Yup, six out 253 house Dems is such a big issue for the party, reminder - there are Cons among Dems too. As for polls, Gallup polls show that majority want tax cuts for rich to expire, ofcourse Rasmussen will diverge as usual. http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx
Former Bush economist: "[N]o dispute among economists" that Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half â 48 percent â of this $539 billion in increased costs." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966 George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/mcconnell_no_evidence_whatsoev.html
Indeed. Meanwhile, the glorious Daniel J. Mitchell remains a leading expert on the widely discredited nonsense referred to as "supply-side economics."
Well, according to the Joint Committe on Taxation, the actual revenue collected was higher than estimated after the Bush Tax cuts. But why let facts get in the way of partisan lie.
Yup, Bush's economic advisers are partisan hacks now, spreading lies against themselves. Also, since you missed the important bit - "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute
Since you seem to be such a fan of Mr Viard, maybe you like to read these........... http://www.aei.org/outlook/100989 From the standpoint of long-run economic growth, this proposal represents the worst of both worlds. As explained below, the high-income rate reductions provide much greater incentive for investment and other economic activity, relative to revenue loss, than the middle-class tax cuts. The expiration of the former and extension of the latter therefore combine much of the disincentive effects of full expiration with much of the deficit increase of full extension http://www.aei.org/article/102493 Recently, for example, Vice President Joe Biden harshly rejected House Minority Leader John Boehner's assertion that the hikes would harm small businesses, saying that "he has created this myth that a tax cut for millionaires is actually a tax cut for small business. There aren't 3% of small businesses in America that would qualify for that tax cut." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flipped the number around, saying that the planned tax increases would exempt "98% of American families and about 97% of small businesses." The impact is far more severe than Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden suggest. In fact, the sound bite about 3% of small businesses, which has been picked up by numerous pundits, is one of the more misleading statements in the long history of economic propaganda.
who the hell cares if federal revenue is up. We want jobs and the economy to be up. The govt should be cutting spending. the govt sucks... get it - it sucks the life out the economy once it gets past.... safety issues.