Yes, what a weird spin.
1 Like
That…is…not…the…proper…way…to…do…the…math.
I already told you the big flaw in the FY 2018 numbers Othat’s just one flaw, but it’s the most stark.
And the 2019 numbers are irrelevant as they are an ESTIMATE.
You want to learn, I’ll teach you.
If not…oh well.
1 Like
Yes, that’s the proper way to do math.
To compare numbers you subtract the smaller from the lager and look at the result.
What is the largest of the three? 2017, 2018, or 2019?
So Trump is going to make my great grandkids pay for those tax cuts
1 Like
No…it is not the proper way to do math when the problem is beyond simple addition and subtraction.
It’s not a single-factor problem.
I guess understanding complex business problems wasn’t something you could fit in after getting your degrees in law, immunology, physics, climatology, and…well I know you were in the military but I forgot what else you were an expert in…there’s so many things…
3 Likes
Yes, it’s that simple. Either revenues are up or down. According to those figures are revenues up or down? It’s a simple question with a very easy answer.
Don’t worry, the planet is going to end in 12 years according to the Occasional Cortex so your grand kids have no worries.
But i was assured the feedom cacaus would get spending in check
Lol. People, WR doesn’t know what a baseline is.
I bet WR thinks the tax cuts paid for themselves 
“Baseline”?
Did revenues increase over that time period or not?
Deficits were going down until the tax cuts were passed.
Yeah, baseline. You know, what you use to compare the outcomes of two different pieces of legislation. The baseline is what revenues would have been given the status quo and you compare what the revenues were with the new tax law compared to that baseline. Revenues would have been $200 billion higher with a more modest GDP growth prior to the tax cuts…because math.
What else happened over the last year and a half that might have an impact there? Let’s look at interest rates shall we? How about total expenditures?
That’s a chart showing the deficit as a % of GDP. You can not use that to claim the deficit itself is larger or smaller unless you know the GDP.
There is a better chart in this article:
I showed both.
2018 budget deal.
What, did trump and the GOP not know they were going to increase spending? Are they not to blame for cutting taxes in the face of their planned increased spending?
Sorry - must not have followed the thread back far enough.
The audacity to call what I said a fabrication, based on actual facts (I’ll get to this in a second), and then you follow it up with this utter and complete ■■■■■■■■■ We’d be millions of jobs in the hole? The ■■■■■ You think we would have gone into a recession without the tax cuts? That’s absurd. Even if you attribute ALL new jobs compared to 2017 to the tax cuts, that’d result in only 521,000 additional jobs [1].
If you look at the baseline budget projection in June 2017, the CBO estimated FY2018 revenues to be 3,531 billion, or 17.7% of GDP [2]. This percentage of GDP is in line with previous years. After the tax cuts, we brought in 3,329 billion or 16.4% of GDP [3]. You see, that’s what happens with tax cuts, they lower revenue as a percentage of GDP, and if the GDP doesn’t grow in proportion to what you cut them by, you get less revenue than THE ■■■■■■■ BASELINE.
So, math:
(17.7 - 16.4) / 17.7 = 7.3%
GDP would have had to rise by a nominal rate of 7.3%. Guess what, it didn’t.
2 Likes
