Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Obviously he'll pay for it with tax hikes on the poor.

The poor have the money to pay taxes?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Every time I use facts to destroy a cherished myth like "The Bush Tax Cuts Caused a Massive Drop in Tax Revenues!", the thread goes dead. 

It's hard to take seriously a forum where facts end a discussion rather than starting one.

Umm..............

[All Along The Watchtower]

I see separate columns for current and constant dollars. Your numbers are from the current column.

Here are the numbers from the constant column:
1998: 2,040.9
1999: 2,136.4
2000. 2,310.0
2001: 2,215.3
2002: 2,028.6
2003: 1,901.1
2004: 1,949.5
2005: 2,153.6
2006: 2,324.1
2007: 2,414.0
2008: 2,288.1
2009: 1,899.0
2010: 1,927.9
2011: 1,998.7

Furthermore, the very own website you've chosen to cite says the following:

"The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years." link

Alright, I read that website too quickly, but inflation-adjusted or not all my claims are still accurate, so I'm failing to see your point.  Of course it would be like the Brookings Institution to make ridiculous claims when reality has a bias against liberals - tax revenues as a % of GDP are of course determined by tax rates, if there are higher taxes there will always be a higher amount of tax collection as a percentage of GDP, but that of course does not mean that the absolute amount of tax revenue is as high as it could be.

Just a couple of comments.

First, aren't these "total receipts", not "total tax receipts"?  Federal taxes are, I think, only around 50-60% of "total revenues".  I prefer to use the figures for taxes, not total revenues, when discussing tax policy.

Second, the most important truth to derive from these figures is that Marxists and Democrats lie when they claim that "the Bush Tax Cuts resulted in less revenues to the Treasury and are the cause for Obama's huge deficits". Unfortunately, this lie has been told so often, through the 1%ers control of the megaphones of U.S. society, that even a few otherwise intelligent Americans believe it.

As the figures show, no matter how the numbers are massaged by the international bankers and their puppets, federal tax revenues were substantially higher after the Bush Tax Rate Cuts than they ever were before.

And, no, the higher revenues were not a result of "a growing economy" (though the growing economy was influenced by the lower tax rates).  GNP growth for 2004-2007 figures were 2.9, 2.8, 2.4, and 2.2 percent respectively.  Post-tax-rate-cut revenues far, far outstripped growth of the economy.

I think this forum is for erudite thinkers.  If so, let us not be not be among the fooled who think that tax rate cuts (like JFK's in 1963, Reagan's in 1981, Clinton's in 1997, or Bush's in 2003) have ever yet produced less tax revenue.  Repeat after me, "the MSM has lied to us again and has fooled most Americans", and then let us proceed to an intelligent discussion about tax policy.

This is such bunk, that it's not even worth addressing in depth.