First, I use the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. You can find them here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml
I'm not certain of the source of your figures and have no inclination to click through to verify the information.
The problem with the CBO and where you are getting the lower percentages is due to "Revenues by Major Source"
It does not include ALL sources of government revenue. While it includes the bulk, the bulk is not the whole.
Second, pretending that tax cuts do not cause a decline in revenue is ridiculous. It isn't even debatable.
Wrong again. Only a fool would proclaim the tax cuts caused a reduction in overall revenue or that the topic isn't 'debatable'. They MAY cause a reduction in revenue derived from INCOME taxes, but that is not looking at the OVERALL picture. What happens when a person KEEPS more of their income? Do they spend it? If so, it is taxed and creates more revenue. Do they invest it? If so, again they are going to be taxed on the gains/dividends.
Obviously other factors will play a part. ie... economic conditions, unemployment rate, global fundamentals, etc.... but it is idiocy to proclaim that tax cuts lower overall revenues as some sort of absolute. It is the exact opposite position ditzie takes when he gives the absolute that 'tax cuts always raise revenues'. Both are equally ignorant in their absolute.
Third, we were in a recession from March 2001-November 2001. To pretend that this recession is the reason that tax revenues were below 2000 levels as a percentage of GDP from 2002 through the next recession (as opposed to say, the tax cuts enacted during that period) is nonsense.
You really need to look at the overall numbers again. While the recession did indeed technically occur during 2001.... tell me genius.... what happened to the stock market in 2000? Do you happen to recall a tech implosion? Rising energy levels that resulted from the lower dollar? Any of this ringing a bell? Add in the further collapse of the market in 2001 and you end up with what genius? Capital losses (which offset gains) ring any bells for you? Think this might have an impact on revenues relative to 2000 which saw high revenues due to gains taken in 1999 and early 2000?
Second.... to compare them to 2000 levels is a bit ridiculous as 2000 was one of the highest years on record (THE highest according to both your site and mine). The recession and market downturn from 2000-2002 most CERTAINLY was a major contributor to the decline in revenue in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I am sure you are going to ignore the fact that revenues as a percentage of GDP ROSE as the economy recovered from 2003-2007????
No, the tax cuts are the lion's share of the debt problem. You can pretend otherwise if you want to (and I know you will since this isn't the first time we've had this discussion) but it doesn't make Jarod and I wrong. It just makes you a dogmatic.
ROFLMAO... so even with increasing revenue for the majority of the time both in real dollars and as a percent of GDP, it is not the insane SPENDING that is causing the debt, but the fact that the public keeps a bit more of their wages?
You are an idiot. The only dogma here is coming from you and Jarod.
You and your Republican friends should have thought about all of that before you cut revenues and increased spending.
Ah, so now we get back to you trying to lump me in with the irresponsible habits of Bush? Pathetic on your part. Reeks of desperation.
I have stated all along that Bush's spending was fiscally irresponsible. As for cutting revenues, I again point you to the FACT that revenues INCREASED from 2003-2007. As a percent of GDP they were almost back to the highs of 2000 (which was the HIGHEST of the past 40 years) in 2007. So tell us genius... HOW exactly did they CUT REVENUES????
Not really. The Affordable Care Act raises more revenues than will be spent and actually decreases the deficit. Go ask the CBO.
Thank you for once again demonstrating what a complete party hack you are. Tell us genius... how is that Medicare fix going? You really believe they are going to do it?
You really believe that for the FIRST time the government will correctly estimate the COST of an entitlement program?
You really expect us to all ignore the FACT that the 10 year outlook as 10 years of benefits and only six years of expenses in order to 'show' that it decreases the deficit?
How is that unfunded status of Medicare again?