CBO data was in the post above

Post #277,289 by bepatient 1/3/07 1:44:55 PM Reply	CBO data was in the post above Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #277,292 by Another Scott 1/3/07 2:00:15 PM Reply	Funny how it took 1 year under Reagan but 5 under Bush. Compare the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=277282\|CBO revenue numbers] for Reagan (1981 - 1989) with Bush (2001 - 2005). The federal revenue only dropped 1 year for Reagan (1983), but was below the 2000 revenue level for every year under Bush until 2005. Could it be that Reagan reversed himself on his tax cuts while Bush didn't? I think so. Cheers, Scott.
Post #277,312 by bepatient 1/3/07 5:58:23 PM Reply	Can you say "recession". I knew you could. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #277,317 by Another Scott 1/3/07 6:22:03 PM 1/3/07 8:10:49 PM Reply	You must have a different definition than me. ;-) [link\|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls\|Bureau of Economic Analysis] (XLS file): Annual Percentage Change in GDP from previous period. 2000 Dollars. `Year % Change\n1980\t-0.2\n1981\t2.5\n1982\t-1.9\n1983\t4.5\n1984\t7.2\n1985\t4.1\n1986\t3.5\n1987\t3.4\n1988\t4.1\n1989\t3.5\n1990\t1.9\n1991\t-0.2\n1992\t3.3\n1993\t2.7\n1994\t4.0\n1995\t2.5\n1996\t3.7\n1997\t4.5\n1998\t4.2\n1999\t4.5\n2000\t3.7\n2001\t0.8\n2002\t1.6\n2003\t2.5\n2004\t3.9\n2005\t3.2` The drop in Federal Revenue during Bush's term is overwhelmingly due to his tax cuts, not a recession. There wasn't a recession in 2001 - 2002 (at least not if you define recession as a drop in annual GDP growth). [edit:] The wrong XLS file was linked previously. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Jan. 3, 2007, 08:10:49 PM EST Expand All History
Post #277,320 by bepatient 1/3/07 6:55:56 PM Reply	Definitions 3 consecutive quarters of neg growth=recession. Thats exactly what Bush was handed at when he took office. (I have the correct definition ;-) Add to that the disaster that was the stock market and the self-destruction of the internet bubble. (my current employer is 60k employees smaller than when Bush took office). There was no way to go but down for the fed coffers during Bush's first 2 years. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #277,324 by Another Scott 1/3/07 8:36:27 PM Reply	Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) Looking at the XLS file (at the [link\|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls\|corrected link]), we see: Year GDP % Change (2000 dollars)\n\n1980q1\t 1.3\n1980q2\t-7.8\n1980q3\t-0.7\n1980q4\t 7.6\n1981q1\t 8.4\n1981q2\t-3.1\n1981q3\t 4.9\n1981q4\t-4.9\n1982q1\t-6.4\n1982q2\t 2.2\n1982q3\t-1.5\n1982q4\t 0.4\n1983q1\t 5.0\n1983q2\t 9.3\n1983q3\t 8.1\n1983q4\t 8.4\n1984q1\t 8.1\n1984q2\t 7.1\n1984q3\t 3.9\n1984q4\t 3.3\n1985q1\t 3.8\n1985q2\t 3.5\n1985q3\t 6.4\n1985q4\t 3.1\n1986q1\t 3.9\n1986q2\t 1.6\n1986q3\t 3.9\n1986q4\t 2.0\n1987q1\t 2.7\n1987q2\t 4.5\n1987q3\t 3.7\n1987q4\t 7.2\n1988q1\t 2.0\n1988q2\t 5.2\n1988q3\t 2.1\n1988q4\t 5.4\n1989q1\t 4.1\n1989q2\t 2.6\n1989q3\t 2.9\n1989q4\t 1.0\n1990q1\t 4.7\n1990q2\t 1.0\n1990q3\t 0.0\n1990q4\t-3.0\n1991q1\t-2.0\n1991q2\t 2.6\n1991q3\t 1.9\n1991q4\t 1.9\n1992q1\t 4.2\n1992q2\t 3.9\n1992q3\t 4.0\n1992q4\t 4.5\n1993q1\t 0.5\n1993q2\t 2.0\n1993q3\t 2.1\n1993q4\t 5.5\n1994q1\t 4.1\n1994q2\t 5.3\n1994q3\t 2.3\n1994q4\t 4.8\n1995q1\t 1.1\n1995q2\t 0.7\n1995q3\t 3.3\n1995q4\t 3.0\n1996q1\t 2.9\n1996q2\t 6.7\n1996q3\t 3.4\n1996q4\t 4.8\n1997q1\t 3.1\n1997q2\t 6.2\n1997q3\t 5.1\n1997q4\t 3.0\n1998q1\t 4.5\n1998q2\t 2.7\n1998q3\t 4.7\n1998q4\t 6.2\n1999q1\t 3.4\n1999q2\t 3.4\n1999q3\t 4.8\n1999q4\t 7.3\n2000q1\t 1.0\n2000q2\t 6.4\n2000q3\t-0.5\n2000q4\t 2.1\n2001q1\t-0.5\n2001q2\t 1.2\n2001q3\t-1.4\n2001q4\t 1.6\n2002q1\t 2.7\n2002q2\t 2.2\n2002q3\t 2.4\n2002q4\t 0.2\n2003q1\t 1.2\n2003q2\t 3.5\n2003q3\t 7.5\n2003q4\t 2.7\n2004q1\t 3.9\n2004q2\t 4.0\n2004q3\t 3.1\n2004q4\t 2.6\n2005q1\t 3.4\n2005q2\t 3.3\n2005q3\t 4.2\n2005q4\t 1.8\n2006q1\t 5.6\n2006q2\t 2.6\n2006q3\t 2.0 Based on the 3 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth standard, there hasn't been a recession since 1974q3 - 1975q1. You might want to pick a different definition as that one doesn't seem to be very useful. ;-) (The NBER uses [link\|http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html\|peaks and troughs].) But the issue isn't the definition of recession and whether Bush faced one or not. The best historical comparison we can make on the effect of Bush's tax cuts is to compare it to Reagan. Comparing the drops in GDP that Reagan faced (and the rise in Federal revenue he oversaw) and that faced by Bush (and the drop in Federal revenue he oversaw), it still seems, um, less than self-evident to me that Bush's tax cuts have had the claimed beneficial effect on revenue. Perhaps you could clear up my confusion by applying a metric to Bush's term and the same metric to Reagan's term and show that the rise in revenue under Reagan wasn't the direct result of his [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp\|tax increases]. I've about had my say on this. I'm sincerely interested in your counterpoint. I'll let you have the last word. Cheers, Scott.
Post #277,340 by bepatient 1/3/07 10:11:51 PM Reply	Re: Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession\|http://en.wikipedia....y_2000s_recession] Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!