How the Trump Tax Cut Is Helping to Push the Federal Deficit to $1Trillion

[Conservative]

“So when I post data from verifiable sources that isn't research in your world?”

It would be if you did so and gave reference. You’ve not done so in any post to me on this thread.

“Seems that the official data doesn't matter to far too many which is why the left and not even you have posted official treasury data showing that federal income tax cuts, cut federal income tax revenue. Until that happens you are just full of your own biased personal opinions backed by nothing but leftwing rhetoric.”

You’ve never asked me to produce any evidence to support such a claim that I have made in this thread. I did make such a claim:

“Bush2’s tax cuts were followed by falling receipts…2001 receipts were 6% lower than 2004”

However, in this thread you’ve made claims for which I’ve asked you to produce supporting evidence earlier than this post that you’ve ignored. You just go off on another rant-tangent. That’s your MO.

I’ve been forthright in responding to your claims and answering your questions. You’ve not done the same with me. Until you do, you don’t deserve an answer to your indirect request of evidence to support my self-quoted claim.

What more reference can one give other than the site location? Are you so used to having everyone else do your work for you that you cannot do your own research?

Bush's tax cuts weren't fully executed until July 2003, want to try again, a Rebate isn't a tax cut

 

[Vern]

LOL, what kind of partisan-poop are you pushing now? The entire 2009 deficit wasn't 1.9 trillion and Bush was a lame duck President during most of his time in office during FY2009. And he wasn't President at all in 2010. More of that loony left funny math again, eh?

Oh Bullseye, I know “partisan-poop” kills at the teenage conservative chat rooms but it only makes you look silly here. First, 1.9 trillion is the federal deficit. 1.4 trillion was Bush’s 2009 budget deficit. See how you don’t even know the basic facts. Anyhoo, revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion for 2009. The estimate is from before we knew we were in the Great Bush Recession. We collected 2.1 trillion. So 700 billion of Bush's last deficit was revenue collapse. Guess what we collected in 2010, 2.16 trillion. Yea, we should have collected 2.9 trillion if not more but it seems someone destroyed the economy. And don’t forget we still had the added costs of the recession. And the fact that republicans obstructed anything to speed up the recovery, it makes Bush's share of the debt larger.

They probably don’t discuss this much at the teenage conservative chatrooms but recession hurt revenues and increase costs. Worst recessions since the depression hurt revenues and increase costs more.

 

[Bullseye]

Oh Bullseye, I know “partisan-poop” kills at the teenage conservative chat rooms but it only makes you look silly here. First, 1.9 trillion is the federal deficit. 1.4 trillion was Bush’s 2009 budget deficit. See how you don’t even know the basic facts. Anyhoo, revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion for 2009. The estimate is from before we knew we were in the Great Bush Recession. We collected 2.1 trillion. So 700 billion of Bush's last deficit was revenue collapse. Guess what we collected in 2010, 2.16 trillion. Yea, we should have collected 2.9 trillion if not more but it seems someone destroyed the economy. And don’t forget we still had the added costs of the recession. And the fact that republicans obstructed anything to speed up the recovery, it makes Bush's share of the debt larger.

They probably don’t discuss this much at the teenage conservative chatrooms but recession hurt revenues and increase costs. Worst recessions since the depression hurt revenues and increase costs more.

Very creative accounting, skillfully ignoring who was in charge in both Congress and the White House. Always the other guy's fault, right, Vern?

 

[Vern]

"Debt" and "deficit" are most definitely related.

Nobody said they weren't related. He was using debt and deficit interchangeably. As you point out with your example, they're not interchangeable. A lot conservatives use them interchangeably and their point is understood but I think Hedge understands the difference. And in the context I was using "deficits" I felt he did it on purpose. And this is what brought up "net exports" vs "exports". He pooh poohs me calling out his use of the word "debt" but I see him correcting someone using "exports" instead of "net exports" in another thread. Net exports is exports minus imports. Its that simple. Exports add to GDP. Imports subtract from GDP. Mr Wonka said "GDP is up because exports shot up". And that statement is correct whether he said "net exports" or "exports". I even explained to Hedge that exports could stay the same and imports drop and "net exports" goes up thus adding to GDP.

Hedge, attempting to justify his "stickler for words" for others but not himself, said imports declined. Imports didn't decline. They increased. Maybe he believed that or maybe he said it to justify his "sticklerness". The thing is he simply could have said he typed the wrong word when he typed "debt". Everybody types the wrong word once from time to time. So his reaction of immediately trying to claim its the same thing combined with his "sticklerness" is at best hypocritical.

The term "net exports" sort of puzzles me.

Normally you start with a "gross __[fill in the blank]__" and then you deduct "__[fill in the blank]__" to arrive at a "net __[fill in the blank]__".

I can't figure out what you deduct from "gross exports" to arrive at "net exports", so possibly you could enlighten me?

I explained "net exports" above. I'm pretty sure "gross exports" is the same as "total exports" because I read it as "total exports minus total imports".

I still can't figure out what a "negative rate of imports" is. Does Hedgology know? Do you?

I really don't know what he meant because he said things that weren't true. Imports grew in Q2 contrary to his statement. It was in the BLS press release. It also said "imports decelerated". I read that as rate of growth slowed. Hedge posted some numbers to "prove" his point but he seems to have made a mistake (see the trend?). In the link I posted in 210, theres a tab to the right "Full Release and Tables". Here's Hedge's numbers

The rate of Imports fell from 5.5% to -1.9%; the rate of Exports grew from 3.6% to 9.3%...

what he's doing is comparing total exports (goods and services) to just Imports of services (table 1). Total Imports grew .5%. Service imports declined 1.9%.

 

[Vern]

Well that's interesting accounting there.

Its not “interesting accounting” to hold Bush responsible for his last budget. And its not “interesting accounting” to hold him responsible for the effects of his recession. His housing policies caused the Bush Mortgage bubble which led to the Great Bush Recession. And he made it “Great”. So he owns the 2009 deficit and the resulting effects on the economy.

The actual tally that could be ascribed to President Bush for the 2009 deficit is $808 Billion.

Again, the actual "tally" is 1.9 trillion. He was drove the economy over the cliff. Just because he jumped out half way down doesn't mean its not his fault when it hit bottom. And he's responsible for the effects of driving the economy off a cliff.

The Republicans had both sides of Congress and could have passed any budget that they wanted. Instead, they passed a budget that might have well have been sent to the floor by a Democratic president. It is disgraceful.

You seem to grasp that well enough but I don’t think you realize that it only proves republicans are flaming lying hypocrites concerning deficits. Democrats didn’t pander to your fear of deficits. Democrats didn’t tell you the world was ending. Democrats simply said we have to use debt wisely. Trying to end the Great Bush Recession and prevent the Great Bush Depression is using debt wisely. Ramping up the deficit to supposedly help with unemployment when UE is at a 25 year low is not using debt wisely.

The irony is that the last time that we actually reigned in any spending was due to sequestration which resulted in finally bringing down the deficit in President Obama's second term.

Sorry, sequestration was “measly” by conservative standards. Not extending the tax cuts for the top .4% helped. But what helped the most was President Obama’s policy to grow the economy to lower the deficits (It’s exactly how Clinton left a surplus). And to do that, President Obama simply had to ignore republican cries for spending cuts.

Now back to the point “republicans stopped President Obama’s job’s bill because it was a tax on everyone". Republicans stopped it for one reason: it would help the economy and speed up the recovery. They told you it was about deficits. You have to pick one of those reasons. You don't get to make one up. And its just another example of their flaming lying hypocrisy and putting their political agenda ahead of America. I cant help but believe you created that excuse for stopping President Obama’s jobs bill because you know the reason republicans gave, deficits, is indefensible. Until you hold them accountable, nothing is going to change.

 

[StillServing]

Its not “interesting accounting” to hold Bush responsible for his last budget. And its not “interesting accounting” to hold him responsible for the effects of his recession. His housing policies caused the Bush Mortgage bubble which led to the Great Bush Recession. And he made it “Great”. So he owns the 2009 deficit and the resulting effects on the economy...Again, the actual "tally" is 1.9 trillion. He was drove the economy over the cliff. Just because he jumped out half way down doesn't mean its not his fault when it hit bottom. And he's responsible for the effects of driving the economy off a cliff.

Well, considering that the deficit (regardless of who is at fault) in 2009 was only (and I shiver at writing "only") $1.4 Trillion, suggesting that Bush's culpability was a half trillion dollars more does, indeed, require some interesting math.
When we subtract out the spending that Obama authorized in 2009 (including ARRA) and the TARP monies which actually were a loan that netted the government $15 billion in profit, then the deficit that can fairly be ascribed to President Bush is about $808 Billion. Pretty easy math. I'm not sure which slide rule or definition of "deficit" you are using.

... But what helped the most was President Obama’s policy to grow the economy to lower the deficits (It’s exactly how Clinton left a surplus). And to do that, President Obama simply had to ignore republican cries for spending cuts.

A couple points here.
1. I'm confused by your assertion that what "helped" was President Obama's policies to grow the economy. You do understand that even when subtracting out 2009, his administration governed over the lowest GDP growth America has seen of any modern President, right? This is even when after the economy bottomed out in 2009, we should have seen large GDP growth as we've seen after every recession since 1947.

2. Putting aside results of President Obama's policies, exactly which policies are you pointing to? ARRA? Many economists have argued it actually got in the way of economic recovery. While some jobs were created, even his own economic adviser Christina Romer pointed out that it did not have the nearly intended effect.

3. As far as President Clinton's policies...he was fortunate to be President at the time of the internet revolution which fundamentally changed how business was conducted in the country and the world. This did boost GDP growth to nearly 5% annually. However, the biggest reductions in the deficit began in 1997 when spending growth was reigned in to just 2.6% in 1997, and then 3.2% and 3.3% in the next two years. During these three years, the economy grew faster than federal spending by almost 2.0% per year. Oh, there is something else that happened in 1997--the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that cut capital gains taxes which further boosted GDP growth.

...Now back to the point “republicans stopped President Obama’s job’s bill because it was a tax on everyone". Republicans stopped it for one reason: it would help the economy and speed up the recovery...

Can you please refer me to the accepted economic theory that says that raising taxes boosts GDP? On the other hand, I can point to multiple studies that demonstrate the dilatory effects that taxes can have on the economy. Such as this:

the results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.

Or this one:

...the negative relation between economic growth and personal income taxes, corporate taxation and social security contributions was verified. Therefore, it can be stated that these basic types of taxes lower product growth rate through their impact on capital accumulation, inflow of FDI, creation of savings or labour market.

 

[Vern]

Well, considering that the deficit (regardless of who is at fault) in 2009 was only (and I shiver at writing "only") $1.4 Trillion, suggesting that Bush's culpability was a half trillion dollars more does, indeed, require some interesting math.
When we subtract out the spending that Obama authorized in 2009 (including ARRA) and the TARP monies which actually were a loan that netted the government $15 billion in profit, then the deficit that can fairly be ascribed to President Bush is about $808 Billion. Pretty easy math. I'm not sure which slide rule or definition of "deficit" you are using.

SS,the budget deficit was 1.4 trillion. the federal deficit was 1.9 trillion. the fact that you don't even know the basic facts of the budget is very telling. So that proves your "pretty easy math" is not based on knowledge. so lets have a quick discussion of Federal Deficit vs Budget Deficit. Bush used emergency spending so the Afghanistan war and the war based on lies were so for the most part "not on budget". Now TARP was considered an investment so only about a third of TARP spending was "on budget. Same thing for the GSE bailout. So Bush's last budget deficit was 1.4 trillion but he spent about 500 billion more than than that. It just wasn't all "on budget". the good news is now I think you were just dumb instead of dishonest when you claimed republicans obstructed President Obama's jobs bill because of "tax increases".

1. I'm confused by your assertion that what "helped" was President Obama's policies to grow the economy. You do understand that even when subtracting out 2009, his administration governed over the lowest GDP growth America has seen of any modern President, right? This is even when after the economy bottomed out in 2009, we should have seen large GDP growth as we've seen after every recession since 1947.

Well you have proven your are confused. So you can complain about President Obama's growth but it requires you to ignore we were recovering from the Great Bush Recession, the worst recession since the depression and that republicans obstructed his attempts to speed up the recovery. If a republican was president and tried to pass a jobs bill you wouldn't have heard any cries about deficits or your made up narrative of "tax increases".

2. Putting aside results of President Obama's policies, exactly which policies are you pointing to? ARRA? Many economists have argued it actually got in the way of economic recovery. While some jobs were created, even his own economic adviser Christina Romer pointed out that it did not have the nearly intended effect.

Yes, liars and imbeciles argued it got in the way of the recovery. Did you happen to notice these were the same outlets that told you President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery and he wanted to kill old people? And don't forget, you've admitted and proven you economics "confuses" you.

Can you please refer me to the accepted economic theory that says that raising taxes boosts GDP? On the other hand, I can point to multiple studies that demonstrate the dilatory effects that taxes can have on the economy. Such as this:

Or this one:

SS, read this real slow. I said your "Obama's job bill would raise taxes on everyone" narrative was false. MTA told you it had no tax increases. and it was was mostly tax cuts. Yea, say that out loud, mostly tax cuts. So you to post as if it " would raise taxes on everyone" is false. And SS, the funny thing about your obediently false narrative is that republicans were the only ones threatening to raise taxes on everyone.

 

[StillServing]

SS,the budget deficit was 1.4 trillion. the federal deficit was 1.9 trillion. the fact that you don't even know the basic facts of the budget is very telling. So that proves your "pretty easy math" is not based on knowledge. so lets have a quick discussion of Federal Deficit vs Budget Deficit. Bush used emergency spending so the Afghanistan war and the war based on lies were so for the most part "not on budget". Now TARP was considered an investment so only about a third of TARP spending was "on budget. Same thing for the GSE bailout. So Bush's last budget deficit was 1.4 trillion but he spent about 500 billion more than than that. It just wasn't all "on budget". the good news is now I think you were just dumb instead of dishonest when you claimed republicans obstructed President Obama's jobs bill because of "tax increases".

Vern,

Let's see if we can have a respectable conversation without resorting to name calling, shall we?

Yes, I understand the difference between on-budget and off-budget spending...and the Federal Deficit is still nowhere close to where you are stating.

In 2009, there were $1.450 Trillion in On-Budget receipts. There were also $0.654 Trillion in Off-Budget Receipts. Therefore, the total On-Budget and Off-Budget receipts to the Federal Government was $2.104 Trillion

On the other side of the ledger we have our outlays. On-Budget outlays amounted to $3.001 Trillion. Off-Budget outlays came to $0.517 Trillion. The total outlays then was $3.518.

When we take all spending ($3.518T) and subtract that from all receipts ($2.104T), and we get a Federal Deficit of $1.414 Trillion dollars.

Now, I don't think you are lying. Nor do I think you are dumb. You will never read me calling another poster any derogatory names. However, I do know that your assertion that the 2009 Federal Deficit was $1.9 Trillion is incorrect and not the half trillion dollars more that you assert.

 

[Vern]

Vern,

Let's see if we can have a respectable conversation without resorting to name calling, shall we?

Yes, I understand the difference between on-budget and off-budget spending...and the Federal Deficit is still nowhere close to where you are stating.

In 2009, there were $1.450 Trillion in On-Budget receipts. There were also $0.654 Trillion in Off-Budget Receipts. Therefore, the total On-Budget and Off-Budget receipts to the Federal Government was $2.104 Trillion

On the other side of the ledger we have our outlays. On-Budget outlays amounted to $3.001 Trillion. Off-Budget outlays came to $0.517 Trillion. The total outlays then was $3.518.

When we take all spending ($3.518T) and subtract that from all receipts ($2.104T), and we get a Federal Deficit of $1.414 Trillion dollars.

Now, I don't think you are lying. Nor do I think you are dumb. You will never read me calling another poster any derogatory names. However, I do know that your assertion that the 2009 Federal Deficit was $1.9 Trillion is incorrect and not the half trillion dollars more that you assert.

SS, don't tell me the Federal Deficit was nowhere near 1.9 trillion then whine at me about being "respectable". You have a firm grasp of conservative narratives but not the facts. Instead of posting a lot of words, you simply need to go look at the total federal debt by years. And you're still not addressing your made up narrative of "republicans stopped President Obama's jobs bill because of tax increases". anyhoo, here's the treasury deficit tables

https://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

 

[StillServing]

Here is the deficit data showing on-budget and off-budget revenues and outlays.

 

[rickc]

when bush took office we had a balanced federal budget with a surplus big enough that greenspan was concerned with what would happen if we paid off the federal debt.

when bush left office we were in the depths of the greatest recession since the great depression. trillion dollar deficits with no end in sight

after 8 years of obama deficits were down and the economy had recovered despite republicans in congress using a scorched earth policy for all things obama

now we have Trump and a republican congress. tax cuts for the rich, trillion dollar deficits in a recovered economy with all the signs that republicans will once again drive the economy right off the cliff all to enrich the rich.

 

[Zyphlin]

Just jumping in here to point out a key fact...

It's not simply the Tax Cut that's leading to a huge federal deficit. It's the tax cut in conjunction with not only maintaining our previous high amounts of spending, but actually increasing that amount.

I like lowering taxes; lowering taxes without corresponding spending cuts is irresponsible.

 

[vesper]

Just jumping in here to point out a key fact...

It's not simply the Tax Cut that's leading to a huge federal deficit. It's the tax cut in conjunction with not only maintaining our previous high amounts of spending, but actually increasing that amount.

I like lowering taxes; lowering taxes without corresponding spending cuts is irresponsible.

Tax cuts compiled with cutting massive regulations spurs economic growth and that is exactly what this Administration with the Republican Congress did. The more businesses find a path to grow they actually produce more revenue for the government at the same time produce more jobs. This past year food stamps and other welfare enrollments have dropped because of people finding work. The more people that work the more taxes the government collects.

The secret of success is to cut taxes at the same time cut spending. Bush cut taxes but failed to follow the second part of the equation.

Now if there was no effort to cut government spending I would say Trump and this Republican Congress would have the possibility of going down in history as big spenders but I don't think this is going to be the case at the end of the day.

One of the first things this administration ordered were audits on all agencies and departments scrutinizing the programs for years Congress continues to fund and start weeding out those programs/grants and other means of funding that after years did not produce the results they claimed they would, They were also to reveal the countless number of programs that reveal double dipping for the same things. These audits have been ongoing for months. Some were completed and are reflected in the lack of funding for certain programs the appropriations passed out of the House. The problem is the Senate where most of these appropriation bills sit and collect dust .

Heck the WH within its first weeks cut the standard WH budget by 22 million.

My real hope is this midterm the Republicans hold onto the majority and there be an increase in the Senate. This is the only way spending will be cut.

The House Republicans have worked tirelessly passing appropriation bills all year that reflect spending cuts.

 

[MTAtech]

Just jumping in here to point out a key fact...

It's not simply the Tax Cut that's leading to a huge federal deficit. It's the tax cut in conjunction with not only maintaining our previous high amounts of spending, but actually increasing that amount.

I like lowering taxes; lowering taxes without corresponding spending cuts is irresponsible.

Ok, the tax-cuts drop revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. The only portion of federal spending that have that level of spending is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. If one didn't want to touch those, one would have to massively slash everything else by 50% to save $200 billion. That would cripple veterans benefits, the EPA, Housing, the courts, etc.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Tax cuts compiled with cutting massive regulations spurs economic growth and that is exactly what this Administration with the Republican Congress did. The more businesses find a path to grow they actually produce more revenue for the government at the same time produce more jobs. This past year food stamps and other welfare enrollments have dropped because of people finding work. The more people that work the more taxes the government collects.

The secret of success is to cut taxes at the same time cut spending. Bush cut taxes but failed to follow the second part of the equation.

Now if there was no effort to cut government spending I would say Trump and this Republican Congress would have the possibility of going down in history as big spenders but I don't think this is going to be the case at the end of the day.

One of the first things this administration ordered were audits on all agencies and departments scrutinizing the programs for years Congress continues to fund and start weeding out those programs/grants and other means of funding that after years did not produce the results they claimed they would, They were also to reveal the countless number of programs that reveal double dipping for the same things. These audits have been ongoing for months. Some were completed and are reflected in the lack of funding for certain programs the appropriations passed out of the House. The problem is the Senate where most of these appropriation bills sit and collect dust .

Heck the WH within its first weeks cut the standard WH budget by 22 million.

My real hope is this midterm the Republicans hold onto the majority and there be an increase in the Senate. This is the only way spending will be cut.

The House Republicans have worked tirelessly passing appropriation bills all year that reflect spending cuts.

House Republicans working "tirelessly" LOL! That's got to be funniest statement of the year. The Repubs have lost their way. They cashed in all their principals and no longer stand for anything anymore except but for Herr Trump.

 

[MTAtech]

Tax cuts compiled with cutting massive regulations spurs economic growth and that is exactly what this Administration with the Republican Congress did. The more businesses find a path to grow they actually produce more revenue for the government at the same time produce more jobs. This past year food stamps and other welfare enrollments have dropped because of people finding work. The more people that work the more taxes the government collects.

The secret of success is to cut taxes at the same time cut spending. Bush cut taxes but failed to follow the second part of the equation.

Now if there was no effort to cut government spending I would say Trump and this Republican Congress would have the possibility of going down in history as big spenders but I don't think this is going to be the case at the end of the day.

One of the first things this administration ordered were audits on all agencies and departments scrutinizing the programs for years Congress continues to fund and start weeding out those programs/grants and other means of funding that after years did not produce the results they claimed they would, They were also to reveal the countless number of programs that reveal double dipping for the same things. These audits have been ongoing for months. Some were completed and are reflected in the lack of funding for certain programs the appropriations passed out of the House. The problem is the Senate where most of these appropriation bills sit and collect dust .

Heck the WH within its first weeks cut the standard WH budget by 22 million.

My real hope is this midterm the Republicans hold onto the majority and there be an increase in the Senate. This is the only way spending will be cut.

The House Republicans have worked tirelessly passing appropriation bills all year that reflect spending cuts.

A) There is no empirical evidence that wholesale cutting regulations has any economic growth effect.
B) Trump can order any number of audits of agencies and departments and it means nothing, in terms of spending, when Republicans are bent on increasing military spending.
C) The narrative that Republicans holding the House and Senate majority would result in lower spending also has no support. Republicans control the WH and both houses of Congress and had no moral reservation to hold spending down. Quite the opposite. They boosted spending while also cutting taxes. For most of Bush's terms, Republicans had both houses too and this is what happened to spending.

And what about those "big spender" Democrats? This was the spending under Obama:

 

[danielpalos]

Tax cuts compiled with cutting massive regulations spurs economic growth and that is exactly what this Administration with the Republican Congress did. The more businesses find a path to grow they actually produce more revenue for the government at the same time produce more jobs. This past year food stamps and other welfare enrollments have dropped because of people finding work. The more people that work the more taxes the government collects.

The secret of success is to cut taxes at the same time cut spending. Bush cut taxes but failed to follow the second part of the equation.

Now if there was no effort to cut government spending I would say Trump and this Republican Congress would have the possibility of going down in history as big spenders but I don't think this is going to be the case at the end of the day.

One of the first things this administration ordered were audits on all agencies and departments scrutinizing the programs for years Congress continues to fund and start weeding out those programs/grants and other means of funding that after years did not produce the results they claimed they would, They were also to reveal the countless number of programs that reveal double dipping for the same things. These audits have been ongoing for months. Some were completed and are reflected in the lack of funding for certain programs the appropriations passed out of the House. The problem is the Senate where most of these appropriation bills sit and collect dust .

Heck the WH within its first weeks cut the standard WH budget by 22 million.

My real hope is this midterm the Republicans hold onto the majority and there be an increase in the Senate. This is the only way spending will be cut.

The House Republicans have worked tirelessly passing appropriation bills all year that reflect spending cuts.

simply focusing on tax cuts does nothing for infrastructure. you can't ignore it forever.

 

[MTAtech]

Well, considering that the deficit (regardless of who is at fault) in 2009 was only (and I shiver at writing "only") $1.4 Trillion, suggesting that Bush's culpability was a half trillion dollars more does, indeed, require some interesting math.
When we subtract out the spending that Obama authorized in 2009 (including ARRA) and the TARP monies which actually were a loan that netted the government $15 billion in profit, then the deficit that can fairly be ascribed to President Bush is about $808 Billion. Pretty easy math. I'm not sure which slide rule or definition of "deficit" you are using.




A couple points here.
1. I'm confused by your assertion that what "helped" was President Obama's policies to grow the economy. You do understand that even when subtracting out 2009, his administration governed over the lowest GDP growth America has seen of any modern President, right? This is even when after the economy bottomed out in 2009, we should have seen large GDP growth as we've seen after every recession since 1947.

2. Putting aside results of President Obama's policies, exactly which policies are you pointing to? ARRA? Many economists have argued it actually got in the way of economic recovery. While some jobs were created, even his own economic adviser Christina Romer pointed out that it did not have the nearly intended effect.

3. As far as President Clinton's policies...he was fortunate to be President at the time of the internet revolution which fundamentally changed how business was conducted in the country and the world. This did boost GDP growth to nearly 5% annually. However, the biggest reductions in the deficit began in 1997 when spending growth was reigned in to just 2.6% in 1997, and then 3.2% and 3.3% in the next two years. During these three years, the economy grew faster than federal spending by almost 2.0% per year. Oh, there is something else that happened in 1997--the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that cut capital gains taxes which further boosted GDP growth.

I will reply to each of your numbers.
1) The answer to growth after a recession is found here
2) Chrisy Romer never said that the way you portray it. See: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending/
3) A bit of cherry picking here. You note the lowering of capital gains taxes and credit that for economic growth but make no mention of the fact that Clinton also raised ordinary income tax rates. Also, this is what Republican leaders said at the time:

Newt Gingrich predicted: “The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office. link

 

[thenotorious]

Always. He denied the reality of this too.

...by deflecting and going on a rant about Obama.

Conservatives don't accept facts, they accept hypocritical rhetoric that adheres to their agenda.

 

[StillServing]

SS, don't tell me the Federal Deficit was nowhere near 1.9 trillion then whine at me about being "respectable". You have a firm grasp of conservative narratives but not the facts. Instead of posting a lot of words, you simply need to go look at the total federal debt by years. And you're still not addressing your made up narrative of "republicans stopped President Obama's jobs bill because of tax increases". anyhoo, here's the treasury deficit tables

Actually, you posted the treasury DEBT tables, not the deficit tables. I've already posted the table from CBO that outlines the on and off budget receipts and outlays giving us the actual deficits. As I explained, the number is $1.415 Trillion.

As far as President Obama and bills that either raised or attempted to raise taxes:

An incomplete summary:

OK, let’s look at the tax hikes that President Obama did get through Congress.

First of all, there is the ACA taxes which was estimated to cost American Taxpayers $675 billion (some have now been repealed, thank God). Among these provisions were:
--Federal excise tax on tobacco, even though the median income of smokers was just over $36K per year.
--Individual Mandate raised taxes on 6 million families.
--Employer Mandate raised taxes on all employers with 50+ employees.
--Surtax on Investment Income, created a 3.8% surtax on investment income.
--Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. So you have a corporation that does the right thing and provides you good insurance? No problem, this tax created a 40% tax on these insurance plans.
--Increased Medicare Payroll Taxes on employers…remember, the guys that hire people.
--Capped Flexible Spending Accounts, essentially a $13 Billion tax hike. Among those hurt by this hike were families with special needs children who used to be able to use the previously uncapped FSA to pay for school expenses that can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Now FSAs are capped at $2500.

Let’s also not forget that President Obama got his way in allowing income taxes to be raised for Americans who earn more than $225K.

Then there were the bills that the Republicans were able to stop. These are just a few…husband duties have precluded me from conducting a thorough review…
2011 American Jobs Act. Raised taxes on job creators.
2011 Rebuild America Jobs Act. Included an income tax surcharge.
2011 Teachers and First Responders to Work Act 2011, income tax surcharge.
2015 Infrastructure Bill. Included tax increases on business.

So, why did the Republicans have a problem with tax increases on those who earn more than $250,000 or even $1 million? Because, a large number of these people create jobs.

Truth in lending here, not all small businesses actually have more than one employee. But 14.7 million small businesses do. It is also true that the Office of Tax Analysis at the U.S. Treasury crunched the numbers for 2007 only 4% of these small businesses with employees earn more than $250,000. So why is that an issue? Because the analysis of the Federal Reserves’ 2007-2009 Survey of Consumer Finances as able to determine that this 4% of small businesses also employed 93% of the employees of all small businesses. When some 58 million people are employed by small businesses, that 93% represents a lot of jobs.

To many conservatives, it didn’t make sense to double down on the ineffective faults of ARRA and then place taxes on the half million small businesses who were responsible for nearly 60 million jobs.

 

[StillServing]

I will reply to each of your numbers.
1) The answer to growth after a recession is found here
2) Chrisy Romer never said that the way you portray it. See: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending/
3) A bit of cherry picking here. You note the lowering of capital gains taxes and credit that for economic growth but make no mention of the fact that Clinton also raised ordinary income tax rates. Also, this is what Republican leaders said at the time:

1) The history of recessions back to and including the Great Depression bear out that the expectation of increased economic growth after each recession. Moreover, Krugman's examples makes it seem that recessions only have occured since the Beetles have broken up and ignores many other recessions. And, there is countering studies that reinforce my assertion that we would should have seen a much more robust recovery.
2) More to write on this...but not enough time. Here for a proxy argument until I get the time.
3) No cherry picking intended. Clinton increased taxes in 1993. However we would not see back-to-back 4%+ GDP growth until capital gains taxes were cut in 1997. The comment about capital gains was more of an aside, any way. That point was more to point out that GDP growth was largely due to the internet boom and that Congress and Clinton actually slowed the growth and spending to below that of GDP growth. This is what moved our national ledgerbook into the black.

 

[MTAtech]

1) The history of recessions back to and including the Great Depression bear out that the expectation of increased economic growth after each recession. Moreover, Krugman's examples makes it seem that recessions only have occured since the Beetles have broken up and ignores many other recessions. And, there is countering studies that reinforce my assertion that we would should have seen a much more robust recovery.
2) More to write on this...but not enough time. Here for a proxy argument until I get the time.
3) No cherry picking intended. Clinton increased taxes in 1993. However we would not see back-to-back 4%+ GDP growth until capital gains taxes were cut in 1997. The comment about capital gains was more of an aside, any way. That point was more to point out that GDP growth was largely due to the internet boom and that Congress and Clinton actually slowed the growth and spending to below that of GDP growth. This is what moved our national ledgerbook into the black.

1) I read your link above, the thesis being that financial crisis don't necessarily lead to slow recoveries required the author to go back to data of the 1880s to prove his point. There are many problems with that methodology, most notably the lack of reliable data and, more importantly, using pre-Federal Reserve economies as a case study for post-Federal Reserve America.

Repeating what I have written before but the only similar recession to the 2007/8 recession in the 100 years was the Great Depression. The recessions previously, such as 81-83 and the ones since World War II, were all created by the Fed to lower inflation by jacking up interest rates. Once the Fed relaxed interest rates, the economy popped back. Not so with the 2008-2010 recession. That was financial overreach in which hard assets lost real value and debt had to be unwound. That doesn't pop right back quickly.

2) More on what Romer didn't say. This Politfacts article is quite clear:

Those estimates include a chart, "Unemployment Rate With and Without Recovery Plan," that displays a post-stimulus jobless rate around 5.6 percent in mid 2012, like the chart in the American Crossroads ad.

But Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser, also wrote that their estimates were "subject to significant margins of error," and "considerable uncertainty."

3) While it is convenient today to praise growth on capital gains changes, this is what Republicans were saying in 1993:

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), 2/2/1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

​

Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), 5/24/1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

​

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), 7/13/1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs. And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

​

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/1993: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H2949)

​

If we look at the graph below, we see capital gains revenue increasing long before the cut in the capital gains rate:

 

[Conservative]

1) I read your link above, the thesis being that financial crisis don't necessarily lead to slow recoveries required the author to go back to data of the 1880s to prove his point. There are many problems with that methodology, most notably the lack of reliable data and, more importantly, using pre-Federal Reserve economies as a case study for post-Federal Reserve America.

Repeating what I have written before but the only similar recession to the 2007/8 recession in the 100 years was the Great Depression. The recessions previously, such as 81-83 and the ones since World War II, were all created by the Fed to lower inflation by jacking up interest rates. Once the Fed relaxed interest rates, the economy popped back. Not so with the 2008-2010 recession. That was financial overreach in which hard assets lost real value and debt had to be unwound. That doesn't pop right back quickly.

2) More on what Romer didn't say. This Politfacts article is quite clear:


3) While it is convenient today to praise growth on capital gains changes, this is what Republicans were saying in 1993:
If we look at the graph below, we see capital gains revenue increasing long before the cut in the capital gains rate:
View attachment 67237375

Still promoting that massive central govt. and more revenue to the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt but never explaining where the cash comes from when Federal Taxes are increased for state and local governments? Still buying the media spin and ignoring the conservative results always buying PREDICTIONS but then never admitting when wrong or posting data showing actual results. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty

As I have posted to others I am going to take a break from you radicals for a few days starting after celebrating the July Jobs report showing a U-6 of 7.5%, Almost 156 million Americans employed(up almost 4 million over what Trump inherited), historical low Part time for economic reasons, a 3.9% official unemployment rate, another record labor force all numbers showing the left to be true liars and radicals who are still seeking that liberal utopian world that other liberals never achieved. All numbers never achieved by the Obama Administration which added 9.3 trillion to the debt so again, Thank you Obama for giving us Trump!!!

And oh, by the way thank you MTA for showing us just how radical the left is, how the left continues to spout negativity, how the left hates it when people get to keep more of what they earn, and more importantly continue to tout PREDICTIONS over results showing just how the left lies, distorts, and posts information out of context

 

[MTAtech]

Still promoting that massive central govt. and more revenue to the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt but never explaining where the cash comes from when Federal Taxes are increased for state and local governments? Still buying the media spin and ignoring the conservative results always buying PREDICTIONS but then never admitting when wrong or posting data showing actual results. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty
...

You are either a troll or a Russian bot -- since nothing you wrote in your reply to my post had anything at all to do with what I actually wrote. You charge me with the high crime of "promoting that massive central govt." when I said nothing about the size of the government.

Perhaps you were just engaging in mirror thinking. Conservatives say they are for small government as a goal of its own, so Conservative thinks that liberals must believe the opposite and thus be for big government as a central goal.

The reality is that liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; a safety net and old age benefits, the size of government per se isn’t the objective.

But reviewing recent history, the size of government increased the most under Republican Administrations.

 

[StillServing]

A) There is no empirical evidence that wholesale cutting regulations has any economic growth effect...

Perhaps not. But there are studies that show the dilatory effect that increased regulation has on slowing employment. One example is this.

Among its findings:

We find that a 10 percent increase in regulation leads to a 0.5 percent reduction in new
firm births and a 0.9 percent reduction in hiring.