Tax revenues are increasing at record levels - yes, even when adjusted for inflation?

Question

While the Fed has been HIKING interest rates.

Yes there's a problem with Bush - it's that he SPENDS too much. If we'd just increased spending at 2X CPI instead of 3.5X CPI for the last 4 years, THERE WOULD BE NO FEDERAL DEFICIT.

Why can't Lib posters grasp that this means the tax cuts worked, that while Bush has a deficit problem, the problem is he spends too much?

Sorry but I have to call it as I see it - Krugman, Reich, Barney Frank....

Hey wait, you're right, they're even beyond Lib, they're socialists.

OK sorry - insert "socialist" for "Lib."

And NO, I DID NOT SAY BUSH WAS GREAT.

I said the TAX CUTS WORKED.

NOT the same thing.

Bush is NOT great. He is spending too much money, and thereby WASTING the benefit of the tax cuts.

I have a serious issue with Bush - but it's the RIGHT issue - spending!

The economy does NOT grow every year.

Bush '41's tax hike led to a REDUCTION in federal revenue in real dollars - by 2.1%.

We are somewhere near the middle on the Laffer Curve - but the point is it ain't broke, why fix it? There is no reason to screw with it - clearly we don't have to raise spending at 3.5X CPI!!!! Clearly hiking spending at 2X CPI is doable with no pain - and we should be able to get it down to even with CPI or even less than CPI without significant pain.

We KNOW that will work.

So why not do it?

Travolta you're wrong - tax revenue has declined in other Administrations - - in fact Bush '41, remember he broke his "no new taxes" pledge and what happened, tax revenue in real dollars FELL.

And it's not just that they're up - it's that the INCREASE ITSELF IS A RECORD INCREASE, IN INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS.

It's not just that they're going up, it's that they're going up faster than before and faster than was projected either with or without the tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/B_1544_chart-4.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm

And what's with all this "trickle-down economics doesn't work" stuff - people keep repeating that and never backing it up. The facts say otherwise:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

Answer 1

Your right. We have a big problem in congress. Both sides spend like drunken sailors any more. Have you heard about all the money they are trying to pack into emergency spending? None of that money even shows up in the budget or regular spending but it sure as heck shows up as debt!

You will never get through to the Dem's on taxes. It is the simple Wal-Mart strategy cut prices and increase sales. They hate Wal-Mart too though.You could also use the oil industry as an example, their profit is only about 8-10% but huge volume equals record profits. Economics stymie them.

Answer 2

Since when does the budget have much to do with the President? Tax money is the Congresses responcibility. Bush has an input on what is done and programs that are made, but ultimately it is the Congress that controls the money.

It would be easy to go back to Clinton's philosphy of pushing for a huge decrease in the defense budget to the point where it was grossly underfunded, but then of course your inviting situations that you are unable to prevent or handle.

Answer 3

So you're trying to tell us all that Bush is great because he increased spending from Clinton's level by 3.5 times in only the last 4 years?

I don't guess I grasp Republican logic.

EDIT
OK we'll agree that Bush isn't great.

On the tax cuts. You know the economy grows every year whether we do anything or not don't you. So maybe the revenues would have grown faster if taxes had stayed where they were.

We are not necessarily on the right side of the Laffer Curve. An increase in taxes may just increase revenues.

Answer 4

I think you are correct. The problem is that Bush is spending far more than the benefit realized from the tax cut. Since 2000, he has spent $2.9 trillion more than the government took in. Considering the GDP increased $3.4 trillion during the same period, it creates a big problem.
We see devaluation, or inflation, as a result, particularly in imports like oil.

Answer 5

TAX CUTS DID NOT WORK.

I challenge you to go look up the governments own tax statistics. I don't have the link right here at work, but look and you will find.

Every single administration could have said tax revenues and GDP, even when accounting for inflation, were at an all time high when they were president. The population keeps increasing and technology keeps advancing leading to greater markets.

HOWEVER, if you look at the percent increase from when the president took over till he stepped out, you would see real GDP and tax revenues increased much faster under Democrats like FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton then under Reagan or Bush Jr.

Answer 6

We still have a massive federal deficit(250 billion a year)...and a 8.8 trillion dollar debt. These debts will be passed on to future generations.

Trickle down economics does help, but it's not the answer.

Answer 7

you had me until you used the word 'lib' seriously in a sentence.

sorry, it's impossible for me to take you seriously when you just spew rnc talking points...

Answer 8

That's good math. Bush doesnt "do" math, apparently.