You guys can’t both be right, which then leaves open the possibility that my argument was correct: that tax cuts done properly and at the proper time can provide economic stimulus during a recession and can lead to a higher amount of federal revenue than would a higher tax rate.

The govt didn’t GIVE Halliburton or any other person or individual anything. It simply didn’t take as much as you would have had it take. And yes, it is significant that the revenues to the govt increased when the tax rates were cut. For you to say otherwise is spin on your part, not mine.

CS you missed the point. The government indeed, gave Halliburton and other cronies money from the treasury in “no-bid” contracts. The small amount their employees paid in taxes is far less than what we paid, hence there is a net loss to the treasury, even though technically tax revenues are increased by it.

I simply happen to believe that when you attempt to solve a problem, it helps to have your facts straight first.

Right. The facts are that we had a surplus when Bush took office and revenues vs. expenditures had been increasing ever since Bush Sr. reneged on his no new taxes pledge. Bush Jr. turned that around the day he signed his first tax bill. Then deficits exploded. His latest goal (cutting the deficit in half from his worst year) would still leave us with yearly deficits larger than any other president in history.

If he’d done nothing at all we’d be in better shape. No tax cuts necessary.

Cutting taxes never raises the revenue. It took until 2005 for the gov’t to bring in more money than it did in 2000. Thats a straight dollar comparison as well, not adjusted for inflation. If you do that we are still behind the pre-Bush era in tax generation.

Also, tax rates have a very marginal impact on economic performance. The economy has overall been very strong in the last 6 decades regardless of tax rates at any given time. You have periods where taxes are low and the economy is good, taxes are high and the economy is good, and conversely times where taxes are either low or high and the economy is bad. The issues that have affected the economy, either up or down, have NEVER been linked to tax rates. By taxes I mean income tax, not things such as tariffs. I would say that the economy would be doing just as well today if Bush’s tax cuts had never been employed. You’ll recall under Bush Sr. we also had a recession, taxes were increased and we still pulled out of it.

Things like the fed interest rate, and the institutions that control the flow of money in this country have a much larger impact on the economy. These things dwarf the relevance of income tax.

Mikef,
It’s not a matter of giving Bush or anyone else credit. I simply happen to believe that when you attempt to solve a problem, it helps to have your facts straight first. As far as faulting Bush, Rudi has it right: the veto pen needs to come out of retirement, line item or not.

Got it, you denounced Jules post which I linked to, by voicing your disagreement with an Op Ed by George W. Bush.

By disagreeing with Bush’s plan for a “surge” you’re also voicing your disagreement with Jules claim that 65k dead Iraqis a year represents progress.

Got it. And I am soo glad you don’t play “word games”.

Revenues are up, so if we want to have an honest discussion about how to reduce the deficit, why shouldn’t we start by acknowledging that under certain recessionary conditions like we experienced after 2001, tax cuts can be good for the economy and good for the federal coffers?

Let’s remember Bush inherited a $230 billion dollar surplus and converted it to a nearly half trillion dollar deficit. Should we be impressed that he thinks he can cut that in half by the end of his term? You want to give him credit because things aren’t as bad as they were last year?

As you all know, I believe that it would be in the best interest of America (and of the world and of those who have invested in America(n businesses) in one way or another) if the Democrats would try to work with Bush as much as possible.

Maybe you’ve noticed, Bush isn’t interested in working with anyone on the Iraq issue. He’ll tell us what he plans to do when he’s good and ready. Nobody can rush him, nobody can advise him, nobody else has a vote on the matter. The rest of us will be called on to sacrifice but he doesn’t care what we think.

How do the Democrats work with that? And why should they try when his decisions have been catastrophic so far?

Tax revenues are up? So what? What a disingenuous argument. If you give Halliburton 40 billion of your kids’ dollars, they pay a fraction of it to employees who pay taxes. The net effect is HUGELY negative, even though tax revenue goes up slightly.

I made clear how ridiculous your question was and by doing so and by first writing down my own opinion on Bush’s op-ED, it should be clear to everyone that I do not agree with Jules’s post.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I cannot link to it. As somebody else told me recently: Jules is a partisan but he writes SO WELL.

If I would agree with all three of them, I would be quite mixed up wouldn’t I?

If I’d asked if you agreed with all three of them, I’d look pretty silly.

But since I asked if you agreed with one post, not the blog overall, your reply seems to be a poorly crafted dodge wouldn’t you say?

Why not just say “I refuse to condone or condemn the post you cited”? It’s a dodge as well, but at least it’s a slightly more relevant dodge.

Conclusion: Whatever you want to conclude from it. But at least reach your conclusions based on what I actually say rather than on what you wished I’d said.

sounds to me like Bush’s version of ‘working together’ is for everyone to agree with him.

If I would agree with all three of them, I would be quite mixed up wouldn’t I?

Conclusion, your question, Davebe is quite… silly.

Thanks for the link to Jules Crittenden. I can’t bear read the guy so I’m glad you’re willing to do it for me.

And since you link to him approvingly so often, can I assume you agree with Jules when he celebrates the fact that only 65,000 Iraqi civilians are being killed per year?

I agree that Bush has NOT been fiscally responsible but as always, I believe that criticism is most effective when it is completely honest and when it doesn’t engage in hyperbole or misstatement of fact. So, criticize Bush for the spending and perhaps for thinking that tax cuts are always appropriate (rather than, as I believe, that they are appropriate under certain economic conditions). But it drives me batty when people refuse to acknowledge that sometimes cutting tax RATES can actually increase revenues. Of course when Congress and the president then spend the extra revenue, we haven’t made any progress in balancing the budget, but it’s still important to recognize that tax policy is not a zero sum game.

Also,

From there, if it is also true that these lower tax rates won’t continue to lead to maximum revenue, than that is an honest criticism of Bush’s policy recommendations. But to say that he is delusional by pointing out the record high federal revenues is itself dishonest.

Obviously, I never said myself that he is delusional. You might have noticed that I often link to people I disagree with. Just as to provide balance / different perspectives. My ‘indeed’ was aimed at this:

Working effectively with congress starts by arguing from a reality-based perspective, not from ideological hopes. It will be difficult to find common ground if policy is based upon what he wants to be true rather than what the evidence actually shows. And that’s true for Iraq as well.