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

[WhyteRain]

D.C. still owes us tax payers trillions of dollars due to increased revenues from the Bush Tax Rate Cuts.

Total Individual and Corporate Income Tax receipts, selected years, in billions of dollars:
 
$747 -- FY1995 (last budget of Clinton and Dem Congress)
$828 -- FY1996 (first budget of Clinton and GOP Congress)
*Major tax cut in 1997*
$1,212 -- FY2000 (greatest income tax receipts under "Clinton tax rates")
*Recession, caused mostly by collapse of "tech bubble", begins*
$1,145 -- FY2001 (last budget of "Clinton tax rates")
*2001, GOP defector gives Dems control of Senate; small tax cut enacted*
*Recession continues, exacerbated by 9/11, rising oil prices, corporate financial scandals*
$925 -- FY2003 (receipts fall to lowest level since FY1997; last budget of Bush with Democratic Senate)
*2002, Republicans regain control of Senate*
*2003, major tax cut*
$998 -- FY2004 (first budget of Bush and GOP Congress)
$1,534 -- FY2007 (last budget of Bush and GOP Congress)
*Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress*
$1,450 -- FY2008 (first budget of Bush and Dem Congress)
*Housing bubble bursts, bank bailouts, severe recession begins*
$1,102 -- FY2009 (last budget of Bush and Dem Congress)

The facts show that any sane person who wants to protect and increase federal revenues should (1) vote for a GOP congress and (2) support tax rate cuts.

Taxes increased after the Bush Tax Rate Cuts from $925 billion in FY 2003 to $1,534 billion in FY 2007.  That money should be rebated back to us tax payers or at least tax rates need to keep being cut until they produce an actual reduction in taxes.

Data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

This is why Tea Partyers are not Republicans.  We want actual taxes cut, not just tax rates. 

[WhyteRain]

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.

[WhyteRain]

Corporations and large buisnesses do need tax cuts, Warren Buffet and individuals billionaires don't need tax cuts, he even said this.  And EF Hollings said that every single war was paid for by an increase taxes WWI Income Tax was passed, Civil War Lincoln increased taxes. These two wars weren't even paid for.

The last war to be "paid for" was the War of 1812.

[WhyteRain]

My point, illustrated:

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..............

[WhyteRain]

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..............

Billions in federal tax receipts:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

2002: $1853
2003: $1782 (first year of Bush tax cuts)
2004: $1880
2005: $2154
2006: $2407
2007: $2568
2008: $2524
2009: $2105
2010: $2163
2011: $2304
2012: $2469

Tax revenues were higher than prior to the tax cuts in every year except for one, and grew every year except 08 and 09 for obvious reasons.  Even the 1-year drop in revenue doesn't necessarily put them on the wrong side of the Laffer curve if one takes a time horizon longer than one year.  In fact, the growth in tax revenues from 2003 to 2007 is much greater than in any 4-year period before it.

Your figures vary from mine (posted on page 1), and I guessed that yours were probably adjusted for inflation while mine are not.  Upon checking, my guess was confirmed.

By the way, I like your federal budget site.  It's easier to navigate then the one I provided.  Thanks.

[WhyteRain]

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.

[WhyteRain]

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

That's probably best since your best riposte so far was "ummm.........."

[WhyteRain]

I got a better idea, how about we stop getting into wars?

That's a great idea, how would you like to pay for the wars already entered into?

Can we end our 70 year occupation of Europe?  Another war that was never paid for.  (The last war that was paid for was the War of 1812.  It's beyond ridiculous to talk about the recent wars "not being paid for" without noting that fact.)

Majority of Americans want troops out of Europe

The ongoing opposition to America’s war in Afghanistan continues to grow, and now the results of a new poll suggest that US citizens are getting fed up with even nonviolent operations overseas.
 
According to findings published this week by Rasmussen Reports, more than half of the United States is in favor of pulling American troops from Western Europe, where the country’s forces are not engaged in any formal wars.

Of those polled by researchers with Rasmussen, 51 percent say that they are in favor of emptying all US bases across the pond. Only 29 percent are opposed to ending those operations, and 20 percent say that they are undecided on the matter.

The results of the study come from a recent telephone survey answered by 1,000 US voters who say they plan on casting a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. There is only a 3 percent margin of sampling error in the study, suggesting that — even accounting for a statistical gaffe — the majority of Americas want to see the country abolishing unpopular military operations.

http://rt.com/usa/news/majority-troops-europe-us-926/