Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
maxrandb (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr-14-10 09:34 AM
Original message
Has anyone done a study to see what our deficit would be if Bush' Tax-cuts had failed?
I'm just curious. I think it would be interesting to look at the budget deficit today, and see what it would be if Bush hadn't tinkered with the Tax Code.
Is this DUmmy actually implying that the Bush tax cuts worked? That's damn near a bannable offence at the DUmp.
I wonder how long it'll take the DUmb****s to catch on . . .
lamp_shade (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-14-10 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. If bush tax cuts had failed? What?
Walk away (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-14-10 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Or if no one had tinkered with the tax code since Reagan.
We would be in the black!
Finally, there is the myth that Reagan and his top advisors believed it was possible to increase tax revenues instantaneously by cutting tax rates. It is a damaging myth because it suggests that those in charge of economic policy in the early 1980s had a rather tenuous grip on reality.
In fact, in every economic speech and policy paper issued both during the 1980 campaign and during the entire eight years that Reagan was President, any proposed tax-rate reduction always showed immediate and substantial tax-revenue losses. On the other hand - and this is the point most people seemed to miss - total tax revenues were expected to continue to climb, but not as much as they would have if the tax rates had not been cut. The critical phrase here is "not as much as they would have." Some people seem to have become confused by statements to the effect that tax revenues would continue to rise even after the tax-rate reductions. Which, of course, is exactly what did happen. During the Reagan years, in spite of the large 1981 tax-rate reductions, federal tax revenues nearly doubled. The reason why Reagan was able to reduce tax rates and still see revenues rise was that the tax rates were way too high in the first place. And the fact that revenues doubled under Reagan suggests we did not cut tax rates nearly enough in the 1980s.
It should be noted here that the nasty current deficit problem is due entirely to the ingenuity of the federal bureaucracy, the avarice of Congress, and the recent ineptitude of OMB in controlling the growth of federal spending, spending which has managed to outrace the largest increase in federal revenue in U.S. history.
lamp_shade (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-14-10 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. If bush tax cuts had failed? What?
"Wait, what?"The DUmmy is demonstrating the typical DUmmy inability to clearly express himself. He means if President Bush's tax reductions had failed "to pass". In the democrat world, a lower tax rate means an increased deficit, because if the democrats don't take away money in taxes, it will just be hoarded by rich people, in big bags with a dollar sign on the outside.
The DUmmy is demonstrating the typical DUmmy inability to clearly express himself. He means if President Bush's tax reductions had failed "to pass". In the democrat world, a lower tax rate means an increased deficit, because if the democrats don't take away money in taxes, it will just be hoarded by rich people, in big bags with a dollar sign on the outside.