Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush lowered tax rates, but tax revenue stayed about the same during the Bush era. Total revenue, adjusted for inflation, was 2.3 trillion in 2000, and 2.4 trillion in 2007.
Deficits are spending minus revenue, not spending minus rates.
First, after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue did not 'stay about the same.' They dropped. You can see that from the below chart, which is total revenues adjusted for inflation. It wasn't until 2006 that revenues of $2.33 trillion* (barely) exceeded the 2000 revenue of $2.28 trillion*. If cutting taxes really does increase revenue then the effect of the 2001 and 2003 tax-cuts wouldn't have taken years to take effect and would have been more robust.
*2005 dollars
Second, while you did adjust for inflation you did not adjust for another factor that also tends to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, population growth. In this case, six years of population growth. When I factor that out by using inflation adjusted per capita revenue, we see that even in 2007, revenues do not reach 2000 levels.
All in all, the assertion that cutting taxes increases government revenue has no empirical support.
My 1st point...Explain how granting permanent most favored nation status to China helped the US economy.
It's your point.
You explain it.
Quote:
Both parties got us into this mess...seems like you realize my facts are corect, which is why you refuse to discuss my facts. Don't be an intellectual coward, either agree that this policy by Clinton was bad or come up with reasons why it was good and then we'll move to point number 2 of mine - repeal of Glass-Stegall...a bipartisan policy that Clinton was "proud" to sign into law.
More of your cowardly self-fashioned "points."
I suppose that's all you're left with when your partisanship differs from history.
I love the "sowing the seeds" argument. Might as well blame Reagan for 9/11.
Face it, GWB was a horrendous president. He inherited an economy at the peak of its powers and turned it into an economic meltdown.
That chart completely ignores intragovernmental borrowing.. I have no need to put egg on my face, and the US Treasury Office confirms that there was no surplus.
Here, since its so difficult for you to understand how it works, let me dumb it down for you in terms you can probably relate to..
Bill has no money but wants to buy a piece of candy. Bill goes to the stores, and talks the store clerk into loaning him money so he can buy the candy, and he will pay for it when George becomes President.
Then Bill proclaims he has no debt, ignoring that he owes the clerk money.
Did I dumb it down for you enough, or is a piece of candy still too complicated for you to understand?
Bill Clinton's presidency contributed to today's economic woes.
Every single past admin contributed to today's economic woes.
The parties nominate the person who they believe has the greatest potential to raise the most money for themselves and their party. Payback means protecting and advancing the interests of the big donors and lobbyists.
Once elected, the goal becomes reelection. Two time presidents then focus on fund raising for their parties. And they all did it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bill Clinton Presidency = Poor Economic Management
