Ok. Just for those who haven't caught on yet, here's just how full of BS Smash is:
Feel free to check my numbers at the
CBO site. CBO statnds for "Congressional Budget Office", in case anyone's concerned about the accuracy of the figures.
For those who dont feel like perusing the link, here is the entire historical data for revenues (taxes essentially) and outlays (budget) for every US administration since 1962:
Year Revenue Outlays (%GDP)
1962 17.5 18.8
1963 17.8 18.5
1964 17.5 18.5
1965 17.0 17.2
1966 17.3 17.8
1967 18.3 19.4
1968 17.6 20.5
1969 19.7 19.3
1970 19.0 19.3
1971 17.3 19.4
1972 17.6 19.6
1973 17.6 18.7
1974 18.3 18.7
1975 17.9 21.3
1976 17.2 21.4
1977 18.0 20.7
1978 18.0 20.7
1979 18.5 20.1
1980 18.9 21.6
1981 19.6 22.2
1982 19.1 23.1
1983 17.4 23.5
1984 17.3 22.1
1985 17.7 22.9
1986 17.5 22.5
1987 18.4 21.6
1988 18.1 21.2
1989 18.3 21.2
1990 18.0 21.8
1991 17.8 22.3
1992 17.5 22.2
1993 17.6 21.5
1994 18.1 21.0
1995 18.5 20.7
1996 18.9 20.3
1997 19.3 19.5
1998 20.0 19.2
1999 20.0 18.6
2000 20.9 18.4 2001 19.8 18.6
2002 17.9 19.4
2003 16.5 19.9 I've highlighted Clinton's last term in red, and Bush's first 3 years in blue for ease of viewing.
Now. Let's see what I said, and Smash's responses, shall we?
gbaji wrote:
Clinton ran record high tax rates.
Smash's lame response:
Smasharoo wrote:
As ussual, wrong.
Ludicrously wrong. A child would realize that back when the marginal tax rate on income over $1m was 95 percent would make it rather difficult for Clinton to run record tax rates without making it 100 percent. The maginal tax rates for all income levels has been much, much higher at verious points in proir history than it was under Clinton, who CUT taxes.
Fool.
Ah... I'm a fool for being right? I'm talking about total tax revenues gathered by the government here Smash. No amount of you fiddling and making stuff up will change the simple fact that prior to Clinton taking office, the highest government revenues in relation to GDP was 19.7% in 1969. Prior to Clinton taking office, there were only 4 years *total* that were 19% or higher. 1969, 1970, 1981, and 1982. Those 4 years represent a pair of pretty obvious spikes and are surrounded by lower tax rates. No president, Rep or Dem, prior to Clinton maintained those high tax rates.
Look at the damn chart Smash. 4 years in a row! Clinton's entire 2nd term consists of the taxes in excess of 19%. He's the only one on the chart who *ever* exceeds 20%, and he does it for 3 years in a freaking row at the end of this last term. I can't imagine why the economy took a nosedive right after he left though...
It gets better though:
gbaji wrote:
Bush has run record *low* tax rates. That "surplus" that Clinton had was *our* money that he overtaxed in the first place. The "deficit" that Bush is runing is *our* money as well. If he taxes 600B less in 2003, and runs a 600B deficit, it's we who have 600B more dollars in our economy to generate jobs and new products as a result. Yes, we have to pay it back at some point, but borrowing money to invest in the economy when we're in a recession and interest rates are low is a pretty solid economic move.
And Smash's response? Surprise! He kinda sidesteps the issue (that Bush has run record low taxes), while making it look like he's making a point.
Smasharoo wrote:
Again, false, on many counts. Firstly cutting taxes *without cutting spending* has never been shown to have any *long term* impact on the economy. At all. Ever.
Ok. We can debate this over and over (and have). None of this addresses the statement that Bush has run record low taxes, and that's why we're in a deficit.
Smasharoo wrote:
Bush's spending, by the way ADJUSTED FOR GDP is two percent higher than the spending in 2000. Spending for '03 was ~20 percent of GDP and is projected to be the same or higher by the end of '04. As a percentage of GDP it generaly hovers around 20 percent, although when Republicans are in office it's consistently HIGHER
Ok. You're kinda addressing the point, but you're insisting on making a very short term comparison, instead of looking at past data in total. Bush's spending in 2003 is the highest of his term, in relation to GDP, at 19.9%. However, if you actually look at the data, you will see that during the entire span of time between 1975 and 1996, every single budget was in excess of 20% of GDP. That span includes Clintons entire first term btw. Bush's "huge budget increases" only look huge when compared to the short term (Clinton's very small budgets in his second term). When compared to the last 30 years of budgets, Bush's 19.9% budget is quite moderate in size. It's not so much that he's increasing the budget, but bringing it back up to a level that we've managed to maintain for a span covering ost of our lives. Odd that, I wasn't aware that our economy was on the verge of total collapse for my entire life and just never heard about it until now. The fact is that Bush's expenditures are well within the "normal" range.
Just more rhetoric from the Left I suppose. I mean, if you shout fire loudly enough and often enough, some people will believe you...
Also, I wasn't even talking about Bushs *outlays*. I was talking about his taxes. I specifically said that Bush had "record low taxes". You said that was false. Which is really funny, since the lowest taxes as a percentage of GDP prior to Bush taking office was 17.0% in 1965. I would say that a tax rate of 16.5% is a "record low" tax rate, wouldn't you?
I would also say that lowering taxes from 20.9% in 2000 (record high) to 16.5% in 2003 (record low) is a pretty darn amazing accomplishment, wouldn't you?
Facts are facts Smash. Clinton ran record high taxes. Bush has run record low taxes. Please stop trying to pretend that this isn't true...
