News What GOOD has George W. Bush done for the USA?

[sketchtrack]

I think it depends on one's definition of greed; here is what I found at thefreedictionary.com: "Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possesses more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

So what is wrong with that? It depends on what the greed is for.



Well yes, generally as a politician, greed is bad, because politicians tend to be greedy for power. Greed for power in itself is bad, because the more power one gets, the more corrupt they become.



Greed for knowledge, wanting to know about everything, far more than you "need" to, I wouldn't say is bad. Greed for love, wanting everyone to love you, might seem a bit narcisstic, but I wouldn't label it as evil. Greed for wealth as long as your morals stay in check, etc...I think can be very good.

To build wealth, you have to, for the most part, provide products and services that people value. So let's say you want to become worth $4 billion, so you spend your life building businesses and investing to attain this goal. Think of all the good you accomplish! Lots of job creation, economic growth, good products/services that help people, more taxpayers for the government, plus you become wealthy, and thus can then do even more good by starting charities, contributing to charities, etc...by investing in the markets, you also provide capital for other entrepreneurs to start their businesses, thus creating more jobs, products/services, etc...all that simply because you want to acquire far more wealth than you "need."



Not necessarily; you might love being greedy and building wealth and accumulating money, but also greatly enjoy philanthropy and donate large sums of money to charitable causes that you truly care about.

On the other hand, some rich people only donate to charity as a way to climb the social ladder; they "help humanity" but they are also greedy for acceptance. Some also only donate for tax write-off purposes.



Plenty would, but not all.



Well I've never heard anyone be proud of being a liar, cheat, or thief, however there does seem to be a prevailing "slacker" attitude of people proud say to never have read a book in their life, stuff like that.

Greed I think is a virtue if used properly, and can be very good. For a leader of a group or team, if the leader has greed for say getting all the credit for the project, that's probably not good. If he has greed in other ways though, it can be very good I'd imagine.

Ok, I guess there are different kinds of greed, and some worse than others, but generally greed is bad, not a virtue in my opinion. In my opinion greed is like an addiction. Note the word excessive. A simple desire to have more than you need isn't bad at all, but it can get out of hand, it can take over your life, it can leave you with no true friends, no true love, and can consume how you live your life.

If you are trying to create some kind of dynasty and to gain power to rule the world financially, then I suppose you need a lot of money to do that, so by that definition those people aren't greedy. It takes a lot of money to rule the world, but are you trying to rule the world for greedy reasons, or do you just think that you would make the world a better place by ruling it, so you are doing it for the people. It isn't what you have, but how you act that makes you greedy or not. What are your greedy actions, and what kind of person does it make you?

 

[Gokul43201]

Not from what I have read and written above.

Where have you read that warrantless wiretapping was legal? Where have you read that waterboarding is legal? Where have you read that the operation of CIA black sites and the use of extraordinary rendition are legal? Where have you read that suspension of habeus corpus was legal? Where have you read that the White House exercise of military tribunals in Guantanamo was legal?

True, GWB can't take credit for all the efforts. But if the surveillance program contributed to these international efforts, that's still something I'd think.

Then you have to show how the US surveillance program was contributing to those efforts.

It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.

 

[cristo]

It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.

It's also incredibly pompous to make such statements as "The US and partners stopped attacks..." What he really means is "The UK security services and police forces, helped in part by the US, stopped the attacks.."

 

[sketchtrack]

It is kind of funny to think Bush did well protecting us from Terrorism because the biggest terrorist attack on the U.S. in history was during his term. It has been shown that if they had their stuff together it could have easily been prevented.

Then you can say that he prevented further attacks, yet at the same time, he created millions more terrorists and elevated world wide hate against the U.S., so I'm not sure he really did well protecting us from terrorists because now there is a bigger problem lurking in the shadows than before.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Where have you read that warrantless wiretapping was legal?

It isn't "warrantless wiretapping" from my understanding. It is a foreign surveillance program that intercepts international signals. It isn't as if the government is illegally wiretapping its own citizens. The President went through all the proper means to enact such a program, it was challenged by the ACLU, and held up by the court system.

Where have you read that waterboarding is legal?

I would say waterboarding is legal when applied to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay; I do not believe that terrorists are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

[quoteWhere have you read that the operation of CIA black sites and the use of extraordinary rendition are legal?[/quote]

What should it matter when dealing with terrorists?

Where have you read that suspension of habeus corpus was legal? Where have you read that the White House exercise of military tribunals in Guantanamo was legal?

These are captured terrorists, not ordinary U.S. citizens. They are not subject to the same rights as American citizens.

Then you have to show how the US surveillance program was contributing to those efforts.

It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.

I am going by what was released by the White House. But so what if some of them were not really because of the President's efforts? Some of them were, such as the Brooklyn Bridge plot, the JFK plot, and the Los Angelos plot. Furthermore, if the terrorists are trying to do things in Britain, than surely they are also trying to do things here as well I'd think.

It's also incredibly pompous to make such statements as "The US and partners stopped attacks..." What he really means is "The UK security services and police forces, helped in part by the US, stopped the attacks.."

I agree, if that is the case in different instances, then that's how they should have worded it. Give credit where it's due.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is a tiring. You can disagree with the US Supreme Court, but that's just your opinion.

For more on what GOOD GWB has done, I agree with much of what's in this article by Zakaria:

What Bush Got Right

For the next president, simply reversing this administration's policies is not the answer.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731/page/1

 

[WheelsRCool]

It is kind of funny to think Bush did well protecting us from Terrorism because the biggest terrorist attack on the U.S. in history was during his term. It has been shown that if they had their stuff together it could have easily been prevented.

Much of the planning for 9/11 took place during the 1990s. I would like to have seen people's reaction if Bush had announced, right upon entering office, "We believe the United States is wide open for a large-scale terrorist attack, so I'm enlarging our intelligence services a good deal, enacting a surveillance program, and the Patriot Act, etc..." many think that is too much even after 9/11. Imagine the thinking if he'd done such a thing prior to it, when something like 9/11 was considered unfathomable (if he would have even had the time, remember he entered office January 2001) and 9/11 ended up never managing to occur.

 

[WheelsRCool]

This is a tiring. You can disagree with the US Supreme Court, but that's just your opinion.

One can disagree with the Supreme Court. But one can't go against them once they rule a certain way. The Supreme Court is the law of the land, and now that they have ruled that the terrorists at Guatanamo should be tried in civilian court, that is the law.

The Supreme Court came very close to ruling against the Second Amendment recently. If they had ruled it as a collective right, I would have disagreed with them. But it would be the law for the time being (thankfully though, they ruled opposite).

For more on what GOOD GWB has done, I agree with much of what's in this article by Zakaria:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731/page/1

I see, thanks.

 

[sketchtrack]

The thing is that many if not most of the detainees are actually innocent. Many of them were detained because they had a similar name to someone they were looking for and this in a country where many people share the same name. They don't get tried before being detained and they get tortured innocent or not.

 

[sketchtrack]

Much of the planning for 9/11 took place during the 1990s. I would like to have seen people's reaction if Bush had announced, right upon entering office, "We believe the United States is wide open for a large-scale terrorist attack, so I'm enlarging our intelligence services a good deal, enacting a surveillance program, and the Patriot Act, etc..." many think that is too much even after 9/11. Imagine the thinking if he'd done such a thing prior to it, when something like 9/11 was considered unfathomable (if he would have even had the time, remember he entered office January 2001) and 9/11 ended up never managing to occur.

They knew that an attack using our own planes against us was going to be attempted and yet did nothing about it. Who cares if the planning happened before he was in office. What is the point of having a patriot act if you already have the intelligence to stop terrorism but don't use it?

 

[WarPhalange]

Much of the planning for 9/11 took place during the 1990s. I would like to have seen people's reaction if Bush had announced, right upon entering office, "We believe the United States is wide open for a large-scale terrorist attack, so I'm enlarging our intelligence services a good deal, enacting a surveillance program, and the Patriot Act, etc..." many think that is too much even after 9/11. Imagine the thinking if he'd done such a thing prior to it, when something like 9/11 was considered unfathomable (if he would have even had the time, remember he entered office January 2001) and 9/11 ended up never managing to occur.

We already knew.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/25/nation/na-intel25

 

[Keyser Söze]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731/page/1

Thanks for the link Gokul! That was a really informative and useful article.

 

[WheelsRCool]

I wouldn't say they "knew" per se of 9/11, more that there were a lot of indicators at the time, but not enough people paying attention. Sort of like economic bubbles; after they occur, all the indicators seem like they were blaringly obvious. But when it's occurring, many fail to notice.

 

[WarPhalange]

I wouldn't say they "knew" per se of 9/11, more that there were a lot of indicators at the time, but not enough people paying attention.

Bush was shown the indicators and either didn't think it was a big deal, ignored it, or didn't even read it in the first place.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Bush was shown the indicators and either didn't think it was a big deal, ignored it, or didn't even read it in the first place.

From what I understand, President Bush was made aware of the threat of a possible attack, and notified the proper intelligence agencies, but the CIA, FBI, etc...failed to connect the dots. Here is an article CBS wrote about it in 2002: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml

 

[mheslep]

They knew that an attack using our own planes against us was going to be attempted and yet did nothing about it.

That is false, crackpottery.

Who cares if the planning happened before he was in office.

Anyone serious about preventing mass murder. And more than just paper planning occurred prior to the Bush administration; the first hijackers entered the US in January 2000 and started flight training in 2000.

What is the point of having a patriot act if you already have the intelligence to stop terrorism but don't use it?

The original point was that the intelligence community was fractured and uncooperative amongst itself making the intelligence process ineffective especially in areas where international intelligence and domestic law enforcement intersect. I make no comment (here) about the actual effect of the P.A., just the original point.

 

[mheslep]

Dr Zakaria's Newsweek piece reads like a job application for State or NSC in the Obama administration: "Look how I have ever so eloquently distanced us from any and all Bush administration policies while allowing us to continue some of these policies if necessary. Yes, Assistant Secretary would be nice, thank you"

 

[sketchtrack]

They had the intelligence they just didn't take it seriously. '

I believe that after the horror of 911, given the same laws and same intelligence they would take it seriously the next time.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the record, here's parts of the famous PDB:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

 

[throng]

G.W has profoundly impressed apon the world. The people are demanding higher ethics and better scrutiny of electoral fraud.

The international community have enlightened american citizens to the consequences of aggressive foriegn policy.

People seem to want better diplomacy and higher integrity, largely because of GW

 

[Gokul43201]

The deficit shrank in 2007 from what it appears, but perhaps because of the housing bubble? (it will probably enlarge now). However, I agree on the spending habits. The Republicans could likely have kept the deficit a lot smaller if they hadn't gone on such a wild spending spree. A temporarily increased deficit, to cut taxes, I think is okay, if government is truly reigning in spending at the same time, but when they openly go and spend so much money, that is wrong.

A true Republican, even if they cut taxes and tax revenues start going up highly, still should have the discipline to reign in spending as much as possible.

Like I've pointed out repeatedly before, cutting tax rates does not make tax revenues go up, it makes tax revenues go down. What does go up is the realization of capitals gains taxes, but that's only in the short term and is completely meaningless in the long term.

Furthermore, for all the insane tax cutting from the Bush terms, you'd think we would have the highest growth rate and job creation rate ever. On the contrary, we've had lower growth in GDP, lower growth in the markets and lower private sector job creation than most any other President in the last few decades.

How does protecting America make the rest of the globe more prone to terrorist attacks?

My point was a statement of fact (just as yours was), not an argument of reason. But to answer your question, here's a reason: "protecting" America can make the globe more prone to terrorism, if that protection involves unjustified invasions of other countries that live on the same globe.

It also did not demand the same from countries such as China and India, which are huge releasers of carbon. Kyoto called for some severe carbon constraints on American industry and would have also made America answerable to the United Nations, infringing on our national sovereignty.

I guess it's okay to have the United Nations so long as it only infringes on other countries' sovereignties.

Well the thing is, that was before 9/11 occurred. Things changed.

I honestly can't fathom the level of ignorance required for this whole pre-9/11 mindset business. Anyone that talks of a pre-9/11 mindset is essentially admitting to being nothing more than a Neanderthal with a really good tailor and hairdresser. Did these morons in the WH really think we were protected by oceans?! Really, you ought to be able to impeach them for just saying something like that.

And I think he did bring back some integrity to the White House.

That has to be a joke! Really, what Nixon did to the reputation of the WH was probably lame compared to the destruction caused by Bush.

I wouldn't say so necessarily. It would mean he has tried more than other Presidents to aid in developing new forms energy. Politicians have been talking about dependence on foreign oil and so forth all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

So what? Bush also spent more on stem cell research than any previous president. And people have been talking about preventing disease since the Ancients.

This doesn't say anything about "trying" more than other Presidents. There just wasn't the technology before. Now there is.

I really don't know where to stand on the issue of illegals. On the one hand, they are illegal, and I don't think they should get things like education, healthcare, etc...off the back of the taxpayer who struggles to afford these things; on the other hand, I think they do lower prices for things like food and so forth by providing cheaper labor (however certain companies have been found to be abusing them as well, which isn't good).

Also, it's not like we can just round up these millions of illegals and ship them out of the country.

So I have mixed feelings about the issue.

It is a difficult issue, no doubt.

It also did not apply to China and India, two enormous CO2 emitters.

Get your facts right. The average Indian emits less than a tenth of the CO2 that the average American emits. And a decade ago, that ratio was close to a thirtieth. India's per capita emission rate is currently even below the global average.

The ACLU, in order to challenge the whole thing, had to go and get a judge named Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter appointee and very Leftist judge, to rule against it, and her ruling was then overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The overturn said nothing about the legality of the wiretaps. It only ruled that the ACLU specifically did not have the legal standing to sue.

It isn't "warrantless wiretapping" from my understanding. It is a foreign surveillance program that intercepts international signals. It isn't as if the government is illegally wiretapping its own citizens. The President went through all the proper means to enact such a program, it was challenged by the ACLU, and held up by the court system.

Absolutely not true. If it were, Congress wouldn't have had to pass a new law (S.1927) to make the wiretapping program legal. Bush's argument all along has been that his Executive powers during wartime supercede any requirements to follow the FISA law.

I would say waterboarding is legal when applied to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay; I do not believe that terrorists are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

You are wrong, and the Supreme Court said so June 29, 2006.

What should it matter when dealing with terrorists?

The question is not about whether it should matter or not. The question is about whether it is legal or not. You brought up the legality issue, not I.*

These are captured terrorists, not ordinary U.S. citizens. They are not subject to the same rights as American citizens.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court called BS on this one too, on three different occasions, I think (most recently in Boumedine v. Bush, a couple months ago).

* Reminds me of an interesting anecdote recounted in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. You might find it interesting too.

'Extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ***.'

 

[mheslep]

Like I've pointed out repeatedly before, cutting tax rates does not make tax revenues go up, it makes tax revenues go down.

That needs to be qualified, even for only wage taxes, perhaps you already have elsewhere. Obviously neither the 0% or 99% rate extremes are optimal for revenue.

What does go up is the realization of capitals gains taxes, but that's only in the short term and is completely meaningless in the long term.

No, as that short term revenue is now in the treasury, the time value of money means it is not meaningless even in the long term. That is, revenue taken today is worth more than cap gains revenue that might fade in the future.

Furthermore, for all the insane tax cutting from the Bush terms, you'd think we would have the highest growth rate and job creation rate ever. ...

Perhaps. Or, given 9/11 one might have thought the economy, already ailing from the dot com bubble collapse, might have continued declining into a full fledged depression.

 

[Gokul43201]

That needs to be qualified, even for only wage taxes, perhaps you already have elsewhere. Obviously neither the 0% or 99% rate extremes are optimal for revenue.

Of course I mean in the context of the prevailing tax rate. Yes, if we were taxing near 90%, a cut in tax rates would give rise to an increase in revenues. But we are not on that side of the Laffer curve. There have been reports by the CBO, the President's CEA and I think the OMB, who all concur with this. I provided links in the hate Obama thread.

No, as that short term revenue is now in the treasury, the time value of money means it is not meaningless even in the long term. That is, revenue taken today is worth more than cap gains revenue that might fade in the future.

And why might it fade in the future, instead of grow?

Perhaps. Or, given 9/11 one might have thought the economy, already ailing from the dot com bubble collapse, might have continued declining into a full fledged depression.

That would really have debunked the idea that our economy is fundamentally strong, if a single event like 9/11 can send it into depression. Besides, what kind of depression could it possibly be that a couple wars wouldn't fix?

In any case, the onus is on the person who made the claim that Bush tax cuts were great for the economy to substantiate it. What you've provided is at best a speculation.

 

[mheslep]

And why might it fade in the future, instead of grow?

I was accepting as true for the moment that the revenue from cap gains tax cuts would vanish in the long term, for whatever reason.

That would really have debunked the idea that our economy is fundamentally strong, if a single event like 9/11 can send it into depression. Besides, what kind of depression could it possibly be that a couple wars wouldn't fix?

9/11 was a single, extraordinary event, far different from, say, the 70's OPEC oil embargo. No nationwide stoppage occurred ala week long airlines shutdown because of the oil embargo. Their was the possibility at the time that people would just hunker down and start hiding money under the mattress. Move away from cities (my wife talked it up), etc. I recall hearing a lot conversations along those lines and amazingly I think its mostly forgotten now. A couple more attacks might have reached that tipping point, who knows.

The wars, though costly in many ways, are not much of a stimulus seen historically, Iraq spending as a percentage of GDP is a fraction of WWII and even Vietnam. Iraq spending is still dwarfed on a yearly basis by entitlement spending (SS, medicare, medicaid, etc). In any modern US war the money is mostly going 'over there' and not to some massive retooling of the domestic economy to build B27's and P51s.

 

[Gokul43201]

9/11 was a single, extraordinary event, far different from, say, the 70's OPEC oil embargo. No nationwide stoppage occurred ala week long airlines shutdown because of the oil embargo. Their was the possibility at the time that people would just hunker down and start hiding money under the mattress. Move away from cities (my wife talked it up), etc. I recall hearing a lot conversations along those lines and amazingly I think its mostly forgotten now.

You think it's amazing that it's forgotten now rather than it being amazing how people tend to overreact (we had a recession in the 70s, not a depression)?

The wars, though costly in many ways, are not much of a stimulus seen historically, Iraq spending as a percentage of GDP is a fraction of WWII and even Vietnam. Iraq spending is still dwarfed on a yearly basis by entitlement spending (SS, medicare, medicaid, etc). In any modern US war the money is mostly going 'over there' and not to some massive retooling of the domestic economy to build B27's and P51s.

Aren't most of the folks doing the work "over there"...us?

Still, this is a persuance of a side issue, that is a sidetrack from the main point of the thread. I'll accept your response to my two questions, and let this line of discussion rest.

 

[mathwonk]

he has done wondrous good. did i mention i am ceo of a big oil company?

i believe this is the only group of people who can say this.

i also conjecture this is his only real constituency and thus he will try hard to open up offshore drilling in the last 5 months of his so called presidency.

i have also considered revising my assessment that he is a hapless moron.

i.e. it is possible he never intended to do anything the vast majority of people would approve of, but only meant to pour the US (and other) treasury receipts into the pockets of oil execs, which he has skillfully done.

this could make his presidency a big success in his eyes.

oh and did you catch his impassioned appeal to russia not to invade a neighboring sovereign country unprovoked? that was pitiful.

actually for an incompetent like him to even become president twice is quite a feat, he should be applauded in some perverse way.

 

[mathwonk]

now i got it: his absolutely disastrous presidency has made more people take an interest in politics and may have given us a barack obama presidency and a democratic majority.

i.e. never in my lifetime can i recall so many people agreeing vehemently that we need a change from what we have now in the white house.

this is a good outcome.

 

[wasteofo2]

Lowered taxes to a point that it actually raised Federal tax receipts. This benefit was offset by out-of-control spending, leading to debt which is just a tax on the future. However, he has set it up so people pay less taxes than they did before his Presidency and the gov't makes more money. All that needs to be done know is bring spending back down to levels below when Bush became President to balance the budget and help pay for ailing social programmes.

Increased funding for HIV/AIDS treatment in poor countries, if you're into foreign aid.

The rest is much more iffy, but I think these two can largely be agreed on as positive things.

One thing that will not be accepted so generally as "GOOD" is the fact that he signed many bi-lateral Free Trade deals. These deals allow us easier access to foreign markets, meaning more $$$ for U.S. manufacturers, and allow us to import cheap foreign goods without taxes that raise their prices, keeping inflation down and helping everyone's pocketbook since goods are cheaper than they otherwise would be.

Lowered taxes to a point that it actually raised Federal tax receipts. This benefit was offset by out-of-control spending, leading to debt which is just a tax on the future. However, he has set it up so people pay less taxes than they did before his Presidency and the gov't makes more money. All that needs to be done know is bring spending back down to levels below when Bush became President to balance the budget and help pay for ailing social programmes.

Increased funding for HIV/AIDS treatment in poor countries, if you're into foreign aid.

The rest is much more iffy, but I think these two can largely be agreed on as positive things.

One thing that will not be accepted so generally as "GOOD" is the fact that he signed many bi-lateral Free Trade deals. These deals allow us easier access to foreign markets, meaning more $$$ for U.S. manufacturers, and allow us to import cheap foreign goods without taxes that raise their prices, keeping inflation down and helping everyone's pocketbook since goods are cheaper than they otherwise would be.In defense of the idea that lowering taxe rates can't raise tax receipts, it's surprising that such smart people would deny this.

If the government taxes people at 0%, the government makes no money. If the government taxes people at 100%, they make no money, because who is going to go to work and hand over 100% of their paycheck? So then, there's some level between 0 and 100% that's optimal for maximizing tax recepits. It probably isn't 1%, and it probably isn't 99%, but it's hard to know exactly where it is in that mid range.

I live in NY, here's a BASIC rundown of the taxes people pay in my state:
8% sales tax on everything we buy
6% social security payroll tax on all income under 90k a year, which for most people is 100% of their income
25% if you're single and make between $32,000 and $78,000 a year
4-7% NY state income tax, depending on income.
3% Medicare tax.
Various other small charges by NY state, and other **** on things like phone bills etc.

So just those numbers add up to 46% right there, not counting the other random ones they stick you for here and there, which add up to around 50% or more for someone doing moderately well for themselves.

Before you get to take your paycheck and buy anything, various levels of government take half of your money, and this is AFTER Bush's tax-cuts, before it was even more.

Though the main impact of the tax-cuts wasn't on the middle-class wage earner doing decently for himself, but on the very rich, who contribute the lions-share of this country's tax revenues. Lowering tax rates for them encourages more investment within the U.S., and did raise revenues. Lowering the capital gains rate also encouraged more investment in the U.S. stock-market as opposed to other markets, providing much more potential for tax collection, and indeed, after rates were lowered, revenues rose.

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/capitalgainstaxreceipts.jpg

 

[Gokul43201]

Lowered taxes to a point that it actually raised Federal tax receipts. This benefit was offset by out-of-control spending, leading to debt which is just a tax on the future.

Both points are untrue, and have been debunked repeatedly. Lowering taxes actually lowered revenues and the loss of revenues from tax cuts overshadowed the increase in spending on domestic programs.

See:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/MainText.3.1.shtml

Several major pieces of legislation—the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)—all lowered individual income tax liabilities between 1994 and 2004.

(see Figure 3)

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

In defense of the idea that lowering taxe rates can't raise tax receipts, it's surprising that such smart people would deny this.

Yes, smart people like the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Here's a Republican blog bashing one of McCain's Economic Advisers for being a smart person, and telling the truth.

McCains main finance advisor had this to say:Douglas Holtz-Eakin concluded the session responding to a question on whether the Bush tax cuts of 2001 pay for themselves. “They don’t pay for themselves,” said Holt-Eakin. “No tax cut pays for itself.”

Eakin was Chief Economic Adviser for GWB and Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Or try this article in Time:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

If the government taxes people at 0%, the government makes no money. If the government taxes people at 100%, they make no money, because who is going to go to work and hand over 100% of their paycheck? So then, there's some level between 0 and 100% that's optimal for maximizing tax recepits. It probably isn't 1%, and it probably isn't 99%, but it's hard to know exactly where it is in that mid range.

This is called the Laffer curve. The US, with its relatively low tax rates, has been shown to live on the left half of the Laffer curve, not the right half. In this regime, raising tax rates raises revenues.

The Nixon Economic Adviser after whom the curve is named, had this to say:

The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes

But I don't imagine we will ever stop hearing this false argument.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Very interesting links and information worthy of bookmark. Thanks for posting a study that debunks the it's only because of the "out of control spending" myth and also the "tax cuts increase revenue" myth indirectly as well, which seems economically baseless.