olinh

Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.Clinton increased taxes on the upper-income taxpayers, which led to a 97% increase in government revenue. He grew the economy at a health pace. He decreased the debt/GDP ratio in each year starting in 1995 of his presidency.sidenote fdr raised taxes to 90% on the upper income and revenue went up 5xhttp://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/13/81426/9950http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/18/mccain-lies-his-head-off-new-york-times-asleep-at-swich.aspxhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEED61539F935A25752C1A9639582 60I could rain sources for you on this questions. Just google this question "example of tax raises raising revenues" and you will find most econimist support my side. They don't raise revunues.I actually meant example of "tax cuts raising revenues."

mynightstickyourhead

Nice spin, but most money that Clinton made came from 2 things, the dotcom bubble and his raiding social security.

trickortreat

i say tax em,but only because we're in 2 wars and spending 20 billion a month and thats just on one war.how the hell do you cut taxes while you're spending 20 billion a month?

ComradeAbdul

Tax the hell out of them. The super-rich are the least productive elements of society.

Anonymous8252

There's a point where lower taxes can increase govt rev assuming the economy picks up...the economy is a tricky beast tp predict/control...it has a mind of it's own...it's called a market economy. Clinton got lucky with the dot com economy...anything would have raised revenue then...it's not as simple as raising or lwoering taxes to effect the revenue...

budchronicaliz

A ceo shouldn't be paying the same tax rate their adminstrative assistant is making. That is just simple logic. Simple logic and the Bush tax cuts don't go hand in hand. It's good ol buddy pandering to the rich who donate millions to re-election bids. There isn't much of a distinction between big business and government these days. Welcome to fachism.

BrendaP

Punish businesses and individuals for succeeding in the market economy and you will eventually kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, just ask the old people left behind in MI and western PA. I tell my kids to do their homework and learn because every where there are kids NOT doing their homework, dropping out of school and people like you will try to force my kids to support them. We will take our skills and savings and go somewhere that success and hard work are not punished.

wiliemom

NY times source , OMG. Tax everyone! Equally, 10% across the board, no exceptions. You make 12,000 a year you pay 10% you make 12,000,000 you pay 10% that is fair. Why again should the least productive be given a pass?

RosaT

THE REASON ARE MONEY WAS MISSING FROM SOCIAL SECURIT WAS WHEN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION FILLED THEIR POCKET WITH OUR MONEY...

TheScorpion

Well, you can make stats show anything you want to show. Congress spends money, not the President. While Bush was certainly far too spend-happy, if a Democrat had been in office things would have been far worse. Revenues are mostly a function of the strength of the economy, not the tax rates imposed. Clinton enjoyed excellent economic times, he didn't create them, any more than Bush is responsible for the current economy.