Slated toward the truth? Please explain what you mean.
This is based on actual tax policy and CBO estimates. The CBO is a non-partisan office led by a George W Bush appointee. No matter how much some people want to say they are biased against Republicans, there is literally zero proof of that.
The appointment of the leader of CBO by Bush is completely irrelevant to the discretion and bias applied by CBO. Case in point; CJOTSCOTU John Roberts is a pseudo conservative. What is in dispute is the fairness and accuracy of CBO, not the appointment of its’ leader.
Slanted against the GOP/TRUMP. The well-off should pay more, so the Standard Deduction is raised to $24,000. This gives a break to the poorer. Mortgage interest for over $500,000 is not deductible. This doesn’t affect the poorer. There is more, so why does the writer put these in the Loser column when they are taxing the non-poorer?
With factual reporting? Go look up Reuters reporting record to see that they always base their reporting in facts, not pie-in-the-sky projections and voodoo math.
IJ lets you people who troll every topic with conservative newspeak. So they must either be pretty stupid or pretty laissez-faire with their moderation.
Reporting facts, even if they hurt your delicate sensibilities isn’t siding with anyone. Its doing their job.
@DF: If you had your way, BOTs would still be allowed to censor people with whom you disagree. That’s what happens in Soci… Communist countries.
So, if you prefer unobstructed publishing of your Socialist viewpoints, and strict censorship via BOTs, downvotes with alternating IP addys and email accounts, and government censorship, ….which won’t happen on a privately owned website in a Free Society (e.g. IJ), why don’t you move to Russia, Cuba, etc.?
Hypocrisy: Libbies are concerned with increasing the National Debt NOW after it was DOUBLED from $10T to $20T by Obama. (I expect at least one response to focus on the minutiae of the exact increase amount not equaling exactly a doubling.)
I did not look at the revenue projections, but they may miss the effect of a hyuuuuuge increase in GDP, at a growth rate on the good side of 4% after mid 2018.
BTW: I am categorized as a ‘winner’ in regard to the tax law change proposal. But, again, I’m NOT yet getting tired of winning. I’m getting a little bored with winning, but not tired of it.
Hypocrisy: Conservatives are no longer concerned with increasing the National Debt NOW after it was DOUBLED from $10T to $20T by Obama.
See, it goes both ways.
“I expect at least one response to focus on the minutiae of the exact increase amount not equaling exactly a doubling.” Funny how you like facts until they go against your narrative.
Facts regarding debt increases during the administartions of the past 5 presidents:
I think the bigger picture we should be focusing on rather than squabling about who added the most debt is the fact that every single president since Calvin Coolidge has ADDED to the debt. Think about that for a second…President Coolidge was last in office in 1929…almost 89 years ago. So for 89 years we have increased our debit & it has balooned in the last 15.
That’s like you charging stuff to your credit card every day knowing that you can’t pay it off unless your income drastically increases but you keep spending anyway. Both parties are a problem. The Democrats want write checks like money grows on trees and cut taxes on the poor and middle class while raising on the rich (which still won’t offset their increased spending and tax cuts on the vast majority of Americans). Republicans want to cut taxes across the board in a way the helps most Americans in one way or another but they can’t seem to get our spending under control either. You can’t lower the income you have and keep or increase spending…it is not rocket science here.
Thanks for your important perspective on national debt, its source, and its magnitude instead of PERCENTAGE increases measured against VASTLY DIFFERENT SIZE DENOMINATORS (bases).
George W was president during pretty meh economic growth, and other than when the massive spending was done toward the end of his term what do you see at the debt as a percentage of GDP? If it was the tax cuts, those entire years would have been far worse, especially considering just how bad even the beginning and mid range of Bush’s economy was compared to Bill Clinton’s. Also, the only way you can get the numbers you did as percentages, is if you ignore all Bush W’s years but his last, and compare Obama to that. Obama kept up outrageous spending matching Bush W’s worst year, for several years. He definitely spent worse than Bush W. Because GDP growth was slow, as a percent of GDP our debt hasn’t dropped yet. We will see how that comes along soon enough. Obama averaged 1.55. It Trump doubles that to 3%, and don’t tell me it’s impossible, then his tax cuts will lower the debt to GDP ratio even if the deficit numbers look bad initially as a number rather than a percentage.
“But, purposeful deficits can yield economic recovery.”
Yes, they CAN. Unfortunately, they never have.
What was that pesky definition of insanity again?
November 8, 2017 at 7:37 am
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Purposeful deficits will be exemplified for you to see and learn very soon. Patience, and MAGA.
November 8, 2017 at 8:22 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You may be right, and I hope so for the good of the country, but history is not on your side.
November 9, 2017 at 9:23 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Even from just a cost benefit standpoint if rates are low and you can get a bigger return than those rates it makes sense to spend. The govt multiplier is bigger than 1-2%, definitely more than 0 so it’s dumb not to. You don’t know what the multiplier effect is, don’t comment on it.
If the economy is down due to decreased aggregate demand, like the US after 2008,spending on almost anything makes sense, even with a negative multiplier at times, so more spending, particularly deficit-based spending makes sense according to almost all accepted, mainstream economics,if you want the economy to recover (which most Republicans did not). But you don’t know basic economics, or even what an average is, and lie about your degree, so I’m sure you have something uninformed to add, or a moronic quote from a cartoon, or can just scream “fake news” and cling to fantasy. Plus of course whine to IJ and get dissenting, reality-based comments removed.
November 9, 2017 at 9:27 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Purposeful deficits will be exemplified for you to see and learn very soon. Patience, and MAGA.”
This means literally nothing in context of the posts here. It’s debatable whether it’s even English. Purposeful defecits?
November 9, 2017 at 6:11 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What’s a ‘defecit’? Defect with an ‘i’ added typo?
November 8, 2017 at 5:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
” after the Republican Great Recession”
I could go off on the whole post, but I’m not in the mood. I will just emphasize this area. It was not the republican recession. Show your work, how did they cause it?
You constantly talk about banking during and before the recession and then don’t even know the basics about mortgage fraud, or even the CRA which you cite. You are a clown, go away, stop replying to my posts.
Oh really? What have I said about the CRA that you disagree with?
Seeing as you constantly misremember our conversations, and I just posted two in particular you remembered wrong by going back to the source article, I’m not prone to think you even know my position. I mentioned charter laws at one point and mergers, and how CRA ratings are crucial to changing your bank charter and or debt to capital ratios, and also, most companies that failed sought higher CRA ratings to expand, including WAMU. They committed billions and in some cases nearly a trillion to low income housing to get that rating. I can give several examples. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and no amount of calling me a fool is showing your work to how the republicans caused the recession.
Show your work, how did they cause it?
November 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also:
“You are a clown, go away, stop replying to my posts.”
No. You are in a public forum. I can reply to whatever I wish, so long as I reply reasonably.
However, you’re not permitted to constantly degrade me as you have. Stop playing the victim, and start talking normally. There was nothing wrong with my post.
November 9, 2017 at 6:16 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What doesn’t anyone here know about mortgage fraud?… that you know (secretly?)?
Why post here if you want to go unchallenged? Why not post on another forum that allows you to use BOTs to censor posts from others whose opinions you don’t like? With that ability, you can go unchallenged, albeit after a short time when a Conservative’s post hasn’t yet been BOTted into hidden status.
No one with any common sense, or with a historical perspective of your posts, is going to continue to follow you down rabbit hole diversions from the article topic.
November 9, 2017 at 8:24 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What banks? Name them. I asked once about the mortgage fraud you mentioned but got no answer. You can continue to run your mouth but you won’t be able to divert conversations into your rabbit holes – which is used in the proper context; i.e. a chase away from the subject. If you want to claim another usage is proper, go ahead and point it out and reveal yourself as a word parser. There are alternate meanings to phrases used by the public over time… it’s sometimes called ‘drift’.
November 10, 2017 at 11:08 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Are you denying there was widespread mortgage fraud by banks? JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Chase, Washington Mutual, and on and on.
Is word parsing bad this week or good? Seems like these only variable is whether you are doing it. I support word parsing to a point; people should make sense in their statements. I don’t think you know what word parsing is.
November 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Are you denying there was widespread mortgage fraud by banks?”
No. If you’re talking about what I believe you are, however, this fraud is not what lead to the collapse.
“JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Chase, Washington Mutual, and on and on.”
I have specifically shown the dollar and cents the CRA caused for all of these firms to go over board. It’s funny you keep mentioning them, because so have I, along with the commitments each made to low income loans. Also, Chase is WAMU you ignoramous, or it is now since they bought them after they collapsed, and JP Morgan is chase as well, you listed the same company three times!!! How much did mortgage fraud cause? I’ll give you the data on these companies you just mentioned:
I mentioned bank charter changes and sales and mergers are highly regulated. You have to get government approvals. A quick route to get an approval was through CRA commitments, conversely, you could be denied for that reason. So what did WAMU do in terms of this?
“In the wake of its takeover of H.F. Ahmanson’s Home Savings of America, Washington Mutual signed a $120 billion CRA agreement with the California Reinvestment Committee (CRC), the Greenlining Institute, the Washington Reinvestment Alliance, and other community groups. More than $80 billion of the ten-year commitment will be for single family lending to minorities and borrowers in low- and moderate-income census tracts. Low- and moderate-income borrowers (under 80 percent of median family income) will receive $30 billion of the loans. ”
Well, interesting isn’t it? They specifically targeted low income groups not because it was particularly profitable (the loans themselves) but because it allowed them to make a purchase. Also, that is a huge amount of loans. This is not uncommon. Fannie Mae announced 1.5 billion in commitments, they then targeted tax credit type of households for loans. This was not to spite the government, it was with the government saying “oh please do target them” that is not fraud, as shown in this report:
Really UW, you need to research more. I can prove companies who did what I claimed banking charter laws forced, I can show multiple examples, and the companies who failed.
“Is word parsing bad this week or good?”
Ooooh, Burn. I guess that’s all that matters right?
“Seems like these only variable is whether you are doing it.”
You have openly stated why you can do things I can’t.
“I support word parsing to a point; people should make sense in their statements. I don’t think you know what word parsing is.”
I won’t go over this. It wastes time.
November 6, 2017 at 10:26 am
Jack Kanauph says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This article confirms what RON is saying. However, it also shows the dollar amount each President increased the debt by, showing a much different picture.
Thanks. When someone is unwilling to confront the facts about BHO’s increase in the debt by about $10T, they turn the conversation around to PERCENTAGES – which seem relatively insignificant in relation to the increases in dollar terms or in terms of the GDP size at the time the debt was added to the national debt.
I used percentages based on Polar’s post. He/she said “doubled”. The only time the debt actually doubled during a presidential administration was under Reagan and GW Bush. The fact that we saw the 2 biggest tax cuts during those times may be a coincidence, or maybe not.
My point is that I am sick and tired of hearing people change their minds about the debt and deficits based on which party occupies the White House.
Polar, the debt went up $7.917 trillion, not $10 trillion. While that is still unacceptable, it is a far cry from the lie you keep stating.
Facts seem to actually not matter to those who support the orange man. When presented with facts they find icky, they just cry fake news. A very snowflaky way of viewing the world. Funny thing, the same goes for The Bible and Constitution. Just ignore the parts you don’t like, right Drumphateers?
If you want to say it didn’t double, so be it. It nearly doubled, and the increase was larger relative to GDP than for any prior POTUS. It is also the largest increase for 8 years.
The point remains: BHO grew the National Debt but didn’t get efficient economic growth because he didn’t sustain anything over 3% GDP growth for more than 1 Qtr.
Ron, I am having trouble remembering. Who was in control of Congress for most of Obama’s term?
How about all those budgets that they proposed and passed? Oh wait, they are the party of “no” and couldn’t even do their jobs to do that much most of the time. Utter and complete failures. The wave election precursor was tonight, but it is going to be a bloodbath next November.
November 8, 2017 at 8:00 am
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The beginning and ending points are nowhere to be seen in that article, so I doubt it’s validity.
Regsrdless; here are PCTG DEFICITS per GDP by year, 4 year term averages, and two term avgs for the POTUSes from GB Sr to BHO:
The above source comes from A LINK IN the source above.
The conclusion; not only did BHO run up the highest ever DOLLAR DEFICIT, but he also had the highest DEFICIT AS A PCT OF GDP of any recent POTUS. He didn’t double the deficit, but he caused the deficit to outpace GDP by a highly injurious leveraged amount.
This is like blaming the quarterback of a team who has a terrible defense.
Would you say that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Doug Williams were better QBs than Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Dan Fouts based on Super Bowl wins?
November 8, 2017 at 1:29 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, Ron. Rabbit holer!
A better analogy would be:
“It’s like blaming the driver for crashing a car when the passengers are in the back seat shooting holes in the tires.”
If Republicans didn’t want to increase the budget by record amounts (not record percentage), then they could have:
-Proposed and passed annual budgets
-Raised Taxes
-Cut Spending
-Be fiscally responsible in general…
-etc
November 8, 2017 at 4:12 pm
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You two aren’t very good at analogies.
November 9, 2017 at 6:18 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@DF: when Republicans were in control of Congress, BHO had the ability to veto their bills AND enact crap via EO’s.
So, my reply to your question is: Republicans controlled Congress and BHO had a pen and a phone, and vetoed EVERY bill sent to him which repealed ACA.
November 9, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Polar, when did BHO ever have a growth in GDP of 3% in his eight years in office? Everyone knows that growth in economic activity is the magic elixir for a healthy economy. Our great President thinks we may hit 4-5% GDP growth in the next few years with employment growth, companies bringing wealth back from overseas accounts, building new factories, creating jobs (new taxpayers) who will fund the government without so much deficit spending.
NOT ONE YEAR in 8. But one qtr was 3.1%, at the end, perhaps when businesses realized BHO would be out of office soon and wouldn’t be messing with the free amrket any longer.
November 7, 2017 at 3:04 pm
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Platitude; ‘IMPORTANT facts’ matter more than ‘just any trivial facts’.
They do not change their mind, you just don’t understand what they are saying and listen for hypocrisy.
High deficits with high spending, and low growth, are not similar to high deficits with lower spending, and lower taxes generating a deficit. These are not the same things. Republicans tend to complain about high spending deficits more than low tax deficits. There is indeed a dramatic difference. Also, Reagan’s deficit was largely due to a refusal of the left to cut spending to go with lower taxes, he negotiated, and you largely still chalk this up to republicans. Also, Reagan’s GDP growth was far better as well as job growth compared to Obama. I think we can state deficits from tax cuts, worked. Reagan and Obama are very comparable, and are opposites (Obama highly regulated the economy, raised taxes several times, Reagan deregulated, and lowered taxes substantially compared to before his presidency). Unlike Bush W, who came to office after a boom, Reagan and Obama both came into office at a low point and thus are comparable. Comparing Bush W to Obama doesn’t work, and are not equal scenarios. You may be able to compare Bill Clinton to Trump though with this same logic. George HW had an average economy. Clinton had a boom following this. Trump has a below average economy, if he has a boom it is at least more comparable than Obama and Bush, though not as comparable as Reagan and Obama, who are easily the most comparable you can have. Also, Bush W’s taxes and deficits are under a slow economic down turn. They didn’t cause the down turn, and the down turn harmed the deficits. The tax cut was not the source of the issues.
There are many things to consider, which you simply do not. As you said:
“My point is that I am sick and tired of hearing people change their minds about the debt and deficits based on which party occupies the White House. ”
And thus you ignore whether this tax cut will help the economy or not due to sheer ignorance on your end.
Knock it off. You’re not the logic hero, you have inconsistencies yourself (however much you think you don’t) and this is a weakness. It’s time to stop debating how much of hypocrites republicans are (group labeling, bigoted, you take it way further than others without logic and reason to back that up unlike Agent who is against the higher taxes democrats do support, you are misrepresenting what republicans do)
Bob, thank you for bringing me into the conversation. I am a Milton Friedman advocate and quoted him on this blog. Scroll down to read it. A very brilliant man.
I have heard of him, but my brain is too fried to pull him up in my memory banks.
I’ll look him up.
November 6, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The bottomline to the business tax piece is GROWTH! When you reduce business rate from 35 to 20 that means they have more money to spend for growth which means more jobs. Plus if US tax is similar to other countries that may mean US jobs come back here! As for the individual taxes… if the standard deduction is so high people can’t itemize, who cares!!! You are better off than before…
Demand is the ONLY thing that creates growth. I agree with much of the Republican tax plan , especially the increase in the standrd deduction and increase child tax credit. Those things put more money in the pockets of those who will spend and create demand.
I have no issue offering tax credits for companies that grow, hire, and/or increase wages above inflation. I just do not think handing them more money guarantees they will do that. If that theory were true, we would be experiencing historic growth in products and wages since corporations have been realizing record profits.
Most jobs left due to the cost of employment, benefits and regulations that protect the environment, not taxes. There are so many loopholes, credits and deductions available, only the companies with incompetent accountants and tax lawyers are paying the full rate.
@Ron; with lower individual taxes comes increased disposable income, thus, an increase in demand, albeit at a decreasing rate per unit of incremental disposable income.
“I have no issue offering tax credits for companies that grow, hire, and/or increase wages above inflation. I just do not think handing them more money guarantees they will do that”
We have not had a huge corporate tax rate cut, so you don’t know this. We do however though know that there is about 2.4 trillion located outside of the U.S. due precisely to the high tax environment here. They may pay a low effective rate, but that’s exactly due to the high rates.
We need a lower rate.
Also, to do with offering tax credits to companies that grow, they need the money first to grow and expand. You can’t say “grow” when they simply don’t have it. Also, you’re neglecting to realize the biggest companies that “grew” were financial ones, not big tech and manufacturing companies. This is a big point of contention. You are grouping together certain corporations with profits that didn’t expand to apply it to all. Big tech and manufacturing companies could invest and expand, financial ones probably cannot do as much other than with their investors.
If we do too much separate tax rates though, as you imply, based on capital or investment, or type of business, we run complexity issues, dodging, unintended affects, and “sin” taxes etc. An across the board rate should apply.
You complain a lot but you rarely have solutions that would work. I have said several.
Not true, Ron. Technology advances, usually through research, create growth. Dave is right in theory, but companies now are not spending extra money. It’s been shown over and over that a high number of technological advances come through government spending, particularly higher education/research grants. Those are being destroyed now. The Republican tax plan will tax fellowships, so Phd students making $20K or less, doing research, will have to count the “value” of their fellowship and pay taxes on it. It will destroy Phd programs and to a lesser extent masters programs in the US, which create a ton of innovation.
Companies now are not going to spend the money from tax cuts on research in any significant way. Study after study has shown it will go primarily to stock bonuses.
Why do people and corporations invest in research? Because they have discovered that there is, or will be, a demand for the final product. Why would any successful business spend money just for the sake of spending money? They need a return which comes from selling a final product for which there is demand in the marketplace.
That’s only true in some cases. In most large cases it’s for something else or because government did it. The internet for example was created for individuals to communicate and then funded primarily by government for non-monetary reasons. I think you are overestimating how much research is done by business.
November 9, 2017 at 4:12 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Good one Dave. The Progressives will never understand the concept.
Again, what about lower to middle class individuals. Where is their tax break? You all keep talking about businesses, rich people, even families. Are they being left out to drown.
1. Find the PROPOSED NEW tax bracket RATE for your taxable income.
2. Divide the std deduction posted on the 2nd side of the 1040 form you used last year by the taxable income. That yields an estimate for the 2017 Tax Year Std Deduction tax rate reduction.
3. Subtract the resulting rate in 2. from the rate in 1. That’s your NEW new tax rate.
4. Repeat steps 1. – 3. for your 2016 tax year.
5. Subtract the result in 3. from the result in 4. That is the NET reduction in your NET tax rate.
6. Consult an accountant if your tax situation is more complex than the average tax payer; polar bears do not provide free tax advice!
7. If you paid no Federal Income tax in 2016, beware! You may be paying this tax year (2017) because state and local taxes paid are not likely to be deductible for TY 2017. Good luck if you live in a high state tax rate blue state.
Stop with the liberal talking, er, squawking points!
Polar, allow me to quote one of the most brilliant Economists this country ever produced.
“I favor cutting taxes under any circumstances, and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible”. Milton Friedman.
A great American President said the following:
Governments’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. Ronald Reagan
“I favor cutting taxes under any circumstances, and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible”. Problem with this quote is that it contradicts itself with the last 4 words.
“Governments’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.” If this were true, there would be no standard deduction or working people with zero tax bills nor subsidies for profitable corporations.
A look at the winners and losers in the proposed tax plan.
Wow, what a slanted article.
Slated toward the truth? Please explain what you mean.
This is based on actual tax policy and CBO estimates. The CBO is a non-partisan office led by a George W Bush appointee. No matter how much some people want to say they are biased against Republicans, there is literally zero proof of that.
The CBO is biased against reality.
The appointment of the leader of CBO by Bush is completely irrelevant to the discretion and bias applied by CBO. Case in point; CJOTSCOTU John Roberts is a pseudo conservative. What is in dispute is the fairness and accuracy of CBO, not the appointment of its’ leader.
Slanted against the GOP/TRUMP. The well-off should pay more, so the Standard Deduction is raised to $24,000. This gives a break to the poorer. Mortgage interest for over $500,000 is not deductible. This doesn’t affect the poorer. There is more, so why does the writer put these in the Loser column when they are taxing the non-poorer?
Yep, if they disagree, the article is fake news or highly biased to conservatives.
You’re finally learning. Congrats.
You’re a real intellectual heavyweight.
Nope. I’m just smarter than the average polar bear.
Jack, any doubt left on where IJ sides?
With factual reporting? Go look up Reuters reporting record to see that they always base their reporting in facts, not pie-in-the-sky projections and voodoo math.
IJ lets you people who troll every topic with conservative newspeak. So they must either be pretty stupid or pretty laissez-faire with their moderation.
Reporting facts, even if they hurt your delicate sensibilities isn’t siding with anyone. Its doing their job.
Nope. Wrong. Not with factual reporting. There is biased reporting and unbiased reporting. Facts can be used in either approach.
@DF: If you had your way, BOTs would still be allowed to censor people with whom you disagree. That’s what happens in Soci… Communist countries.
So, if you prefer unobstructed publishing of your Socialist viewpoints, and strict censorship via BOTs, downvotes with alternating IP addys and email accounts, and government censorship, ….which won’t happen on a privately owned website in a Free Society (e.g. IJ), why don’t you move to Russia, Cuba, etc.?
Hypocrisy: Libbies are concerned with increasing the National Debt NOW after it was DOUBLED from $10T to $20T by Obama. (I expect at least one response to focus on the minutiae of the exact increase amount not equaling exactly a doubling.)
I did not look at the revenue projections, but they may miss the effect of a hyuuuuuge increase in GDP, at a growth rate on the good side of 4% after mid 2018.
BTW: I am categorized as a ‘winner’ in regard to the tax law change proposal. But, again, I’m NOT yet getting tired of winning. I’m getting a little bored with winning, but not tired of it.
Hypocrisy: Conservatives are no longer concerned with increasing the National Debt NOW after it was DOUBLED from $10T to $20T by Obama.
See, it goes both ways.
“I expect at least one response to focus on the minutiae of the exact increase amount not equaling exactly a doubling.” Funny how you like facts until they go against your narrative.
Facts regarding debt increases during the administartions of the past 5 presidents:
Obama: 68%
GW Bush: 101%
Clinton: 32%
GHW Bush: 54%
Reagan: 186%
Please remind under which 2 presidents reduced taxes under the presumption that growth would pay for the tax cuts?
These are facts, like ’em or not.
I think the bigger picture we should be focusing on rather than squabling about who added the most debt is the fact that every single president since Calvin Coolidge has ADDED to the debt. Think about that for a second…President Coolidge was last in office in 1929…almost 89 years ago. So for 89 years we have increased our debit & it has balooned in the last 15.
That’s like you charging stuff to your credit card every day knowing that you can’t pay it off unless your income drastically increases but you keep spending anyway. Both parties are a problem. The Democrats want write checks like money grows on trees and cut taxes on the poor and middle class while raising on the rich (which still won’t offset their increased spending and tax cuts on the vast majority of Americans). Republicans want to cut taxes across the board in a way the helps most Americans in one way or another but they can’t seem to get our spending under control either. You can’t lower the income you have and keep or increase spending…it is not rocket science here.
Thanks for your important perspective on national debt, its source, and its magnitude instead of PERCENTAGE increases measured against VASTLY DIFFERENT SIZE DENOMINATORS (bases).
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
What do you notice?
George W was president during pretty meh economic growth, and other than when the massive spending was done toward the end of his term what do you see at the debt as a percentage of GDP? If it was the tax cuts, those entire years would have been far worse, especially considering just how bad even the beginning and mid range of Bush’s economy was compared to Bill Clinton’s. Also, the only way you can get the numbers you did as percentages, is if you ignore all Bush W’s years but his last, and compare Obama to that. Obama kept up outrageous spending matching Bush W’s worst year, for several years. He definitely spent worse than Bush W. Because GDP growth was slow, as a percent of GDP our debt hasn’t dropped yet. We will see how that comes along soon enough. Obama averaged 1.55. It Trump doubles that to 3%, and don’t tell me it’s impossible, then his tax cuts will lower the debt to GDP ratio even if the deficit numbers look bad initially as a number rather than a percentage.
I’m not. I thought it should have been increased by more under Obama for a faster, stronger recovery after the Republican Great Recession.
Especially since interest rates were near 0% and at times real interest rates were possibly negative.
Interest rate levels do not justify reckless deficit spending to try to stimulate the economy.
But, purposeful deficits can yield economic recovery.
“But, purposeful deficits can yield economic recovery.”
Yes, they CAN. Unfortunately, they never have.
What was that pesky definition of insanity again?
Purposeful deficits will be exemplified for you to see and learn very soon. Patience, and MAGA.
You may be right, and I hope so for the good of the country, but history is not on your side.
Even from just a cost benefit standpoint if rates are low and you can get a bigger return than those rates it makes sense to spend. The govt multiplier is bigger than 1-2%, definitely more than 0 so it’s dumb not to. You don’t know what the multiplier effect is, don’t comment on it.
If the economy is down due to decreased aggregate demand, like the US after 2008,spending on almost anything makes sense, even with a negative multiplier at times, so more spending, particularly deficit-based spending makes sense according to almost all accepted, mainstream economics,if you want the economy to recover (which most Republicans did not). But you don’t know basic economics, or even what an average is, and lie about your degree, so I’m sure you have something uninformed to add, or a moronic quote from a cartoon, or can just scream “fake news” and cling to fantasy. Plus of course whine to IJ and get dissenting, reality-based comments removed.
“Purposeful deficits will be exemplified for you to see and learn very soon. Patience, and MAGA.”
This means literally nothing in context of the posts here. It’s debatable whether it’s even English. Purposeful defecits?
What’s a ‘defecit’? Defect with an ‘i’ added typo?
” after the Republican Great Recession”
I could go off on the whole post, but I’m not in the mood. I will just emphasize this area. It was not the republican recession. Show your work, how did they cause it?
You constantly talk about banking during and before the recession and then don’t even know the basics about mortgage fraud, or even the CRA which you cite. You are a clown, go away, stop replying to my posts.
Oh really? What have I said about the CRA that you disagree with?
Seeing as you constantly misremember our conversations, and I just posted two in particular you remembered wrong by going back to the source article, I’m not prone to think you even know my position. I mentioned charter laws at one point and mergers, and how CRA ratings are crucial to changing your bank charter and or debt to capital ratios, and also, most companies that failed sought higher CRA ratings to expand, including WAMU. They committed billions and in some cases nearly a trillion to low income housing to get that rating. I can give several examples. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and no amount of calling me a fool is showing your work to how the republicans caused the recession.
Show your work, how did they cause it?
Also:
“You are a clown, go away, stop replying to my posts.”
No. You are in a public forum. I can reply to whatever I wish, so long as I reply reasonably.
However, you’re not permitted to constantly degrade me as you have. Stop playing the victim, and start talking normally. There was nothing wrong with my post.
What doesn’t anyone here know about mortgage fraud?… that you know (secretly?)?
Why post here if you want to go unchallenged? Why not post on another forum that allows you to use BOTs to censor posts from others whose opinions you don’t like? With that ability, you can go unchallenged, albeit after a short time when a Conservative’s post hasn’t yet been BOTted into hidden status.
No one with any common sense, or with a historical perspective of your posts, is going to continue to follow you down rabbit hole diversions from the article topic.
What banks? Name them. I asked once about the mortgage fraud you mentioned but got no answer. You can continue to run your mouth but you won’t be able to divert conversations into your rabbit holes – which is used in the proper context; i.e. a chase away from the subject. If you want to claim another usage is proper, go ahead and point it out and reveal yourself as a word parser. There are alternate meanings to phrases used by the public over time… it’s sometimes called ‘drift’.
Are you denying there was widespread mortgage fraud by banks? JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Chase, Washington Mutual, and on and on.
Is word parsing bad this week or good? Seems like these only variable is whether you are doing it. I support word parsing to a point; people should make sense in their statements. I don’t think you know what word parsing is.
“Are you denying there was widespread mortgage fraud by banks?”
No. If you’re talking about what I believe you are, however, this fraud is not what lead to the collapse.
“JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Chase, Washington Mutual, and on and on.”
I have specifically shown the dollar and cents the CRA caused for all of these firms to go over board. It’s funny you keep mentioning them, because so have I, along with the commitments each made to low income loans. Also, Chase is WAMU you ignoramous, or it is now since they bought them after they collapsed, and JP Morgan is chase as well, you listed the same company three times!!! How much did mortgage fraud cause? I’ll give you the data on these companies you just mentioned:
I mentioned bank charter changes and sales and mergers are highly regulated. You have to get government approvals. A quick route to get an approval was through CRA commitments, conversely, you could be denied for that reason. So what did WAMU do in terms of this?
https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/report-silver-brown.pdf
“In the wake of its takeover of H.F. Ahmanson’s Home Savings of America, Washington Mutual signed a $120 billion CRA agreement with the California Reinvestment Committee (CRC), the Greenlining Institute, the Washington Reinvestment Alliance, and other community groups. More than $80 billion of the ten-year commitment will be for single family lending to minorities and borrowers in low- and moderate-income census tracts. Low- and moderate-income borrowers (under 80 percent of median family income) will receive $30 billion of the loans. ”
Well, interesting isn’t it? They specifically targeted low income groups not because it was particularly profitable (the loans themselves) but because it allowed them to make a purchase. Also, that is a huge amount of loans. This is not uncommon. Fannie Mae announced 1.5 billion in commitments, they then targeted tax credit type of households for loans. This was not to spite the government, it was with the government saying “oh please do target them” that is not fraud, as shown in this report:
htt ps://www.fhfa.gov/policyprogramsresearch/programs/affordablehousing/documents/fan_m_goals/2003/hmg_mae_-_2002_ahar.p df
Really UW, you need to research more. I can prove companies who did what I claimed banking charter laws forced, I can show multiple examples, and the companies who failed.
“Is word parsing bad this week or good?”
Ooooh, Burn. I guess that’s all that matters right?
“Seems like these only variable is whether you are doing it.”
You have openly stated why you can do things I can’t.
“I support word parsing to a point; people should make sense in their statements. I don’t think you know what word parsing is.”
I won’t go over this. It wastes time.
This article confirms what RON is saying. However, it also shows the dollar amount each President increased the debt by, showing a much different picture.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Thanks. When someone is unwilling to confront the facts about BHO’s increase in the debt by about $10T, they turn the conversation around to PERCENTAGES – which seem relatively insignificant in relation to the increases in dollar terms or in terms of the GDP size at the time the debt was added to the national debt.
Jack Kanauph,
I used percentages based on Polar’s post. He/she said “doubled”. The only time the debt actually doubled during a presidential administration was under Reagan and GW Bush. The fact that we saw the 2 biggest tax cuts during those times may be a coincidence, or maybe not.
My point is that I am sick and tired of hearing people change their minds about the debt and deficits based on which party occupies the White House.
Polar, the debt went up $7.917 trillion, not $10 trillion. While that is still unacceptable, it is a far cry from the lie you keep stating.
Facts matter.
Facts seem to actually not matter to those who support the orange man. When presented with facts they find icky, they just cry fake news. A very snowflaky way of viewing the world. Funny thing, the same goes for The Bible and Constitution. Just ignore the parts you don’t like, right Drumphateers?
If you want to say it didn’t double, so be it. It nearly doubled, and the increase was larger relative to GDP than for any prior POTUS. It is also the largest increase for 8 years.
The point remains: BHO grew the National Debt but didn’t get efficient economic growth because he didn’t sustain anything over 3% GDP growth for more than 1 Qtr.
Nearly doubled would have to be at least a 90% increase. 68% is no where near that.
Presidents do not control the national debt nor increase/decrease GDP, period. Congress controls revenue and expenses, and businesses produce.
Ron, I am having trouble remembering. Who was in control of Congress for most of Obama’s term?
How about all those budgets that they proposed and passed? Oh wait, they are the party of “no” and couldn’t even do their jobs to do that much most of the time. Utter and complete failures. The wave election precursor was tonight, but it is going to be a bloodbath next November.
The beginning and ending points are nowhere to be seen in that article, so I doubt it’s validity.
Regsrdless; here are PCTG DEFICITS per GDP by year, 4 year term averages, and two term avgs for the POTUSes from GB Sr to BHO:
1989 – 2016: GHWB: 2.7, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4; WJC: 3.7, 2.8, 2.1, 1.3, 0.3, (0.8), (1.3), (2.3); GWB: (1.2), 1.4, 3.2, 3.3, 2.4, 1.8, 1.1, 3.1; BHO: 9.8, 8.6, 8.3, 6.7, 4.1, 2.8, 2.4, 3.1.
Unweighted 4 yr avgs, 8 year avg, to one decimal place:
GWHB: 3.8
WJC: 2.2, (1.0) = 0.6 for 8 yrs
GWB: 1.7, 2.1 = 1.9 for 8 yrs
BHO: 8.4, 3.1 = 5.8 for 8 yrs
Source: https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
The above source comes from A LINK IN the source above.
The conclusion; not only did BHO run up the highest ever DOLLAR DEFICIT, but he also had the highest DEFICIT AS A PCT OF GDP of any recent POTUS. He didn’t double the deficit, but he caused the deficit to outpace GDP by a highly injurious leveraged amount.
Clarification; my source above comes from A LINK to the site I posted, which is in the story found in Jack K’s posts; i.e. https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Sorry for the confusion. Bear culpa.
This is like blaming the quarterback of a team who has a terrible defense.
Would you say that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Doug Williams were better QBs than Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Dan Fouts based on Super Bowl wins?
Yeah, Ron. Rabbit holer!
A better analogy would be:
“It’s like blaming the driver for crashing a car when the passengers are in the back seat shooting holes in the tires.”
If Republicans didn’t want to increase the budget by record amounts (not record percentage), then they could have:
-Proposed and passed annual budgets
-Raised Taxes
-Cut Spending
-Be fiscally responsible in general…
-etc
You two aren’t very good at analogies.
@DF: when Republicans were in control of Congress, BHO had the ability to veto their bills AND enact crap via EO’s.
So, my reply to your question is: Republicans controlled Congress and BHO had a pen and a phone, and vetoed EVERY bill sent to him which repealed ACA.
Polar, when did BHO ever have a growth in GDP of 3% in his eight years in office? Everyone knows that growth in economic activity is the magic elixir for a healthy economy. Our great President thinks we may hit 4-5% GDP growth in the next few years with employment growth, companies bringing wealth back from overseas accounts, building new factories, creating jobs (new taxpayers) who will fund the government without so much deficit spending.
NOT ONE YEAR in 8. But one qtr was 3.1%, at the end, perhaps when businesses realized BHO would be out of office soon and wouldn’t be messing with the free amrket any longer.
@Platitude; ‘IMPORTANT facts’ matter more than ‘just any trivial facts’.
They do not change their mind, you just don’t understand what they are saying and listen for hypocrisy.
High deficits with high spending, and low growth, are not similar to high deficits with lower spending, and lower taxes generating a deficit. These are not the same things. Republicans tend to complain about high spending deficits more than low tax deficits. There is indeed a dramatic difference. Also, Reagan’s deficit was largely due to a refusal of the left to cut spending to go with lower taxes, he negotiated, and you largely still chalk this up to republicans. Also, Reagan’s GDP growth was far better as well as job growth compared to Obama. I think we can state deficits from tax cuts, worked. Reagan and Obama are very comparable, and are opposites (Obama highly regulated the economy, raised taxes several times, Reagan deregulated, and lowered taxes substantially compared to before his presidency). Unlike Bush W, who came to office after a boom, Reagan and Obama both came into office at a low point and thus are comparable. Comparing Bush W to Obama doesn’t work, and are not equal scenarios. You may be able to compare Bill Clinton to Trump though with this same logic. George HW had an average economy. Clinton had a boom following this. Trump has a below average economy, if he has a boom it is at least more comparable than Obama and Bush, though not as comparable as Reagan and Obama, who are easily the most comparable you can have. Also, Bush W’s taxes and deficits are under a slow economic down turn. They didn’t cause the down turn, and the down turn harmed the deficits. The tax cut was not the source of the issues.
There are many things to consider, which you simply do not. As you said:
“My point is that I am sick and tired of hearing people change their minds about the debt and deficits based on which party occupies the White House. ”
And thus you ignore whether this tax cut will help the economy or not due to sheer ignorance on your end.
Knock it off. You’re not the logic hero, you have inconsistencies yourself (however much you think you don’t) and this is a weakness. It’s time to stop debating how much of hypocrites republicans are (group labeling, bigoted, you take it way further than others without logic and reason to back that up unlike Agent who is against the higher taxes democrats do support, you are misrepresenting what republicans do)
Bob, thank you for bringing me into the conversation. I am a Milton Friedman advocate and quoted him on this blog. Scroll down to read it. A very brilliant man.
I have heard of him, but my brain is too fried to pull him up in my memory banks.
I’ll look him up.
The bottomline to the business tax piece is GROWTH! When you reduce business rate from 35 to 20 that means they have more money to spend for growth which means more jobs. Plus if US tax is similar to other countries that may mean US jobs come back here! As for the individual taxes… if the standard deduction is so high people can’t itemize, who cares!!! You are better off than before…
Dave,
Demand is the ONLY thing that creates growth. I agree with much of the Republican tax plan , especially the increase in the standrd deduction and increase child tax credit. Those things put more money in the pockets of those who will spend and create demand.
I have no issue offering tax credits for companies that grow, hire, and/or increase wages above inflation. I just do not think handing them more money guarantees they will do that. If that theory were true, we would be experiencing historic growth in products and wages since corporations have been realizing record profits.
Most jobs left due to the cost of employment, benefits and regulations that protect the environment, not taxes. There are so many loopholes, credits and deductions available, only the companies with incompetent accountants and tax lawyers are paying the full rate.
@Ron; with lower individual taxes comes increased disposable income, thus, an increase in demand, albeit at a decreasing rate per unit of incremental disposable income.
That is what I just said.
Okey dokey. Want a cookie?
Since you have been trying to “edify” me for a while now, one would think you would be happy that I agree with you.
“I have no issue offering tax credits for companies that grow, hire, and/or increase wages above inflation. I just do not think handing them more money guarantees they will do that”
We have not had a huge corporate tax rate cut, so you don’t know this. We do however though know that there is about 2.4 trillion located outside of the U.S. due precisely to the high tax environment here. They may pay a low effective rate, but that’s exactly due to the high rates.
We need a lower rate.
Also, to do with offering tax credits to companies that grow, they need the money first to grow and expand. You can’t say “grow” when they simply don’t have it. Also, you’re neglecting to realize the biggest companies that “grew” were financial ones, not big tech and manufacturing companies. This is a big point of contention. You are grouping together certain corporations with profits that didn’t expand to apply it to all. Big tech and manufacturing companies could invest and expand, financial ones probably cannot do as much other than with their investors.
If we do too much separate tax rates though, as you imply, based on capital or investment, or type of business, we run complexity issues, dodging, unintended affects, and “sin” taxes etc. An across the board rate should apply.
You complain a lot but you rarely have solutions that would work. I have said several.
Wrong Ron, as usual. Too bad, so sad.
Not true, Ron. Technology advances, usually through research, create growth. Dave is right in theory, but companies now are not spending extra money. It’s been shown over and over that a high number of technological advances come through government spending, particularly higher education/research grants. Those are being destroyed now. The Republican tax plan will tax fellowships, so Phd students making $20K or less, doing research, will have to count the “value” of their fellowship and pay taxes on it. It will destroy Phd programs and to a lesser extent masters programs in the US, which create a ton of innovation.
Companies now are not going to spend the money from tax cuts on research in any significant way. Study after study has shown it will go primarily to stock bonuses.
UW,
Why do people and corporations invest in research? Because they have discovered that there is, or will be, a demand for the final product. Why would any successful business spend money just for the sake of spending money? They need a return which comes from selling a final product for which there is demand in the marketplace.
That’s only true in some cases. In most large cases it’s for something else or because government did it. The internet for example was created for individuals to communicate and then funded primarily by government for non-monetary reasons. I think you are overestimating how much research is done by business.
Good one Dave. The Progressives will never understand the concept.
Again, what about lower to middle class individuals. Where is their tax break? You all keep talking about businesses, rich people, even families. Are they being left out to drown.
DOUBLING OF THE STD DEDUCTION!
1. Find the PROPOSED NEW tax bracket RATE for your taxable income.
2. Divide the std deduction posted on the 2nd side of the 1040 form you used last year by the taxable income. That yields an estimate for the 2017 Tax Year Std Deduction tax rate reduction.
3. Subtract the resulting rate in 2. from the rate in 1. That’s your NEW new tax rate.
4. Repeat steps 1. – 3. for your 2016 tax year.
5. Subtract the result in 3. from the result in 4. That is the NET reduction in your NET tax rate.
6. Consult an accountant if your tax situation is more complex than the average tax payer; polar bears do not provide free tax advice!
7. If you paid no Federal Income tax in 2016, beware! You may be paying this tax year (2017) because state and local taxes paid are not likely to be deductible for TY 2017. Good luck if you live in a high state tax rate blue state.
Stop with the liberal talking, er, squawking points!
Polar, allow me to quote one of the most brilliant Economists this country ever produced.
“I favor cutting taxes under any circumstances, and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible”. Milton Friedman.
A great American President said the following:
Governments’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. Ronald Reagan
Thanks for that inspirational quote.
Let me say thanks by providing an equally wise quote from a famous American Philosopher:
“I never said most of the things I said.”
“I favor cutting taxes under any circumstances, and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible”. Problem with this quote is that it contradicts itself with the last 4 words.
“Governments’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.” If this were true, there would be no standard deduction or working people with zero tax bills nor subsidies for profitable corporations.