ok lets see...

2000: federal tax revenue: 2.096.916.925
2007: 2.688.946.349       

Rise: 28%
Inflation: about 20% between 2000 and 2007

So far so good. So we got 8% increase in tax income after inflation. Thats equivalent to 215 billion in 2007.

Thus we could credit the 8% rise to the tax cuts Bush made. Now lets compare that to the surplus/deficit in federal budget:
2000: +236 billions, equivalent to 283 billions in 2007 (inflation)
2007: -160 billions
net change: -443 billions
Thus, the tax cuts brought in 228 billion of deficit, when waging the the increase in tax revenue against the budget +/- change. Even if we exclude the war costs (like 180 billions in 2007), the tax cuts still made a net loss of 48 billions in 2007.

tax revenue and budget +/- should be obvious
usinflationcalculator.com gave me 20.4% inflation rate for 2000-2007
I estimated the war costs in 2007 from this graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png , the red part.

Note: My calculations are based on the assumption, that there would have been no economic growth above inflation rate without the tax cuts. This is the ultimate concession IN FAVOUR of the tax cuts. And still it turned out with a minus.

Bush medicare reform costs 400 billion over 10 years. Average: 40 billion. So lets exclude that too. The tax cuts still have -8 billion going for them, still using the best assumptions in favour for the tax cuts.

Okay, that's fair.  If there are other budget items which need to be taken into account, I'll defer to others to bring those up (we also haven't taken into account budget cuts by the Bush administration).

I'll concede, then, based on Arachnophobia's evidence, that the Bush tax cuts didn't provide a net tax revenue generation (with the stipulation that if a more purified number, factoring in budget changes occurring, can be established, I'll defer to that model).  That was fun!  Oh, and nice job on the evidence gathering/analysis, something we don't too often see here. 

lol you dont need a majority to philibuster... ya only need one person

hah by no means am i wrong. yes they could have been more assertive but they are still able to filibuster. only after the majority decides to vote on bringing the debate to an end and that vote passes then they still get 24 hours to debate. so how does that make me wrong? it doesnt

The supermajority was there, yes. But it was just barely a supermajority. Only 1 democratic senator would have had to vote against the party line to break it. And a tax raise isnt that uncontroversial, to ensure that all would vote for the filibuster break. Hell, even the health care reform was barely passed. Raising taxes would have most likely cost some of the senators their seats in the heated political sphere, means a big incentive not to break the filibuster for atleast a few of the democratic senators.

"Thus we could credit the 8% rise to the tax cuts Bush made. Now lets compare that to the surplus/deficit in federal budget:
2000: +236 billions, equivalent to 283 billions in 2007 (inflation)
2007: -160 billions
net change: -443 billions
Thus, the tax cuts brought in 228 billion of deficit, when waging the the increase in tax revenue against the budget +/- change. Even if we exclude the war costs (like 180 billions in 2007), the tax cuts still made a net loss of 48 billions in 2007."

Wrong. 

For one thing, the revenues in 2007, or any other year, ARE NOT THE CUMULATIVE RESULT of 7 years of a trend.  They are the result of the previous 12 months economic activity. 

For another thing, the deficit in every given year is largely a deliberate choice by Congress and the President to spend a whole lot more than they take in. The "net" results come after Congress makes a deliberate choice to have a spree.  It is NOT the unconscious result of a national economy.

So it is not proof of a "market force' either.  It proves tehy didn't really care about running a deficit every year.  It doesn't prove an axiom of macroeconomics.

To try and develop some "law" at work you could look longer than 30 years of Gross receipts, or revenues.
I think the Congress publishes records of quarterly outlay and revenue for the past 32 years.  I read that in the 1990s and saw that in years when the economy grew, revenues grew, and when the economic stuttered, so did revenues.  Taxes are due on gains, not losses.

That's not really a plan, it's the aggregate of millions of economic choices by a few hundred million actors.   

BTW DOD costs were a lot more than $180 billion in 2007.

printing money to buy your own bonds looks unsustainable to me
but what do i know.i don't hold a ph.d like bernanke.

> twosidedeath wrote:

> and goodwin completely ignores Arachnophobia's  comment and continues  to be short sighted . ill concede so you can be happy with your opinions.

Last post.  Last sentence.

"printing money to buy your own bonds looks unsustainable to me
but what do i know.i don't hold a ph.d like bernanke."

Yeah USA is a ponzi scheme.  they say that we're not printing money, Federal Reserve always had it...BUT...they've blown over $2 Trillion, I see no way in an economy that was less than $10 trillion a year until about 1999, that they could sock away $2 trillion in less than 100 years.  AND they won't say how much they have in this magic reserve.
If GE or chrysler was doing what bernanke was doing, buying bonds low so the Treasury didn't have to raise the rate, it would be criminal - a breach of fiduciary duty to the shareholders, for refusing to wait it out and get the higher price like 99.9999% of the investors on planet earth.  But Bernanke doesn't have shareholders, he's just a public servant so he has, uh, no duties..er...yeah

we're con men and when I say that I'm accused of treason and not believing in America.  America is so awesomes we will pay our debts! We will! just because nobdoy knows how that will happen, doesn't mean America won't think of something!  Maybe we will yell "BIIIRRRRD GOOOOOOOOO!" and fire Phoenix Missile on the hatas, what a country

@arocalex:
thats exactly the joke. Wheter you're left or right wing, everyone can see how you can prevent a huge deficit except for f