And I am certain that there are posters who are reading this discussion and realize the fallacy of trying to claim the Bush Tax Cuts resulted in record tax receipts, when in fact they resulted in a net decrease to tax receipts.
I don't think anyone here has claimed that Bush's tax cuts resulted in record-breaking revenue, but your claim that tax receipts were reduced is false.
Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967
That is not my argument. My argument is as follows:
The BTCs did NOT result is sufficient economic growth by themselves to make up for the revenue that was lost as a result of them. This is what is commonly referred to as tax cuts that pay for themselves.
So, GDP would have had to have grown as the sole result of the cuts by an amount that tax revenues which resulted from the additional growth alone made up for 100% of the tax revenue which was not collected as a result of the cuts.
In other words, a net tax benefit soley due to the cuts.
A lot of you seem to think this was the case. IE the bush tax cuts were good SPECIFICALLY because they resulted in more NET tax revenue than we would have had without them. Again, that was NOT
the case and no one educated on the matter has ever claimed it was. Not Bush, not his chief economic policy advisors, not the GOP as a whole, no one that understands the concept of tax cuts "paying for themselves".
Please try to understand the argument being made here...