government spending is part of GDP.
I remember during the 2009 crisis cons calling to balance the budget, cutting spending by $1.3trillion at $15trillion GDP. It was ■■■■■■■ insanity.
Two words, penny plan.
Isnt that where you cut 1% every year or something
Yes. Though republicans typically exempt defense spending from it, I would not.
That would require a freeze on spending increases though right? Per inflation…

His record over six quarters isn’t looking too shabby.
Is that the new metric? There used to be all sorts of caveats, technicalities, and goalpost moves to try to discredit Obama’s economic numbers. I’m not saying you did that, but rather you©. Now you© are trying to sell me on a totally new six quarter system? Neato!

zantax:
His record over six quarters isn’t looking too shabby.
Is that the new metric? There used to be all sorts of caveats, technicalities, and goalpost moves to try to discredit Obama’s economic numbers. I’m not saying you did that, but rather you©. Now you© are trying to sell me on a totally new six quarter system? Neato!
So I shouldn’t look at the six quarters he’s been in office? Kind of early to look at the two year results. What metric do you propose we use?

And they should have cut government spending by that amount or more.
Uh, that’s not tax cuts paying for themselves…

zantax:
And they should have cut government spending by that amount or more.
Uh, that’s not tax cuts paying for themselves…
No, it’s congress acting responsibly.

No, it’s congress acting responsibly.
Just want to make clear you’re abandoning your objections to those of us who say tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.

Oh I didn’t miss it, I just don’t know what the heck it was supposed to mean in the context of federal revenue because there is no way on earth federal revenue dropped by 5% of GDP.
sigh
2017 revenue as a percentage of GDP: 17.291%
2018 revenue as a percentage of GDP: 16.456%
(17.291 - 16.456) / 17.291 = 4.833%
GDP would have to increase by that amount for the revenue to break even. That’s before you even account for inflation as budget numbers are based on nominal dollars. So if there’s any amount of inflation, you’d actually be bringing in less revenue at break even.
Math is hard.

zantax:
Oh I didn’t miss it, I just don’t know what the heck it was supposed to mean in the context of federal revenue because there is no way on earth federal revenue dropped by 5% of GDP.
sigh
2017 revenue as a percentage of GDP: 17.291%
2018 revenue as a percentage of GDP: 16.456%(17.291 - 16.456) / 17.291 = 4.833%
GDP would have to increase by that amount for the revenue to break even. That’s before you even account for inflation as budget numbers are based on nominal dollars. So if there’s any amount of inflation, you’d actually be bringing in less revenue at break even.
Math is hard.
When you get to the last part of your equation you are no longer talking about a percent of GDP.

When you get to the last part of your equation you are no longer talking about a percent of GDP.
Well, ■■■■ . Math must be really hard.
GDP = 1,000,000
Revenue = 200,000
Revenue as a % of GDP = 20%
Now, let’s say revenue as a % of GDP drops by 5% (not 5 percentage points) to 19%. This would require GDP to increase by (1 + (1 / (20 - (20 * 0.05)))
—or about 5.23%—to produce the same revenue:
1,000,000 * 1.052631579 * 0.19 = 200,000

zantax:
When you get to the last part of your equation you are no longer talking about a percent of GDP.
Well, ■■■■ . Math must be really hard.
GDP = 1,000,000
Revenue = 200,000Revenue as a % of GDP = 20%
Now, let’s say revenue as a % of GDP drops by 5% (not 5 percentage points) to 19%. This would require GDP to increase by
(1 + (1 / (20 - (20 * 0.05)))
—or about 5.23%—to produce the same revenue:1,000,000 * 1.052631579 * 0.19 = 200,000
Went back and re-read your original post. My mistake, didn’t read it closely enough.
As a percentage of GDP, revenues decreased by about 5%. That means GDP would have to increase every single year at 5%…to break even. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They never have. They never will.
Obviously I read it as revenues decreased by 5% of GDP. Sorry.

adroit:
zantax:
When you get to the last part of your equation you are no longer talking about a percent of GDP.
Well, ■■■■ . Math must be really hard.
GDP = 1,000,000
Revenue = 200,000Revenue as a % of GDP = 20%
Now, let’s say revenue as a % of GDP drops by 5% (not 5 percentage points) to 19%. This would require GDP to increase by
(1 + (1 / (20 - (20 * 0.05)))
—or about 5.23%—to produce the same revenue:1,000,000 * 1.052631579 * 0.19 = 200,000
Went back and re-read your original post. My mistake, didn’t read it closely enough.
As a percentage of GDP, revenues decreased by about 5%. That means GDP would have to increase every single year at 5%…to break even. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They never have. They never will.
Obviously I read it as revenues decreased by 5% of GDP. Sorry.
Accepted, sorry for the snark.

Something you have to understand about Trump is that he doesn’t actually know anything about economics. He doesn’t know how interest rates work. He doesn’t know how tariffs work. He doesn’t know how trade deficits work. He doesn’t know what an inverted yield curve is. He doesn’t understand what the Fed does. He doesn’t really know what the national debt is. The list goes one and on.
How do you know what Trump knows?
Well, you have either the words directly from the man’s lips or the tweets directly off the man’s phone. Take your pick. Either way, it’s fairly obvious he’s rather clueless.
Because he wants to win in 2020 and more people will spend money if interest rates are cut.

Because he wants to win in 2020 and more people will spend money if interest rates are cut.
how do you figure?