Friday, August 05, 2011

Those Bothersome Facts

Nice work by York, found at Hot Air.

Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007.

Revs dumped in '08 and '09, of course. We shouldn't have to explain that to anyone, and I will NOT explain it to Democrat wankers.

That's not all.

During Bush’s eight years in office — January 2001 to January 2009 — the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.) --Politifact/York

That's a refudiation of Reid's inane claim of "8 million jobs lost in GWB years." It's not good news: Gummint job-increases are always bad news. But -653K is NOT -8MM.


Jim said...

But it's only 27% increase from 2000.

Anonymous said...

I believe you might find that a certain event in New York City also had an adverse effect on revenue during the start of his first term.

Anonymous said...

My how those trillions in tax cuts for job creators paid dividends!

Dad29 said...

Well, Jim, we could look all the way back to FDR's terms, too.

Why not Lincoln's?

Jim said...

Come on Dad, you are a reasonably sentient person (compared to others here). The point is that the 44% increase is calculated using the lowest point compared to the highest point of Bush's eight year term and not the average or a logical starting point and so is artificial.

Dad29 said...

So what?

You like the 27% revenue increase from Day 1 through '07 of Bush term? Fine.

Point is, revenues INCREASED with lower taxes.

Jim said...

"with lower taxes". Yes. No proof that it was because of lower taxes.

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.8 Trillion and Clinton had a surplus budget. Why not pay off the debt with a surplus?

Dad29 said...

I know you're on the Left Coast. Didn't you have TV out there covering 9/11?

Did you have an actual real-life JOB on that day? Were you paying attention to the telephone-traffic at that real-life job?

Because most of us watched the phones go flat-line for the next 90 days or so, and the economy start to tank.

La-La-Land, indeed.

Jim said...

What does that have to do with what we were talking about? Why would you question whether I had a job on that day? Why do you question whether I saw the second plane live hit the WTC? What's the point?

I comment here because I find some of what you post interesting. It makes me want to go research questions. I learn a lot. Not from this blog, but from the research I do to find out the accuracy of your posts.

We don't agree on much. So what? That doesn't make me ignorant or you an ass.

You've put comment moderation on and I don't blame you. But based on some of the examples I've brought to your attention, it appears you are allowing more than one standard of behavior depending on what side of the argument the comment comes from.

I posted a reply to a post the other day and the responses were so ugly that I deleted mine so as not to be associated with them

If what you want here is a circle jerk, be my guest. Maybe I was wrong that you might be interested in some kind of legitimate debate.

Dad29 said...

There WAS a point.

GWB found the economy dropping like a rock after 9/11. The fix? Tax cuts--PLUS a healthy dose of confidence that the US would aggressively defend its security.

Gee. Maybe that's why GDP took a hit: 9/11.

Maybe CONFIDENCE in US leadership (not merely wars-for-the-sake-of-wars, like Libya) is important, too.

Jim said...

"GWB found the economy dropping like a rock after 9/11. The fix? Tax cuts"

Except that Bush signed the first tax cuts 3 months before 9/11.

Anonymous said...

In dad's world you can cite 9/11 as reason for cutting the boy Bush some slack, but "Obozo" is the idiot for inheriting the boy's economic wreckage.

La-la land indeed.

J. Strupp said...

Revenues were up because we had the biggest asset bubble in world history. What is your point?

Dad29 said...

Sorry, Jim; mis-stated the timeline.

When GWB assumed office, the economy was already in a slowdown, so he went for the tax cuts. 9/11 made things a lot worse for the short term.

Now, Strupp: are you trying to tell me that the tax-revs were all capgains?

Because if you are, then you're conceding that the income tax is simply not sufficient to carry the burden of the Gummint's SPENDING.

And before you say 'increase the income tax,' it will be helpful for you to 'splain how, exactly, the US can extract >20% income-only tax from the population, which has paid at that rate only once in history.

Anonymous said...

Bush's Tax Cuts "Saved or Created" 125 Million Jobs. Evidence, same as you have for Obama.


Jim said...

Absurd, David. During the Bush years total US jobs ranged from about 131 million to 136 million. Unless you somehow believe the US could have lost some 90% of all jobs, there weren't 125 million jobs to be lost or saved or created.

Claims for what the stimulus achieved are much more modest and by most economists, accurate, not pulled out of YOUR ass. So the evidence is not the same.