Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[2aguy]

Then you should spend all of your life savings.....see how much revenue that generates for you........

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

Ok, so the individual American consumer is irresponsible.

some are.....but the key point...they are irresponsible with their own money......you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American people have massive levels of debt. Why do you suppose that is?

They spend more than they take in.

Why?

Same reason a dog licks his balls.

Ok, so the individual American consumer is irresponsible.

some are.....but the key point...they are irresponsible with their own money......you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

Who does?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mike Griffith:
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.

Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.

Year over year revenues fell in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

Another misleading dodge. Anything but the truth, hey? Most of the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003! So don't you think it's a bit silly, not to mention misleading, to cite 2002 and 2003 and then skip to 2008? Gee, why'd you skip 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007? We both know why. And, of course, 2008 was the year the recession started--yet, revenue in 2008 was $2.52 trillion, which was only a very small drop from 2007 and was more than 2004, 2005, 2006.

Let's just state the facts again: Federal revenue from 2003-2008:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
2008 -- $2.52 trillion

Why not just stop lying and admit that the Bush tax cuts were followed by sizable revenue increases for four years in a row, and that the fifth year, even though a recession started then, saw only a slight drop? Those are the facts.

So the Bush tax cuts could not have caused the rise in the deficit. Excessive spending caused the rise in the deficit.

You need to stop lying, Bush had two major tax cuts, 2001 and 2003,

Why FUDGE your figures? Begin your supposed analysis in 2001, then let's talk.

He's already tried to reject the more telling measure - revenues as a percent of GDP - because it destroys his argument.

 

[nat4900]

The "concept" that CUTTING taxes (especially for the super-wealthy who funded a conservative agenda that indeed mandates a lessening of the super-wealthy tax burden)..........will result in INCREASING revenue to the U.S. treasury is not only counter-intuitive, but something that ONLY a brain-dead right winger can believe.....just like the trickle-down scam perpetuated in the 1980s.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Year over year, since 1960, revenues have only fallen 7 times.

7 times in 54 years.

4 of those were during Bush's presidency, if you count 2001.

Historical Tables Table 1.1

 

[nat4900]

you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

 

[Iceweasel]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Can you explain your theory on that? It defies logic.

 

[Iceweasel]

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

History says otherwise. The defense spending is exactly what led to the breakup of the USSR, they could not match our pace, while we were spending historic highs, about 6% GDP, the Soviets had to spend themselves into bankruptcy. That's money well spent for any freedom loving American.

And giving people other people's money doesn't necessarily mean it's helping them. Especially if it's hurting the ones who are having their earnings confiscated. The argument isn't over helping those that truly need it, it's over the bloated system that all too many are feeding off of.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Can you explain your theory on that? It defies logic.

When the government spends money jobs get created, profits get created, and taxes are generated from the same.

 

[jknowgood]

OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......

Following that line of logic then:

If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?

If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?

If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?

(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)

When you take more from someone productivity goes down. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[BluesLegend]

The "concept" that CUTTING taxes (especially for the super-wealthy who funded a conservative agenda that indeed mandates a lessening of the super-wealthy tax burden)..........will result in INCREASING revenue to the U.S. treasury is not only counter-intuitive, but something that ONLY a brain-dead right winger can believe.....just like the trickle-down scam perpetuated in the 1980s.

You bunch of dumb asses are hilarious, you naïve sheep flail about trying to punish the rich but its not possible. What are you going to do raise their income taxes? They don't have much income, that's not where their money comes from. If you raise the capital gains tax they just sit on their investments, you don't pay the tax until you sell and realize the gain. Raising the capital gains tax does slam middle to upper middle class who can't afford to sit on their investments, bravo. Tax their businesses? Fine they just lay off the US workers and send the jobs off-shore and raise prices to cover the tax increase and delay making capital improvements and investments resulting in fewer jobs for you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Can you explain your theory on that? It defies logic.

When the government spends money jobs get created, profits get created, and taxes are generated from the same.

That's deranged. An economy can't be based on government spending, otherwise communism would rule the roost. When you take money from someone they have less to spend, invest or work with.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals really do believe a nation can tax itself into prosperity. I heard it long ago but thought it was just an insult but nope, it's the foundation of their ideology.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike Griffith:
Bingo. That shows the absurdity of comparing revenue or spending to GDP. Like I said, both sides use this misleading comparison when it suits their purposes. I prefer real math and numbers that mean something.

Federal revenue rose substantially after the Bush tax cuts, but federal spending rose even more. Again, when you get a 4% raise but you increase your spending by 12%, you're gonna be in the red. You can argue a lot of things, but you can't argue with math.

Year over year revenues fell in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2009.

Another misleading dodge. Anything but the truth, hey? Most of the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003! So don't you think it's a bit silly, not to mention misleading, to cite 2002 and 2003 and then skip to 2008? Gee, why'd you skip 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007? We both know why. And, of course, 2008 was the year the recession started--yet, revenue in 2008 was $2.52 trillion, which was only a very small drop from 2007 and was more than 2004, 2005, 2006.

Let's just state the facts again: Federal revenue from 2003-2008:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
2008 -- $2.52 trillion

Why not just stop lying and admit that the Bush tax cuts were followed by sizable revenue increases for four years in a row, and that the fifth year, even though a recession started then, saw only a slight drop? Those are the facts.

So the Bush tax cuts could not have caused the rise in the deficit. Excessive spending caused the rise in the deficit.

You need to stop lying, Bush had two major tax cuts, 2001 and 2003,

Why FUDGE your figures? Begin your supposed analysis in 2001, then let's talk.

Huh???? The bulk of the tax cuts came in 2003. How can you not know this? Just compare the income tax tables for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. And compare the cap gains tax rates for 2001 and 2004.

I take it you're a college student or a recent college grad and you didn't start paying income taxes until 2004 or later. Otherwise, how can you not know that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts didn't come until 2003?

 

[guno]

Every month or so we a liberal thread about how the Bush tax cuts led to huge deficits and an explosion in the national debt. We are also told that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Some liberals even still claim that somehow the Bush tax cuts contributed to the Great Recession (right, because letting people keep more of their money somehow, someway harms the economy!). Here are the facts:

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue. As anyone can confirm by looking at federal tax revenue data, here's what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

In other words, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. (See The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth for more info.)

So why did the deficit explode? Because Congress went on a spending spree and raised spending at an even faster rate than revenue was rising. It's that simple. If Congress had merely limited spending hikes to match inflation, we would have been operating well in the black.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. We have had nothing close to that since Bush left office.

* The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich. Some of the largest rate cuts went to the middle class/the poor. In fact, after the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share of federal tax revenue. (See Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? and Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts and George W. Bush, Middle Class Champion for more info.)

Bush's problem is that signed budgets that blew up domestic spending and fought two wars on top of it (rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view).

Unfunded and off the budget wars

 

[2aguy]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Can you explain your theory on that? It defies logic.

When the government spends money jobs get created, profits get created, and taxes are generated from the same.

No...government doesn't create wealth because it takes money from actual productive activity.

When you spend more for a hammer than what it is actually worth, as government does...that money is unproductive and wasted. In the private sector that activity gets punished by a business going out of business...in government....they raise taxes and the people who wasted the money go on to waste even more money...so no...government doesn't generate more revenue with the tax money it takes from productive people.

 

[Kosh]

It is funny to watch the far left drone on about the Bush tax cuts, yet forget that Obama continued them..

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

 

[The Rabbi]

The "concept" that CUTTING taxes (especially for the super-wealthy who funded a conservative agenda that indeed mandates a lessening of the super-wealthy tax burden)..........will result in INCREASING revenue to the U.S. treasury is not only counter-intuitive, but something that ONLY a brain-dead right winger can believe.....just like the trickle-down scam perpetuated in the 1980s.

Gee Barack Obama thinks it works that way. Are you saying he is a brain dead right winger?

 

[The Rabbi]

you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

Defense spending benefits everyone in this country.
Social spending doesnt benefit anyone except politicians.

 

[Avorysuds]

OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......

Following that line of logic then:

If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?

If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?

If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?

(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)

No dumb ass... Taxes do not work the same as the "holy fuck stupid" scenarios you made up.

High taxes on anything "discourages" consumption or growth, thus in economics you get a decrease in revenues. This is a fact, like a "theory" as proven as evolution.

Take marijuana because it's something real that is happening in the US. If it is legalized (like it is here in Oregon), but then you add a 20% state tax (like it is here in Oregon) and a 15% federal tax (assumed) to selling it... The cost of doing Business where as Marijuana is the product you are dealing in became 35% more expensive and you gained nothing for that 35% payout.

This translates all the way back to the grower and all the way to the consumer. If a commercial licence that buys you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, costs you 10 grand, then you pay 35% taxes on every sale, you as a business have to add 36%+ to the cost of doing business. In doing so an item that would cost 100$ now cost the consumer 136$ +, yet the business only made 100$to pay employee,s rent, utilities, employee taxes, healthcare tax??? and then of course be profitable.

So as you can see, you are more likely to sell more of a product with lower taxes than with higher taxes. Taxes do not in any way = profit to the sale, it's a Mafia/Union middle man, taking a cut out of the equation providing you protection from... well the Mafia/Union.

Higher taxes = less transactions = Less revenues

Lower taxes = more transactions = More revenues

It might help if you wrote up a business plan or owned a business.