The horses at this farm were owned by very wealthy people many of which had never even seen the horses. I got the horses for free as they had no value since these wealthy individuals could no longer write them off their taxes. This is just one example.

 

[Zoomie1980]

There is only one just way to tax just the wealthy and that is through removing certain tax deductions. Ronald Reagan did this in the 80's with the democrats screaming all the way. These deductions were not of the ones we average people use. My question is why did Kerry, Kennedy and the lot argue against these deduction removals if they were so interested in the poor and middle class in this country? Perhaps they enjoyed the financial benefits from such tax write-offs. After all democrats feel Americans are too stupid to understand such things.

In the 80's I obtained 3 registered Arabian horses from a large horse farm. One of the horses was valued at $140,000.00 prior to these deductions being removed. The horses at this farm were owned by very wealthy people many of which had never even seen the horses. I got the horses for free as they had no value since these wealthy individuals could no longer write them off their taxes. This is just one example.

I think most Americans would be more than happy with a flat tax with little or NO deductions. Of course removing the sanctity of the home mortgage deduction is going to be REAL tough, same as removing credits for simply spawning offspring.... Then try eliminating depreciation for small businesses or sole proprietorships/S corps.....that;d go over big.

 

[Zoomie1980]

This WSJ article is telling a different story.



I know the same data can be massaged to tell any story you want, but the reality is that those earning the most income are shouldering more of the tax burden than ever.

Those are very widely accepted numbers by almost ALL economists. The wealthy pay BY FAR the highest percentage of their income in taxes today than at any time in US history. But we also have more wealthy people than ever before.

There are no really poor people in this country.

 

[editec]

Those are very widely accepted numbers by almost ALL economists. The wealthy pay BY FAR the highest percentage of their income in taxes today than at any time in US history. But we also have more wealthy people than ever before.

There are no really poor people in this country.

Highest percentage of "their incomes"?

Zoom, do you have any idea what the top rates were in the 1950s?

Somebody's pulling your leg, sport.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Some actual numbers to support that might be nice.




I believe that.



I do so wish someone would explain that to the neocons who insist otherwise. Tax cuts MAY stimulate the economy, but then, too, they may not. they may instead simply create bubbles in various markets as the more affluent invest their tax savings, rather than spend them.




Absolutely believable. A huge number of investors weren't selling their assets because they didn't want to pay thecapital gains. They saw those rates lowered and a lot of dead wood was probably sold to take advantage of that opportunity.



Where's that enormous reserve in social Security that the people invested over the last thirty years? Where did it go? Into paying for foolish policies and tax cuts, I think.




Well its one way to raise revenue quickly, but likely does end up slowing down the economy, I'll grant that.



Plausible, I suppose. I'd have to see the numbers.



The American economy is 66% driven by consumer spending. A quick fix (but not a lasting one, I suspect) is getting money into the hands of the consumer.



The economy is in the crapper. One of us is wrong.



The taxx cuts were tilted toward the rich. The richer are richer than ever.



I'd love to see the numbers.

Remember the US economy and really most of today's global economy is driven not just my consumer spending but by DISCRETIONARY consumer spending. Spending on the FRIVOLOUS, not necessities. Low and even most middle income people generally have NO discretionary income. A big chunk of the boom in middle income discretionary spending came about from the never ending stream of 2nd mortages as middle income people borrowed up to 125% of their home value to buy "stuff" like boats, computers, a Lexus, Plasma TV etc....

Well all that is now over, so who today has the discretionary income to help spend us out of the recession? Why would anyone with a brain want to choke that income off by taxing it more? It is the ONLY place the money to move this economy back to an acceptable level we have.

 

[jreeves]

Highest percentage of "their incomes"?

Zoom, do you have any idea what the top rates were in the 1950s?

Somebody's pulling your leg, sport.

You have heard of the Laffer curve correct?

 

[Chris]

Those are very widely accepted numbers by almost ALL economists. The wealthy pay BY FAR the highest percentage of their income in taxes today than at any time in US history. But we also have more wealthy people than ever before.

There are no really poor people in this country.

Unbelievable.......

It reminds me of when Ahmadenijad said there were no homosexuals in Iran.

 

[Chris]

You have heard of the Laffer curve correct?

You have heard of the National Debt?