Help me debate a conservative. (re: Bush tax cuts)

[LAGC]

This fool says that Federal revenues increased because of the Bush tax cuts. He provided me with this chart as "proof":



I'm thinking there's more to the story than that chart lets on. For one thing, didn't GDP actually fall during some of those Bush years, therefore wouldn't revenue-to-GDP ratios naturally be higher?

Can anyone point me to some reliable numbers I can use to refute this person? I've Googled around, but the best I could come up with was the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/revenue.cfm

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.

But he really needs a chart or graph to open up his eyes.

[ThatPoetGuy]

1. His chart says it all.

You might need to explain it to him.

The purple bars represent revenue. Look at how high the revenue was in 2000 and 2001. It was about 21% of the GDP. Look at how our revenues have never gotten that high since the Bush cuts. When Bush left office, revenues were at about 17%.

The dotted blue line represents expenses. Look at how low the expenses were in 2000 and 2001. It was about 18% of the GDP. Look at how our expenses have never gotten that low since the Bush cuts.

Or you could tell him to look at the bottom of the chart he sent you. Where it says, under Clinton, revenues averaged at 19.1, whereas under Bush, revenues averaged 17.9.

That's using his own charts. The GDP didn't drop under Bush, but its rate of annual increase slowed from about 14% under Clinton to 9% under Bush: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDP.txt

[DailyGrind51]

2. Bush had to make up for the shortfall in revenue by borrowing!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. He cannot read his own chart

Revenue declined following the Bush tax cuts.

He must be reading the expenses line as revenue or something.

[oceanman]

6. When I first went to an investment counselor to plan for retirement

(somewhat on topic - tax policy) one of the first things they told me they wanted to do was to find ways shelter part of my tax obligation. I'm sure I'm going to muck up this explanation - but the theory was to invest my money into things that I could claim as exemptions. So, again in theory, if you just make tax rates really low for the upper tax brackets and let them keep all their money, where is the incentive for them to invest in start-ups, wages, R&D, i.e. investing in actual things that might create jobs or anything that is actually a benefit to the economy? I mean the whole premise from the pubbies trickle down (on) thing is if you allow them to keep more of their money, they will create new companies, jobs, etc. Why? Seems totally back-asswards to me - if you want them to invest into things that will build the economy, tax the shit of them, target the exemptions and force them to invest into productive things they can write-off their taxes - in the U.S. None of this tax break krap to ship more jobs overseas. Obviously there is some incentive, even at a 15% rate, but 60%-90% whole different story. Was this was the intent when the tax rates were really high for upper income brackets such in the 60s? Sorry if this doesn't much sense - beer will do that me.

[ThatPoetGuy]

4. Oh wait a minute, I see what he's arguing...

he's claiming the 2003 tax cuts caused the revenue increases in '05, '06, and '07.

Ask him about Bush's 2001 tax cuts, then. US revenues have never gone as high as they were before the tax cuts. The first tax cut package -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 -- damaged US revenues so much they've never recovered.

[rucky]

10. That was the housing bonanza.

tax cuts don't increase GDP. Gross domestic product does.

[doc03]

5. I t also shows revenues decreased in 2008, 2009

and 2010 while Bush's tax cuts have still been in effect. From the chart it shows revenues increasing in 2011 and 2012, I assume that is from the expiration of those tax cuts. His chart actually proves your point, good luck in convincing a Republican he is wrong.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Okay, I'm seeing revenues as % of GDP going up every year under Clinton.

And spending going down.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Tell him to fuck himself with a rusty dumpster and that he is dumber than a rock that eats in it's

own shit.

His own evidence is against him, the revenue numbers are right there.

[rucky]

9. I haven't read the whole thing, but in 2 seconds...

I realized the numbers on the chart are pegged to the GDP. Notice where the surplus ends and the purple bars are shorter than the blue line? That's when the Bush tax cuts kicked in.

What this chart proves is the need to save when times are good, because you'll have less to work with when times are bad.