Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[Dad2three]

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.

STATIC DOLLARS NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, POPULATION OR GDP GROWTH? Seriously? lol

The truth is that no serious Republican economist has ever said that a tax rate reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss. The following studies represent the generally accepted view among Republican economists.

● A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the actual revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

● In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the CEA during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in taxes on capital at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

● A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

 

[Dad2three]

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.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because the percentage of your income vs. GDP was smaller?! Really? Would you really be that dumb?

During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP after inheriting an annual deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980 under president Carter

Federal revenue share of GDP fell from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before rising back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989


REDUCTION GDP REVENUES



Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973


Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

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.

That is just idiotic. I don't know if you just don't know enough math and economics to know what a dumb argument that is or if you're too brainwashed to bring yourself to admit anything that doesn't match liberal mythology.

Ok, so IF percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measurement, then all the liberal arguments about Reagan being a big spender who buried us in debt collapse because federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan! Now, of course, that was because our GDP exploded in the 6.5 years after the Reagan tax cuts and our economy added GDP that was about equal to the German economy at the time. But, hey, if that's your "most meaningful" measurement, then Reagan was the model of spending restraint.

It is just amazing--or maybe not--that your answer to the fact that federal spending rose by a record $780 billion in the four years following the 2003 tax cuts is that, oh, that doesn't matter because of the federal revenue-GDP percentage measurement!

If your boss gives you a 10% raise but the percentage of your income relative to GDP flatlines or declines, are you going to walk into his office and say you didn't really get a 10% raise because GDP growth made it so that the percentage of your income was a smaller compared to GDP? Really? Would you really be that dumb?

When libs need to appeal to percentage of GDP they do that.
If the actual number makes the case better they'll use that
If they need a number adjusted for the price of beard trimming in Fiji they'll use that.
Anything but take responsibility for the worst binge in spending i history.

Percent of GDP is relevant because it shows that despite GDP going much higher, tax revenues are not going up proportionately.

That is incorrect. Revenue on any measure is higher than its ever been.

ONLY in right wing "reality". in the real world Obama has barely gotten back to where Ronnie gutted it to, up from where Dubya gutted it

PERCENTAGE GDP IS AN ECONOMIST THING, NOT A RIGHT WING ECHO CHAMBER THING!


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

Lets test out the O/P's "theory"......

We should declare war on Iran and N. Korea (those remaining axis of evil) AND also pass huge tax cuts to the Trumps of this country......

According to the title of this thread, THEN, everything will be just peachy again as they were during GWB's "stellar" 8 years' term........DEAL????

Unemployment was lower for every quarter in Bush's terms than it has been for the vast majority of Obama's terms.
Truth really hurts, eh?

THEN THE BUBBLE DUBYA CHEERED ON POPPED RIGHT? Oops

 

[Dad2three]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

MORE BULLSHIT

Dubya took US from Clinton's 20% of GDP TO UNDER 15% OF GDP, KOREAN WAR (BEFORE MEDICARE TAXES) WHILE HE BLEW UP SPENDING TO 25% OF GDP



Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

But the toggle switch in your noggin can't process things like Katrina, 9/11, housing meltdown, banking crisis, etc.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

I have always been in awe of Bush's denial. Most people understand that if you cut back on collecting tax revenue, you should also cut back on expenses. Yet, Bush saw it differently. He cut back on taxes, and then launched two wars and Medicare, Part D...all without covering the expenses. Even LBJ, who thought that money grew on trees, slapped a 10% surtax on us to pay for Vietnam.

The subject of English, resulting in his mangled syntax, was not the only hole in Bush's education.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

The term "the beast" in this context refers to the United States Federal Government and the programs it funds, using mainly American tax payer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

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 had rising deficits from a balanced budget that not cutting taxes might have prevented.

Look at a chart that actually means something:

So under Reagan, government spending as % of GDP plummeted and ended below government revenues. Reagan was actually on a glidepath to budget surpluses

As usual Horseshit
http://static4.businessinsider.com/...eally-misleading-look-at-federal-spending.jpg
View attachment 50978

Want to reduce spending get a Democrat President

 

[Dad2three]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 had rising deficits from a balanced budget that not cutting taxes might have prevented.

Look at a chart that actually means something:

So under Reagan, government spending as % of GDP plummeted and ended below government revenues. Reagan was actually on a glidepath to budget surpluses

As usual Horseshit
http://static4.businessinsider.com/...eally-misleading-look-at-federal-spending.jpg
View attachment 50978

Want to reduce spending get a Democrat President

LOL!!!

Newt Congress cut spending and saying Obama cut the deficit is just plain fucking stupid

 

[bedowin62]

OF COURSE left-wing losers cant stop lying. that's why they are making all kinds of irrelevant distractions bringing in Clinton and stuff.
obama MADE PERMANENT 98% OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS; and EXTENDED THE OTHER 2% for the top brackets when he still had majorities of his own Party in BOTH chambers of Congress, before allowing his own extension to expire.

 

[bedowin62]

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Care4all]

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

NOPE. Fiscal 2009 was all president Bush's fiscal budget, beginning Oct 1, 2008.

In January, before Obama took office the CBO estimated it would be nearly a $1.3 trillion deficit for Bush's last fiscal year of 2009.

You can't give Bush 7 years out of an 8 year term and then give Obama 9 fiscal years out of an 8 year term.

Fiscal year 2009 is President Bush's.

 

[bedowin62]

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

NOPE. Fiscal 2009 was all president Bush's fiscal budget, beginning Oct 1, 2008.

In January, before Obama took office the CBO estimated it would be $1.3 trillion deficit for Bush's last fiscal year of 2009.

You can't give Bush 7 years out of an 8 year term and then give Obama 9 fiscal years out of an 8 year term.

Fiscal year 2009 is President Bush's.

all i want to know is are you going to be an adult when i show you the proof? or a typical lib coward and deflect??

 

[NYcarbineer]

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

So what? The deficit is down 900 billion from its 2009 peak.

 

[bedowin62]

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

So what? The deficit is down 900 billion from its 2009 peak.

that is the budget obama added over $200 BILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING TO

damn what an idiot. are you even paying attention?

 

[bedowin62]

EDITORIAL: Obama's big deficit lie - Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obamas-big-deficit...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
May 24, 2012 - President Obama claims federal budget deficits have not soared out of control ... administration, which were the last nine months of fiscal 2009.

 

[bedowin62]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

the deficit is down from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA AND/OR DEMOCRATS

$253 BILLION OF obama's first year spending went on "Bush's" last budget.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

So what? The deficit is down 900 billion from its 2009 peak.

that is the budget obama added over $200 BILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING TO

damn what an idiot. are you even paying attention?

So Obama has cut the deficit by 700 billion in 5 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

here it is from very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG


idiots and hypocrites

That means that Bush's last deficit was 1.2 trillion. Ok. I don't dispute that.