Did Bush Tax Cuts Contribute Significantly To The Deficit? Yes/No

Simple question. Did Bush tax cuts contribute significantly to the deficit? I want your opinion. Yes/No?

 

With $2,000,000,000,000 in lost revenue combined with $1,000,000,000,000 in spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone, and increased general military expenditures, along with the unfunded prescription drug mandate that is Medicare Part D, DUH!

Nothing else to it, deficits were high after Reagan lowered taxes then proceeded to continue expansionist, neo-conservative military policy, not rocket science...the people who say the reason why tax cuts don't work is that we haven't lowered the rates enough or are scaring business by calling on them to keep their money and jobs in the US are like the people who say communism hasn't worked because we haven't employed 'true communism...' The only way to fund massive tax cuts is massive cuts in expenditures, and with an increasing population with increasing needs, that is virtually impossible and the fact is, the Republicans only cared when it was beneficial to their agenda.

 

according to all sane sources, to include Alan Greenspan.

 

Tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit being as high as it is. The thing that caused the deficit is too much spending.

The government needs to live within its means.

 

On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were "irrelevant."

What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?

The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

—The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.

It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.

NO.......Bush Tax Cut did not contribute to the Deficit....it was due to unauthorized war, gluttonous spending and the out of control Federal Reserve system.

 

Skip the opinions....here are the facts......

Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts


Tax rates were cut.......one of the largest growth in government revenues in US History followed.
.
.
.
.

 

Don't know where you table comes from, but it is blatently false. Here are the actual numbers:


Notice that they went down for years. Also remember that the economy grows and GDP grows, so that fact that revenues finally caught back up 5 years later does not show anything other than the economy grew so the tax base grew. However, if you look at the GDP growth, the tax cuts did not result in any significant GDP growth, just revenue loss. In fact GDP growth was relatively show under Bush, even during the "boom" years of 2000-2005:


I've read that without the housing bubble, GDP would have grown at a reletively slow 2% under Bush. So the tax cuts did not grow GDP enough to pay for themselves by any measure, even with a housing boom pumping wealth into the economy.

 

Usgovernmentrevenue.com .........as it states on the chart.

And its 100% true......which is why liberals rely soley upon revenue/GDP comparisons rather than the acutal numbers............

The only thing I noticed was an abundance of willfull ignorance on display.

Collecting a smaller % in revenues compared to GDP does not equate a loss in revenues.........

......it is this type of insane liberal logic that leads the ignorant to believe that if only our government would seize 90% of GDP......we would be living in some sort of liberal utopia.

Having the parasite consume a greater % from the Host Organism......has never benefited the Host Organism.

One of the greatest periods of economic and revenue growth in in US History.......after one of the Largest Tax Cuts in US History/
.
.
.
.

 

No your source is still lying.

The numbers are:

2000 1,004,462
2001 994,339
2002 858,345
2003 793,699
2004 808,959
2005 927,222
2006 1,043,908
2007 1,163,472
2008 1,145,747

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

 

While reduced spending would have certainly decreased the deficit and debt, there is simply no doubt the Bush's tax cuts also increased it. It's not either or.

 

Its exactly what the chart shows........

Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts


........but tell me.......did Bush's tax cuts cause the drop in revenue.......BEFORE Bush even took office?

Federal Revenue (2000-2001) BJ Clinton's Last Year


Winning.....

.
.
.
.

 

Would a 90% Revenue/GDP be a liberal utopia?

Would it be a booming economy?

Do you still believe a higher Revenue/GDP is a good thing?
.
.

.
.

 

Of course the only answer to this poll is yes. I just was curious to see how many people were ignorant enough to vote no. Every single major economics institute, even conservative ones, acknowledge that our deficits are higher because of the Bush tax cuts. And it's hard to argue that they created jobs or increased revenue when Bush has such an abysmal job creation record. Even when not counting the recession.

 

Because revenues have nothing to do with deficits, that's your view?

 

Cherry picking ....

 

Unemployment Rate After The Bush Tax Cuts


The Facts, Truth, and Reality still have little in common with your posts.....
.
.
.
.

 

how the HELL can G.W Bush be anything but a corporate lacky..??? He added 4 trillion dollars to the national debt man!!! lol .. how can that be spun in a positive light?..

I can understand people being partisan hacks .. but trying to make Bush jr. into a hero that was good for this country is beyond reason and makes anybody trying to pull it off look like a tool. Just like Obama defenders.... NO DIFFERENT

 

Who here is defending Bush?

Bush's liberal tendencies made him a terrible president......but that doesnt mean tax cuts are all bad.....or that they have ever contributed to deficits.
.
.
.

 

February 2001:

Of course, we all know that the current laws that control revenues and outlays DIDN'T remain unchanged.

 

Unemployment rate under Bush and his tax cuts:



The Facts, Truth, and Reality still have little in common with your posts or charts.....

 

So.... if Bush supported legislation and spending to the tune of 4 TRILLION dollars we didnt have ,a chunk of that 4 trillion in temporary tax cuts ( they were made temporary for a reason.. that reason was because they are unsustainable) its a good thing? If you spend money you dont have that will .. for (*)(*)(*)(*) sure put you in the hole..

One thing is for sure.. history has proven that tax cuts alone dont and wont bring back jobs or industry. They can help.. but the real revenue producer is fair trade policy. there are companys and corporation based in the U.S that pay nothing in taxes but still manufacture over seas.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts caused the .com bubble, 9/11, and the Mortgage collapse......
.
.
.
.

 

Obama's spending addiction and the recession contributed the most.

Bush tax cuts were a drop in the pond.

 

Thing is , the tax cuts were debt spending in the trillions. All it was was stimulus spending in disguise. Add in the oil wars and medicare debacle and you have Bush being a fiscal nightmare for this country. Debt Interest alone in Bushs last year was over 450 billion dollars.

When Obama took office He had a ready made trillion dollar deal he signed off on that came from Bush. He also had to try and save the status-quo crony capitalism economy and that came with a debt snowball the likes of never seen before.

Thing about all this is... Obama has done everthing wrong that Bush has done and then some. Bush did everything wrong his dad and Reagan did. Clinton tried to stabilize things.. but free trade with totalitarian/capitalistic regimes and you will end up losing your shirt and everybody elses shirt to boot.

Trying to pin all this crap on Obama and saying Bush was a great guy is akin to condenming a pit bulls head for ripping your leg off but holding its ass in high regard because it didnt do the biting.