In 2003, tax cuts were enacted and it INCREASED revenue. What do you not get about that stupid?
As part of the cuts you mentioned in 2001, the effect would not have been known until later years such as those which increased revenue by 44%.
Also, the 2001 act reduced ALL income tax brackets not just those on the upper end. Now, people like you only want to raise those on the upper end. So sad how jealousy for something you'll never be shows.
And in 2001 revenue was down as I have been saying. Without the big drop caused by the tax breaks you don't have your 44%. It took years just to get back to where it was. Give up already you don't even know what years the breaks were, your a joke.
If it was passed in 2001 and result implemented until later years, your claim that 2001 revenues were down on something that couldn't have shown any results until later, you're the joke.
By the way, I used the proper "you're", not the typical incorrect "your" like you retards. Tell me again how I'm wrong. You think immediate results were produced. It doesn't work like that son.
Again you show how little you know. Bush mailed checks to people. So yes that is the year that was effected. Now go read up before you embarass yourself more.
Those checks didn't involve lowering tax rates. It's two different things moron. The reduction in ALL tax brackets didn't show an effect until later years when taxes were filed. \
As I said earlier, ALL tax brackets were reduced and the only ones you want going back up are the highest ones. In addition, while almost half pay ZERO percent, you say nothing about that group not paying their fair share. I don't care how little someone makes, NOTHING isn't paying a fair share if you live in society. You lefties constantly talk about living in society means contributing to society yet you're willing to let so many continue to not contribute. It's high time the low income people pay their fair share in income taxes. Again, NOTHING isn't a fair share.