So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

TAX.COM ^ | 09/24/2010 | David Cay Johnston

[Road Warrior ‘04]

From ‘05:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1296.html

[HwyChile]

It's a good thing the person who wrote that article is an amateur. Otherwise, he or she would have been fired with such illogical and false information and analysis. There is so much wrong and incorrect in that article that it would take a very long rebuttal to point all of it out, which of course would be a waste of time since the person who wrote it is not really interested in truth or facts—just false liberal propaganda.

[Mygirlsmom]

Even so, if I had to choose, I’d put my money on the baboon.

[cranked]

SO let me guess, Mr. Johnson here is suggesting that the Bush tax cuts not be extended and that America undergo the largest tax increase in US history? Couple that with the un-announced tax increases, such as VAT tax, etc., that these type idiots will slam us with......wonderful you live in Mr. Johnson, huh? =.=

[MNJohnnie]

Nice statistical shell game or lying by omission. Did not control for the impact of the 09-11 attacks on the US Economy.

So this “analysis” is total garbage where by a pre determined outcome was given a gloss of intellectual creditably by selectively manipulating the data.

Or, in other garbage in garbage out

[inkdude]

The first 18 months of the 2003 Bush tax cuts yielded 300,000 jobs created, the next 20 months 5 million jobs created according to the heritage foundation analysis. The govt should live on less and the tax payers live on more!

[grumpygresh]

Looks like this moron is auditioning for an 0bama economic position. So it follow that by this logic, we can expect proportionately more tax revenues at 70, 80 or 90 percent marginal rates. We also can expect more income and GDP with higher taxes? Marxist economists will never answer the question at which rate will revenue go down. Also, what good does it do to boast about a higher income if most of it goes for taxes, it’s only after tax income that matters to the individual.
This moron thinks that his data (which I believe will be shown to be manipulated because it is natural for a Marxist to deceive) is obviously sufficient to prove his insane thesis that higher income taxes actually increase individual income. There are other factors to be considered such as breakthrough economic innovation (internet, computers), wars (9/11), economic cycles (government sponsored housing bubble) occurring during a time period studied that have profound influences on individual incomes.
In order to prove this proposition, one needs not only raw economic empiric data (which can be manipulated by varying the starting points) but an account of outsides variables that affect the economy. Then, the proposition must also be subject to the fundamental logic that people act in their self interest in nearly all cases. Even Leftists do all they can to avoid paying taxes. At a certain point, a rational person will stop working when he cannot keep his money. This is as basic as the Pavlov dog experiments when behavior is extinguished after a reward is no longer given after the performance of a desired activity.
Even a dog knows more about economics than this Marxist. Perhaps zero can hire his dog Bo as and economic advisor. At least he would be more qualified.

[exDemMom]

Let’s face it...libtards can no more understand economics than a baboon can grasp quantum mechanics.

Excuuuuuuse me! I have been having great success teaching baboons everything I know about quantum mechanics!

[Beagle8U]

“Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.”

The dumbass that wrote that has no idea what the economy would be without the tax cuts! That is like the lying Marxist saying ‘jobs saved or created’.

[RWB Patriot]

It’s funny how people are always whining about lack of funding for things, yet the idea that perhaps if government wasn’t blowing money on things that aren’t its business, maybe it would have money to put towards things that are never occured to them.

[highlander_UW]

It’s funny how people are always whining about lack of funding for things, yet the idea that perhaps if government wasn’t blowing money on things that aren’t its business, maybe it would have money to put towards things that are never occured to them.

Exactly what I was trying to convey. On other websites I had liberals challenge me as to what I'd cut and they were shocked into near silence when I gave them an extensive list of cuts and revision, why I'd make those changes and the likely effect. But at the core is bring the federal government into line with the constitution and they wouldn't be in such a situation that they need to confiscate ever larger sums of money. Of course that means that politicians would lose influence and power...and there is the rub.

[SuziQ]

Interesting that this writer only focuses on the tax income information, without giving any information about how much Congress SPENT. If spending hadn’t ballooned, the tax income would have been more than sufficient.