Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bill O'Reilly and the Imaginary Bush Tax Cut Windfall
Fox host Bill O'Reilly laughs off any calls for increasing government spending to help create jobs. Last week he derided Paul Krugman for
demanding more stimulus spending. And this guy teaches economics at Princeton University? Unbelievable.
People like Bill O'Reilly don't pay any mind to the fancy pants Nobel Prize committee that gave Krugman one of their liberal awards. Why should he? He knows how the economy really works, as he explained last night (8/8/11):
Raising income taxes is not the way out of this. In 2001 and again in 2003, President Bush cut individual tax rates. And what happened? Well, from 2004 until 2008, tax revenue increased from about $800 billion to almost $1.2 trillion. That blows away the liberal argument that tax cuts starve the government of revenue. They don't.
This has been, at times, a talking point among conservatives. But you don't really get a sense of tax revenue without comparing it to something-- as FactCheck.org noted in a piece in 2007 (when John McCain was saying much the same about the Bush tax cuts), revenues tend to increase every year as the economy grows.
A more useful measure would be how tax revenue looks relative to the size of the economy. As the Economic Policy Institute put it in a recent report (6/1/11) on the 10-year anniversary of the Bush cuts:
• Federal tax revenue fell from 20.6 percent of GDP in FY2000 (the last year of the 1991-2000 expansion and reflective of
Clinton-era tax rates) to 18.5 percent of GDP in FY2007 (the last year of the Bush economic expansion and reflective of
Bush-era tax rates).• From 2001 through 2010, the cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt, nearly 50 percent of the total debt accrued
during this period.• The decade of the Bush tax cuts had, on average, lower revenue levels as a share of the economy than any previous
decade since the 1950s.
That would be (part of) the "liberal argument" against the Bush tax cuts--and it doesn't appear to be "blown away" by O'Reilly's too-good-for-Princeton economic analysis.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


11 Comments so far
Show AllWhen I see the name Bill O'Reilly I tend not to read any further...he doesn't want to pay any more of his hard earned salary than the CEOs he supports do nad he cares even less than the rest of us.
Bill O'Reilly is one of the most breathtakingly ignorant commentators ever to pollute a public forum. And this guy's allowed to have his own talk show? People actually pay attention to this knucklehead? Unbelievable.
Yes they do. And they listen to the serial adulterer, drug addict Limpballs, and the deranged Beck and that is what brought us the Tea Baggers who can't figure out they are being used by the Cock brothers.
keniko50,
Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are not far off. I still remember when Chris Mathews said he would do all in his power to get Obama elected. See what we get from a "FR" liberal! Don't get too uptight. It’s just a show. NeoCons and Liberals they are all the same.
"Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are not far off."
Well....except for one little thing - unlike O'Reilly they don't deliberately lie or misinform. Also, they stick to the facts, and on the rare occasions that they get something wrong, they apologize. O'Reilly? Never.
"I still remember when Chris Mathews said he would do all in his power to get Obama elected."
I don't. But what if he did say it? He's never pretended to be politically neutral. Neither have Maddow or Olbermann, who are proud progressives. O'Reilly won't even admit to his conservative bias. I'll tell you what I remember: I remember when the CEO of Diebold promised that HE would do all in his power to get Bush elected. And unlike Mathews, HE had the power to actually DO it. Where was your outrage then?
tucsonlib,
You sound just like Obama's obamapoligist. You are free to continue to apologize for them. That is your right. As for me, never like any Repugs than and now. I dislike even more MSNBC and Democrats
O'Reilly lied and Obama lied, But Obama is a bigger liar! How on earth can the bunch in MSNBC continue to support Obama, it's beyond me!.
Sadly, O'Reilly knows he's misquoting statistics to his audience. Its how Faux News lies without actually 'technically' lying. They give you meaningless statistics and hope you don't catch on.
The problem Peter is explaining such technical information to a brain dead moron such as O'Really. After all, for eight hours a day both on TV and radio the man uses his brain as a seat cushion!
Tee Tea Party is brought to you by coke light
Bill O'reilly responded to a caller in Canada who pointed out that Canadians had longer lifespans then Americans and better healthcare outcomes that...
The United States has 10 times the population of Canada thus they are ten times more likely to be killed in Car accidents and that is why Canadians lived longer.
At the time of the Bush tax cuts, with all the debt we had then, it was like giving every American a credit card with some money on it (ie. $400). Now we find that these same Republicans are saying that the bill has come due, but with no mention that they gave us the credit card. Another bill is the one for all the free stuff we got during Reagan's administration that we didn't have to pay for.
All of this is a Republican sense of personal irresponsibility, a lack of self discipline, the "me generation," saying gimme gimme gimme. It's also hypocrisy and the denial of personal responsibility, sort of like in the Garden of Eden, to again put it in their terms. So it's a violation of Republican family values, as widely professed, if not practiced, for example. Did I miss some contradictions?