How The Bush Tax Cuts Blew Up The Deficit And Debt

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first of President George W. Bush's two tax cuts, which have played a disproportionate role in blowing up the deficit and debt. As the Center for American Progress' Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden found, the federal debt would be at a sustainable level today — even with the wars and the financial crisis — were it not for the Bush tax cuts. ThinkProgress has assembled this short animation showing how the Bush tax cuts drove the deficit and debt up and are still ruining the budget picture today.

Adding insult to injury, in 2001, Bush promised that he would pay off the federal debt within 10 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/201...

• Category

  News & Politics

[andotech]

After watching Obama in his first year, I thought he must be the world's worst negotiator. But after 3.5 years of Obama giving away the store and selling us out at almost every turn, the ONLY answer that makes any sense is that the dems and republicons are just playing a game at our expense. Nobody's as stupid as Obama and the dems pretend to be- getting fooled by their adversaries over and over again in every interaction. Come on. It's a game and the prize is the money you and I work for.

[the1tigglet]

Hilarious the people who come one here with so little real information about what's really going on, Fox News does really make people stupid doesn't it! So, here's the thing. The Bush tax cuts are coming up to end, guess what the repiggies are doing once again, threatening, now they are even threatening the Vets with a 11billion cut. On Nov 6 please remember that they even threatened the very people they have used as a platform for years, the military and vote correctly this time. Obama 2012

[LoneMyth]

This video is a fail Obama caused more debt all America history. Fact

[FortNikitaBullion]

I was in 8th grade when Bush cut taxes.

[nicenonya3]

shut up stupid

[samherb1]

It all matters to me. Both sides are drowning this country in debt.

[Mark Ferguson]

....continued

I believe you are confusing revenue with profit. Revenue is not affected by cost at all. Revenue will remain the same no matter how much the cost is.

For example, If I own a small business that generates $10,000 in revenue, but also has $25,000 in cost, the $10,000 in revenue is unaffected, It will always read as $10,000 in revenue. However, my bottom line or profit is NEGATIVE $15,000.

What I'm saying is the tax cuts cost MORE than the revenue they brought in. Get it?

[Mark Ferguson]

FACE PALM!

You wrote " If the Bush tax cuts had actually cost us, then revenue would have went down, while spending up."

Wrong Again. The cost outweigh the revenue so therefore you have a net lost.

Put it this way, if I have a company and I hire you as a salesman, and you sale $1000 a day worth of merchandise, but it cost me $3000 a day to employ you, do you think it's wise to keep you because technically you are bringing in revenue?

The same principle applies regarding the tax cuts.

[s9z9s]

Both spending and revenue went up. If the Bush tax cuts had actually cost us, then revenue would have went down, while spending up. I don't know how to make this any simpler to you.

[Mark Ferguson]

How so? If they increase the debt MORE than they raise revenue then the revenue DOES NOT offset the EXPENSE and therefore they DON'T pay for themselves. Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan, Reagan's chief tax cut architect and budget director David Stockman and other prominent conservatives who don't lie to themselves tend to agree with me.

[s9z9s]

But if the Bush tax cuts raise MORE revenue, that means not only didn't they contribute to the deficit, but they paid for themselves and then some.