# $455 Billion Fucking Dollars **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865 "2003-07-16T12:53:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865/41 "2003-07-17T15:56:54Z")
**Debaser** , I’m not seeing where **elf6c** made the claim that the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts have already taken place. He merely quoted an article which (although a little tricky to parse) did not make that claim either. You are the one who keeps coming back to it. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865/42 "2003-07-17T17:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*The article that $177 billion figure comes from is dripping with bias, so I am inclined to think that there is exageration in some way. > … > Also saying that the numbers _account for_ 23% seems to indicate they could be using fuzzy math to make them larger than they actually are. For instance, it would be much more clear if they just said “Bush has cut taxes by $177 billion over the past three years.” Instead of this “account for” wording. > > However, I am unable to find a cite backing up these numbers or dis-proving them. It’s difficult to find figures on how much taxes have actually been cut for the past 3 years alone, not the entire 10 year span.\*\* \*\*Debaser \*\*, whether the source is biased or not, the $177 billion / 23% is the White House’ own figures: > [@](#): > > Of the $789 billion swing to a $455 billion deficit, Bolten [White House budget director] attributed 53 percent to the economic downturn, 24 percent to war, homeland security and other new programs, and 23 percent to the three successive tax cuts enacted since 2001. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2003Jul15.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2003Jul15.html) The _swing_ is the economic downturn from the projected $334 billion surplus for 2003 to a $455 billion deficit. The White House Budget Director, Joshua Bolten, says 23% is due to tax cuts, and that is $180 billion +/-. We may argue about whether the economic downturn accounts for exactly 53% or less of the swing, but at least I reckon the White House knows how big the tax cuts have been during the last three years, so that figure should not be in dispute. What makes the deficit so large is that the country is having both huge tax cuts and increased spending at the same time. And whether tax cuts create jobs or not, one thing is for sure: doing both is the biggest sin. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865/43 "2003-07-17T20:10:15Z")
OK, I agree that the 180 Billion figure is the impact of Bush’s tax cuts. Like I said, I didn’t like the wording of that clearly biased article. But, that is a realistic figure. I also agree that cutting taxes and raising spending is a bad combo. However, if one has to chose cutting spending is clearly a better way out of a budget deficit then raising taxes. Hmmm, 23% of deficit due to tax cuts. 24% due to war. If you anti-war folks wanted to convince us conservative types to be against the war you should have just argued that we could have gotten double the tax cut and no war and been in the same boat we are now. It would have made me think twice. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865/44 "2003-07-17T20:17:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > **Debaser** , I’m not seeing where **elf6c** made the claim that the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts have already taken place. He merely quoted an article which (although a little tricky to parse) did not make that claim either. You are the one who keeps coming back to it. [quote] _elf6c_ \*\*There it is. [the 1.7 trillion figure] The overall impact of the cuts enacted over the last three years. \*\* elf6c is talking about the “overall impact” of the cuts. It’s clear he/she thinks that they have already taken place. How could they have an “overall impact” if they haven’t happened yet? The article was writen to decieve, and that’s exactly what it did. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865/45 "2003-07-17T20:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > elf6c > \*\*There it is. [the 1.7 trillion figure] The overall impact of the cuts enacted over the last three years. > \*\* elf6c is talking about the “overall impact” of the cuts. It’s clear he/she thinks that they have already taken place. How could they have an “overall impact” if they haven’t happened yet? The article was writen to decieve, and that’s exactly what it did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/455-billion-fucking-dollars/188865.md?page=2)