Sub 3% growth for eight straight years is the worst recovery in history.
Following today’s extremely disappointing US GDP growth data, we have the final nail in the coffin of President Obama’s economic reign. Not only is the average annual growth rate of just 1.48% during Obama’s business cycle the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949, he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.
Cool. When This admin breaches 3 percent annual then we can talk. He is on pace to stay below 3 percent the first half of this year as well
Then let’s have a toast. 
And that’s with retarded spending and tax cuts
There’s nothing “retarded” about the tax cut’s, quick puking up talking points.
I meant the high cost. It’s nit a talking point btw i am a lib i don’t believe in trickle down economics
It isn’t going to cost us a thing if the revenues exceed the cuts.
That’s a big if.
Not really since historically such targeted cuts produce more revenue than the total of the cuts.
This is a completely unsupportable statement.
The biggest problem is that it relies on a counter factual which can never be proven.
You have to prove that revenues are higher under the new tax cuts than under the previous tax system, which is impossible given we don’t have two countries to do the experiment on.
Give all the tariffs time to kick in, then get back to us.
It is completely supportable. What was the net for Reagan’s two terms? More or less revenue?
What was the net of Kennedy’s cuts? More or less revenue?
I agree but something had to be done because we were losing our business base overseas. Hopefully many companies will repatriate their money back into our economy and tax base?
Revenues almos always go up. The question you have to answer is did revenue go up more than if the tax cut has not been enacted. That can only be looked at with various statistical means which are not 100% accurate. There are very few, fringe economists, that think tax cuts actually produce more revenue outside of extreme circumstances which don’t apply to our economy.
There were large tax INCREASES during Reagan’s two terms, plus fiscal policy changes at the same time.
You make the mistake of assuming only one variable changed.
The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year. There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.
The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government receipts. You can’t argue with history!
Obama increased tax revenue from $2.10trillion to $3.27trillion
MAAAGGGAAA
The net of Reagan’s tax policy was all on the side of the cuts while revenues went through the roof.
