-The 2001 tax cuts- (June 2001) were designed to be phased in over nine years.
The -2003 law- (May 2003) accelerated this schedule, and put the cuts into full effect.
Here's the revenue history, in trillions of constant 2005 dollars:
1999 (surplus year): 2.135
2000 (surplus year): 2.309
2001 (surplus year): 2.214
2002: 2.027
2003: 1.900
2004: 1.949
2005: 2.154
2006: 2.325
2007: 2.413
2008: 2.288
2009: 1.899
2010: 1.928
2011: 1.998
2012 (estimated): 2.089
Notice that all of these after 2003 were under the exact same tax rates, including the 2007 record high.
If we're having deficit problems now, it's because constant dollar outlays went, in this same period, from $1.989 trillion in 1999 to $3.213 trillion in 2012. Both parties are to blame.
If our budget was still $1.989 trillion in 2005 dollars, (about $2.3 trillion in current dollars), every year shown would have been in surplus except for 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2010. The combined deficit for all four of those years would have been $281 billion, about a quarter of the deficits we're getting every year now.
Is this clear to everyone now?
-(Budget Historical Tables)-
Current Events » in reply to Where the heck do you get a "trillion"?
Tax cuts. The facts.
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Latest poll on conservatism and liberalism
- What Conservatives say always sounds good. Everyone agrees. What they do is exactly the opposite.
- Where the heck do you get a "trillion"?
- Here's a pretty good reference.
- Tax cuts. The facts.
- Tax cuts. In wartime. First ever. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
- There's different ways to interpret those numbers. But tell me, regardless of the of the economy, does a tax cut increase or decrease the deficit? n/t
- Where the heck do you get a "trillion"?
- The graph nicely illustrates the radicalization of the right
- Do you have a link to the poll questions? n/t
- What Conservatives say always sounds good. Everyone agrees. What they do is exactly the opposite.