US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report

LV426 said:
No, you lie.

Here's receipts (in billions):

2000: $2,025.2
2001: $1,991.1
2002: $1,853.1
2003: $1,782.3
2004: $1,880.1

So...yeah...2001-4 saw less revenue than 2000.

Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring that we went into a recession around that time. And it's arguable that his 2003 tax cuts helped pull us out of that recession. Historically revenues have climbed after tax cuts. Look at what the revenues did after Johnson and Reagan passed their plans.
 
When we pay more taxes we are paying ourselves.

This is our country.

Anything worth while needs to have some money put into once in a while.

If you don't, it goes downhill.

Republicans have driven the budget off the cliff.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the debt was over $30 Trillion if Trump is allowed 8 years.

The economy is doing great! (Thanks, President Obama)

But the debt is rising faster than the GDP. Thanks to President Trump.
 
countryboy said:
Lol, nice try. Bush served two terms. What happened to revenues after your cherry picked numbers?
Click to expand...

Well, they increased because of the housing bubble.

Your claim was that the tax cuts caused more revenue. That's demonstrably untrue.

Taking three steps back to take one step forward leaves you how many steps behind?
 
Dirt McGirt said:
And it's arguable that his 2003 tax cuts helped pull us out of that recession.
Click to expand...

What recession?

The recession lasted for just two quarters in 2001, April-October.

You're saying it took 2 years before the economy recovered from the mild recession it had in 2001?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
 
Cypress said:
Republicans intentionally engineer trillion dollar deficits, so they can later claim there is not enough money for infrastructure, social security, education, and health care, and science programs. IN other words, the deficits are their fault, but other people have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

If we increased taxes to eliminate the deficit, other people would be paying for those, also.
 
Flash said:
If we increased taxes to eliminate the deficit, other people would be paying for those, also.
Click to expand...

Pentagon cannot account for $21T spent between 1998 and 2015. Never been any shortage of funding, but we fuel the global militarist empire and subsidize our aristocracy instead. A simple choice was make and thus far the american people haven't located the backbone to force their "representatives" to catch up with the 21st century.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
istorically revenues have climbed after tax cuts. Look at what the revenues did after Johnson and Reagan passed their plans.
Click to expand...

First of all, no.

Secondly, revenues increased during Johnson because he increased government spending by 50% from 1964-1968.

Thirdly, Reagan had revenue below 1982 in 1983. And overall, Reagan grew revenues from 1981-1989 at virtually the same pace Obama did from 2009-2017, but both were well behind Clinton, who grew revenues the most of any President since 1980.

Reagan Revenue Growth
1981 Receipts: $599.3
1989 Receipts: $991.1
+65%

Clinton Revenue Growth
1993 Receipts: $1,154.3
2001 Receipts: $1,991.1
+73%

Bush the Dumber Revenue Growth
2001 Receipts: $1,991.1
2009 Receipts: $2,105.0
+6%

Obama Revenue Growth
2009 Receipts: $2,105.0
2017 Receipts: $3,316.2
+58%
 
Hello Thing1,

Thing1 said:
He has shown no commitment at all to reducing it in a meaningful way. Just the opposite - for every token spending cut, he has increased spending in another area.
Click to expand...

Even if the spending was a wash he has increased the debt by collecting too little revenue.

The tax cut for the rich: slashed revenue; and the hoped-for increased revenue from additional GDP has not materialized.

Because business taxes were cut, and wages have not substantially increased, so revenue from wages also has not significantly increased.

We are not collecting enough revenue to keep up with the expenses, so the debt is rising (quickly.)

We need to raise taxes on the rich.

They can afford it.

After all, as President Trump said, they all just got a lot richer!
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Pentagon cannot account for $21T spent between 1998 and 2015. Never been any shortage of funding, but we fuel the global militarist empire and subsidize our aristocracy instead. A simple choice was make and thus far the american people haven't located the backbone to force their "representatives" to catch up with the 21st century.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon budget did not amount to $21 trillion between 1998-2015.
 
LV426 said:
What recession?

The recession lasted for just two quarters in 2001, April-October.

You're saying it took 2 years before the economy recovered from the mild recession it had in 2001?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes. GDP may have rebounded but the stock market did not fully and neither did employment. It wasn't until 2003 that those got back on track.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Thing1,



Even if the spending was a wash he has increased the debt by collecting too little revenue.

The tax cut for the rich: slashed revenue; and the hoped-for increased revenue from additional GDP has not materialized.

Because business taxes were cut, and wages have not substantially increased, so revenue from wages also has not significantly increased.

We are not collecting enough revenue to keep up with the expenses, so the debt is rising (quickly.)

We need to raise taxes on the rich.

They can afford it.

After all, as President Trump said, they all just got a lot richer!
Click to expand...

I read that a full 0.6% of the GDP for Q2 was due entirely to soybeans being rushed to market ahead of the tariffs. So that alone goosed the GDP from 3.5% to 4.1%.

When you start factoring in the other industries that rushed to get exports out ahead of the tariffs, you'll see that 4.1% growth was wholly an illusion and will end up fucking us over in Q3 and Q4.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
Yes. GDP may have rebounded but the stock market did not fully and neither did employment. It wasn't until 2003 that those got back on track.
Click to expand...

Where to start with these excuses?

First, you said that the 2003 acceleration of the Bush Tax Cuts recovered the economy from the recession it faced for 6 months in 2001, even though GDP growth for 2001 was still positive. So the tax cuts didn't recover shit since the economy didn't even contract in 2001.

Secondly, while true the market took a couple years to reach its pre-Bush height, the market is not the driver for our economy. Which is why Conservatives today say it's not fair to point out that the market is largely flat for 2018 since the Russia Tax Cut took effect.

Thirdly, the unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2% and he never got it down that low ever in his 8 years. So the rising unemployment rate isn't because of the mild recession that didn't contract GDP in 2001, it's because Conservatives are terrible at managing economies.

BTW - for your edification, here's the unemployment rates for each month of Bush. At what point did he ever "get that back on track"? In fact, when you look at the below numbers, you see Bush nearly doubled his unemployment rate.

Also, he lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of tax cuts.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8
 
LV426 said:
Where to start with these excuses?

First, you said that the 2003 acceleration of the Bush Tax Cuts recovered the economy from the recession it faced for 6 months in 2001, even though GDP growth for 2001 was still positive. So the tax cuts didn't recover shit since the economy didn't even contract in 2001.

Secondly, while true the market took a couple years to reach its pre-Bush height, the market is not the driver for our economy. Which is why Conservatives today say it's not fair to point out that the market is largely flat for 2018 since the Russia Tax Cut took effect.

Thirdly, the unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2% and he never got it down that low ever in his 8 years. So the rising unemployment rate isn't because of the mild recession that didn't contract GDP in 2001, it's because Conservatives are terrible at managing economies.

BTW - for your edification, here's the unemployment rates for each month of Bush. At what point did he ever "get that back on track"? In fact, when you look at the below numbers, you see Bush nearly doubled his unemployment rate.

Also, he lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of tax cuts.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8
Click to expand...

By get back on track I meant, adding jobs rather than losing them. And no matter how much you harp on GDP it doesn't paint the full picture of economic health.

Anyway, I had no intention of derailing into a discussion of the Bush tax cuts, but rather to point out the dishonesty in cherry picking numbers to imply that tax cuts have a negative impact on revenue.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
By get back on track I meant, adding jobs rather than losing them
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at the data, you see the unemployment rate going up and down in 2002. You're trying to attribute that to the tax cut that was accelerated in 2003?

Maybe you want to rethink this whole strategy.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
Anyway, I had no intention of derailing into a discussion of the Bush tax cuts, but rather to point out the dishonesty in cherry picking numbers to imply that tax cuts have a negative impact on revenue.
Click to expand...

They did have a negative impact on revenue.

Revenue was below 2000 levels for four straight years.

In the 80's, Reagan had less revenue in 1983 than he had in 1982, after his tax cuts.

Whoever told you that tax cuts increase revenues was pulling your leg. It's just another version of the trickle down lie. The trickle down in this case being that if taxes are cut, people will increase their spending.

Well, they did increase their spending, but not because of the tax cut. They increased their spending because of debt.

The personal savings rate plummeted after the Bush Tax Cuts as the household debt skyrocketed.

us-debt-vs-personal-savings2.jpg

But don't let facts get in the way of "conventional wisdom" of Conservatism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top