Yeah, 1.8 trillion - 1.44 trillion = SURPLUS baby! Wow, imagine that, even a 2nd grader could figure that out...well, maybe not in this country but definitely in China. I think you need to swallow your conservative bias here and just accept the facts. Doesn't matter what Obama said, the point is that Bush tax cuts cost us more in total that ALL OF Obama's "spending" combined Can't you just admit that?
raising taxes does not equate to increasing revenue. Clinton proved that with his tax increase in '93. It is impossible to say what effect the Bush tax cuts had since it was overshadowed by the Fannie and Freddie debacle.
revenues increased about 3 years later and it had nothing to do with the tax increase obviously. Why would revenue from a tax increase come years after it is enacted? Here is the Clinton administration and the CBO's projections 18 months after the tax hike was enacted: Even Clinton knew it failed.
1992 tax receipts: $1.091 trillion 1993 tax receipts: $1.154 trillion (+5.7%) 1994 tax receipts: $1.258 trillion (+9%) 1995 tax receipts: $1.351 trillion (+7.4%) ... 2000 tax receipts: $2.025 trillion (+86% from 1992) 2000 tax receipts: $2.025 trillion 2001 tax receipts: $1.991 trillion (-1.7%) 2002 tax receipts: $1.853 trilllion (-7%) 2003 tax receipts: $1.782 trillion (-3.8%) 2004 tax receipts: $1.880 trillion (+5.5%) ... 2008 tax receipts: $2.524 trillion (+26.7%) It's pretty easy to see, both looking at the short term and the long term numbers. The 2008 numbers are prior to the big revenue decline. Even if you take out the 2000 bubble, there's simply no way to show more success from the Bush cuts than the Clinton hikes over the course of any period of time - short or long term.
1987 - 854.3 trillion 1988 - 909.2 trillion (+6.4%) 1989 - 991.1 trillion ( +9.0%) 1990 - 1,032 trillion ( + 4.1%) .... Not much of a change. Thus the admittance by the Clinton administration that it failed. Luckily for Mr. Clinton the republicans came in and reduced spending thus this is what really happened:
Well, of course spending slowdowns helped. However, there's simply no way to argue that taxes weren't a significant part of the equation. Under Bush 1, total tax receipts went up 20% in 4 years. Under Clinton, they went up 86% in 8 years - "not much of a change" is not remotely accurate. And you can't just account for it with economic growth, because revenues as a % of GDP went down under both Bushes and up under Clinton. And you can't just credit Republicans for spending controls because spending during Clinton's first two years went up 5.8%, or 2.9% annually. In his last 6 years, spending went up 22.6%, or 3.4% annually.
Yes but that wasn't because of the tax increase or else it would of happened right when the law was enacted. Why would a tax hike randomly start showing results 3-4 years after enacted? It wouldn't. Therefore the massive increase in revenue in the late 90s had nothing to do with the tax hike. Clinton putting out a projection like that is an admittance of failure on the part of the tax hike. He knows his tax hike didn't do crap. You mean when the Democrats ran Congress and created the budget (except those 3 years)? I most certainly can credit Republicans for producing a balanced budget. Regardless of revenue, Democrats always generate an incredible amount of debt, Republicans didn't. At least in this instance.
The largest single increase in tax revenues was the year after the tax increase was passed. You were completely wrong about your "3-4 years after enacted" nonsense. Admit it and move on. No, I mean that revenues as a % of GDP went up in the administration that raised taxes, while revenues as a % of GDP went down in the administration that lowered taxes. Well then that would just mean you choose to ignore facts when they don't fit the storyline you want to produce. As demonstrated, tax receipts were already rising and spending had already slowed before the GOP ever took power. All the conditions for an improving budget situation were in place before the GOP ever did anything. Nothing the GOP did changed the trend at all - if anything, the spending rate slightly increased. And then, of course, when the GOP took full power, it increased dramatically while taxes dropped dramatically. You do the math on how that translates to debt.
tallanvor: do you actually believe the stuff you type, or do you just feel like you need to do anything to help your "team" win? I mean ... a lot of what you say is not relative, is not "a matter of perspective," it's just ... wrong. And by wrong I don't mean poor judgment, or unethical ... I mean completely and verifiably incorrect according to rational standards. You understand that, right?
If I was 'rationally wrong' then you would explain why that is the case. Instead of wasting everyone's time with ridicule. This is pretty basic stuff. http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-90s/
But I've explained it in other places ... repeatedly. You don't even bother responding. tallanvor: Is your "team" ever capable of being wrong? I want you to really think about this for a second ... not just react. Think about it. Does your "team" ever do anything wrong? I suspect that, if you're honest, you'll find yourself answering "no."
I insult the GOP all the time. I have in this thread. Stop looking for an easy way out of a perfectly reasonable discussion.
1.8 trillion (which is .8 more than Obama claimed) is the total over 10 years. 1.44 trillion is each year. Are you trolling me?
I'm not going to ridicule you but Major has posted the numbers that show tax revenue increased right after the 1993 budget was passed that raised taxes. Keep in mind to that the 1986 tax reform act also raised taxes and your own numbers show an increase in tax revenue following that. The facts show that tax revenue did increase in those instances following a raise in taxes.
That's odd, given that the 9% is the largest number I posted, and that number was the year the tax increase took effect.
