JayJay
February 13, 2019, 2:19pm
132
adroit:
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.
BLS Data Viewer
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/recurringdata/51118-2017-06-budgetprojections.xlsx
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-01/51118-2019-01-budgetprojections.xlsx
No no…you just add and subtract, don’t you see?
What’s this baselining against the current state nonsense?
That sounds like an weenie liberal concept to me.
Next you’ll be talking about how we have to take inflation into account too, and that’s just downright comminist!
1 Like
Not just the CBO. Any analysis by anyone showed the same thing. And you know why.
Yes, the dems have few if any Paul Ryan’s. He was willing to compromise, but dem leadership stopped it. When will the dems put together a serious package.
JayJay
February 13, 2019, 2:31pm
135
Of course deficits were predicted. Absent draconian measures, deficits aren’t going away.
But deficits of the size we are having were not predicted absent the tax cuts.
Had the tax structure remained unchanged, the projected deficits were much smaller than the deficits we are seeing now.
Doubling the deficit in a growing economy at or near full employment…that’s called building in a structural deficit.
1 Like
JayJay:
Of course deficits were predicted. Absent draconian measures, deficits aren’t going away.
But deficits of the size we are having were not predicted absent the tax cuts.
Had the tax structure remained unchanged, the projected deficits were much smaller than the deficits we are seeing now.
Doubling the deficit in a growing economy at or near full employment…that’s called building in a structural deficit.
at worst tax cuts added about 100 billion a year… it’s not a static economy.
Either way, dems have the house.
adroit
February 13, 2019, 2:38pm
137
So, looks like you need more math.
The sequester, which started in CY2013, only cut about $42 billion in actual outlays in 2013 and following years [1] and we still increased spending a total of $52 billion from FY2013 to FY2014. The deficit went from $680 billion in FY2013 to $485 billion in FY2014 for a difference of $196 billion. Wait a second, 196 is larger than the 42 that was a result of the sequester. How did the deficit drop an additional $150 billion? Because revenues rose $247 billion from FY2013 to FY2014, showing that REVENUES had a greater impact to deficit reduction rather than spending cuts just like REVENUES are having a bigger impact in our deficit increase now. This is something that Republicans can’t get through their heads because their are cultists at the alter of supply-side economics.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf
3 Likes
adroit
February 13, 2019, 2:39pm
138
Cratic3947:
at worst tax cuts added about 100 billion a year… it’s not a static economy.
Either way, dems have the house.
No, they added $200 billion to the deficit. That’s indisputable. They dropped revenues as a percentage of GDP down to 16.4%.
Why did the GOP deny it when they were claiming the tax cuts would reduce the deficit? Or is this going to the obama “saved or created” phase?
I am so glad the Republicans did something about this when they were in control of Washington.
adroit:
So, looks like you need more math.
The sequester, which started in CY2013, only cut about $42 billion in actual outlays in 2013 and following years [1] and we still increased spending a total of $52 billion from FY2013 to FY2014. The deficit went from $680 billion in FY2013 to $485 billion in FY2014 for a difference of $196 billion. Wait a second, 196 is larger than the 42 that was a result of the sequester. How did the deficit drop an additional $150 billion? Because revenues rose $247 billion from FY2013 to FY2014, showing that REVENUES had a greater impact to deficit reduction rather than spending cuts just like REVENUES are having a bigger impact in our deficit increase now. This is something that Republicans can’t get through their heads because their are cultists at the alter of supply-side economics.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf
Nobody knew that economic analysis was so complicated.
1 Like
adroit:
The sequester, which started in CY2013, only cut about $42 billion in actual outlays in 2013 and following years [1] and we still increased spending a total of $52 billion from FY2013 to FY2014. The deficit went from $680 billion in FY2013 to $485 billion in FY2014 for a difference of $196 billion. Wait a second, 196 is larger than the 42 that was a result of the sequester. How did the deficit drop an additional $150 billion? Because revenues rose $247 billion from FY2013 to FY2014, showing that REVENUES had a greater impact to deficit reduction rather than spending cuts just like REVENUES are having a bigger impact in our deficit increase now. This is something that Republicans can’t get through their heads because their are cultists at the alter of supply-side economics.
Yes but that doesnt have a good political ring to it “only due to the GOP sequester!”. How am i supposed to remember all that fancy pancy analysis?
JayJay
February 13, 2019, 4:29pm
144
And they’re projected to add $263 B to the deficit over the baseline case (oh there’s that eeeevuhl liberal word “baseline” again) in FY 2019.
DOLOOP
February 13, 2019, 4:48pm
145
Best time to run up the debt is when the economy is going well.
That’s Trumpizm for you.
1 Like
adroit
February 13, 2019, 4:50pm
146
Exactly, and it’s this compounding effect that will result in the tax cuts alone adding over $2T to the debt over the course of a decade.
Federal revenue increased by 1/2 a percent in 2018… It did not go down.
JayJay
February 13, 2019, 4:57pm
148
This misconception has already been addressed…multiple times.
In this very thread.
You mean revenue is not up?
If revenue is up and the deficit is up… Must be something else. As predicted for decades.
JayJay
February 13, 2019, 5:00pm
151
Revenue always goes up unless there’s a recession.
Revenues are down from what they would have been had the tax laws been unchanged…thus contributing $200 M to the growing deficit…which will be compounded over future years.
As the math shows, GDP growth would have had to been in the 7% range for revenue to grow over baseline.
1 Like