I was not going to post Here Anymore

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what caused the much larger deficits under Obama?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tax revenues collected, hit an all time high after the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues did not decrease. Not sure you can say for sure, that higher tax rates would have resulted in higher tax revenues collected.

That isn't that simple, and you know it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...rose-after-bu/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

That isn't that simple, and you know it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...rose-after-bu/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tax rates went down.

After that, tax dollars collected went up.

I understand numbers, and I know you can slant them, adjust them, index them to make them say almost anything you want them to say.

But tax rates went down.

And then tax revenues went up.

Would tax revenues have been higher if tax rates were higher? I don't know.

What do we know?

We know tax rates went down, and that then revenues went up

Bryan, when the cost of something goes down, the demand for that something goes up. That applies whether that 'something' is televisions, widgets, or even wealth.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There's so much wrong with this post. Clinton didn't gut military spending, he held it steady after a decline by Reagan and Bush 41.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tary-readiness

The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit

Bush's average deficit as percentage of GDP compares favorably to Presidents since Reagan. Only Clinton had a lower ratio of deficit to GDP. And Bush's average ratio was significantly raised by TARP. Clinton's was so low because of spending cuts (including military) and the false picture created by the dot.com bubble which burst just before he left office which left Bush with a rapidly rising deficit. Bush's tax cuts, it is argued, helped to stimulate economic growth which had fallen to 1% in 2001 to above 4% in 2003 after which it slowly dropped until 2006 and spiked up again to 3% in 2007. Then the Bank failure contributed to the so-called great recession. And the mortgage bubble had begun well before Bush. In essence, he "inherited" (I know you like the notion of Presidents, at least Obama, inheriting stuff) the collapse of the dot.com bubble and the rise of the mortgage bubble. He contributed to that with the Iraq War, but still managed to grow the economy in the interim until the poop hit the fan--which he warned Congress several times that the crisis was looming but which the likes of Barney Frank dismissed, so nothing was done to correct the problem.

Also, average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.31% which was slightly higher than Clinton's average of 5.17%

while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The real estate bubble was a part of growth, as was the tech bubble for Clinton. So if you want to take away Bush's bubble, you'd have to take away Clinton's. And, besides, the mortgage bubble started well before Bush and passed through Clinton who also would have advantaged because of it.

But thanks, as you usually do, for slanting away from my response to RIROCKHOUND which was simply a cite to the last time a President lowered taxes and raised military spending. You may want to argue about whose theories on effects are right or wrong, but the simple fact is that economies have survived and even grown when taxes were lowered and military spending rose. Parse it all you want, but it did happen.

[detbuch]

This is the link for the above post replying to Spence re Clinton "gutting the military." I don't know why the link I entered in the above post cannot be accessed. But it can here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tary-readiness

"gutted" might have been too strong a word, or maybe not.