upsideguy;1063936096]You introduced the wiki article as competent, evidential matter. It either is or it isn't. Once introduced, every thing else in that document is fair game in debate and evidence for whatever position in supports. It just so happens to substantially supports the assertions I was making: the Bush Tax cuts cost the federal coffers between $1.2 and $1.8T in revenue over 10 years. The Wiki article has numerous cites and links to this.... including, of course, the Heritage Foundation, which forecast that. If this had been a real debate, that move would have cost you the verdict.
The purpose of posting the Wiki article was to give you the dates of the Bush tax cuts. You made the claim that they were in 2001 and that was part of them but not the complete package. That is the issue thus tax revenue did not fall as you indicated for 6 years following full implementation of the Bush tax cuts.
Your position posts op ed pieces. I gave you the Treasury data and even your chart shows tax revenue going up from 2004-2007. Do you even know how to read the numbers? Do you realize that Bush inherited a recession in March 2001 or do you blame Bush for that recession without even having an economic plan implemented?
I am waiting for you to provide the actual data and how it was calculated to show that the Bush tax cuts cost the Govt. money? You cannot take the economic activity that occurred after the tax cuts and assume they would have happened without those tax cuts but that is what liberals do, project when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.
Overwhelming studies never offer the data used to calculate the projections, why is that?
While the Bush tax cuts were not FULLY implemented until 2003, they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001, including the lowering of the lowest rate (which everyone pays) from 15 to 10%; implementation of tax rebates for everyone; beginning of a step down in all rates and expansion of the child tax credit. The 2001 tax cut had substantial impact on the coffers, as evidenced by the fact that income tax revenues fell by 20% from 2000 to 2003.
BTW.... I have no idea where you come up with this 40% number.... Individual income tax numbers fell just under 20% from $1.0B to $800M in 2003. They then returned to pre-tax cut levels 6 years later in 2006 and then climbed to $1.15B in 2007. In essence, these taxes went up 15% in 7 years..... Meanwhile, GDP grew (each and every year, BTW) from $9.8T to $13.8T, nearly 40%. The chart below shows that tax revenues fell even when GDP rose. Why? Tax cuts....
Bush Tax Cuts.jpg
Again, I have produced a ton of evidence supporting my position, you have produced nothing (although you have entered some facts that you lack command in the understand of).... again, you continue to say the tax cuts grew revenue, but ALL of the evidence that far states they had NOTHING to do with revenue growth. Again, there is NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything (except cost the government money). Feel free to produce some evidence (other than the same old tired impressions.... impressions are often wrong and almost always partially wrong)
You are fundamentally arguing your impressions against overwhelming facts, studies and expert opinions that refute your impressions, yet you refuse to consider or learn. Call us when you can back up your statements.