There Seems To Be A Problem With George's Surging Economy

[ThomWV]

While listening to yet another rosy portrayal of the condition of our nation's economy this afternoon on the radio it occurred to me that if the economy is surging along under the kind hand of George the 2nd then Federal revenues should be up too. After all, wasn't the point of Bush's Reaganonomic tax cuts to improve the economy such that revenues increased?

Federal revenue at the end of Bill Clinton's first year in office was $1.54 (T)rillion, up from $1.09 the last year of Poppy's rule. Revenues increased in each year of Clinton's presidency, reaching a high in December of 1999 at $1.827T. Under the then-existing Clinton tax policy's revenues continues to rise to a high of $2.025T one year later (2000).

Then we got Bush's tax cuts.

Federal revenues declined to $1.991T in 2001, then dropped to 1.853 in 2002, followed by a further decline in 2003 to $1.782T. In 2004 revenues got a bump to $1.880T, a figure slightly above Bill Clinton's 1999 revenues. The Government took in $2.153 in 2005 and the current estimate is $2.285T for this year.*

So how does one explain current revenues at a level one would have expected to see 4 years ago in light of Bush's claim of a well expanded and prosperous economy?

* January 2006 Economic Indicators http://www.gpoaccess.gov/indicators/06janbro.html

[applegrove]

1. They didn't get to dump the assets of the middle class in the stock market

with social security reform. So..without that one time dump of assets..the market is as it is. Even the tax cuts for the rich cannot keep this economy going artificially.

[ThomWV]

2. The Market Aside, This Is Federal Revenue From Taxes and Tariffs.

Federal income is maybe a better way to think of it. It has always been the Rights expressed contention that decreased tax rates creates increased tax revenue. Looking at the numbers over bush's presidency it would appear that the scheme doesn't work as advertised. Imagine that ....