by Pops » Thu 18 Aug 2011, 17:02:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'W')here will these blue & red lines go in the next few years?
They won't come even close without increasing taxes, that's a given.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.
... The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
... It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.
In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.