Then stop ignoring the fact that President Clinton raised taxes and did not cut taxes until his 5th year in office.
We already had strong economic growth growth by the time President Clinton cut taxes. If I remember correctly, tax cuts were passed in August 1997. The economy was already growing at 4% and tax revenues were already exceeding federal spending. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have continued strong economic growth with or without tax cuts.
President Obama's HCR plan doesn't fully go into effect until 2014. There is no reason for businesses not to hire based on laws that don't even go into effect for four years. Businesses could just as easily lay people off four years from now as they could hire them today. There is one and only one reason why businesses aren't hiring in significant numbers. That is because people aren't spending money. Businesses aren't going to hire people to produce goods and services unless they know there is a demand for those goods and services.
There was a moral hazard. That is why Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. The majority of mortgages were sold to private enterprises. The vast majority of mortgages that went into default, especially in terms of dollars, did not go to low income people. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD did not exist, it would not have prevented private enterprises from buying risky mortgages provided to middle and upper class home buyers and owners.
At one time there were state regulations that did not allow risky loans, such as ARM'S and no money down mortgage. The Federal government, under President Reagan, passed the
Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, which overruled state laws preventing these types of mortgages.
The chart I posted goes up to 2004. That was the most current one I could find. The reason why deficits have been so great under President Obama is because of the economic crisis he inherited.
Revenues originally fell after Reagan and Bush's tax cuts were passed. Even without tax cuts or tax increases, most years tax revenue go up anyway. Just because revenue went up from one year to the next after tax cuts were passed doesn't mean the revenue increased as a result of tax cuts. Most experts say tax revenue would have been greater without the tax cuts. From:
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
You weren't just criticizing President Obama's policies. You were criticizing Keynesian economic policies, which were successful in China and Canada, as I have mentioned.
Bookmarks