Best Answer: Well, if you count the FACTS that when Bush took office, there was a SURPLUS in the federal budget of close to $250 billion, and that when he left office, there was a $1.3 trillion DEFICIT. That's a difference of $1.55 trillion. Of course, Bush and Co. didn't count all the war money as part of HIS budgets. Instead, he called them "supplemental" expenses.
Whatever the national debt is right now, the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the top 1% incomes (who actually now pay a lower PERCENTAGE in taxes than the rest of us!), by this year has cost us $2.48 TRILLION and were fully deficit financed. Therefore, the interest on this money is not even included in that number.
How could you possibly calculate such things. One can easily determine what the tax revenues would have been MAKING A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS if Bush hadn't put them in place especially over a short window of time, like a year. But over many years? No its difficult.
But, how can you
calculate the economic impact of what people did with that money that wasn't given to the government?
Some stimulated the economy by spending that money and those expenditures may have had a positive effect on national debt, like hiring people (who paid taxes on that job they wouldn't have) that would have been living off the government instead, or buying products that led to sales taxes the government was able to collect, etc.
Economists can say a lot of things about the "effect of Bush tax cuts" just look at the endless assumptions in the footnotes for those calculations about what people did with the money that they kept instead of hand it to the government.
And by the way, had the government kept those taxes, would they have simply thrown it at waste fraud and abuse anyway, and thus wasted it having zero effect on the debt? Again, assumptions would have to be made about what WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE with the money had the government kept it.
RockIt · 6 years ago