Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[Dad2three]

Sure they did Bubba, that's why he had 11 new 'revenue enhancers' INCLUDING increasing SS taxes by 60%


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue


One must keep in mind that revenues will rise virtually every year because of inflation, expansion of the job market, and increased productivity. During the period from 1976 to 2007, revenue increased at an average of 7.3%. The highest growth in revenue occurred in 1977, when revenues increased 19.3%. Other years with increases of over 10% are 1977-1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 2000. (REAGAN 11 TAX INCREASES???)

Years with negative revenue growth are 1983, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with 2002 taking in just 93.1% of the revenue received in 2001. These years coincide with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and show that, in the short run, tax cuts reduce revenue.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

SO CONGRESS CONTROLS SPENDING AND IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT THE OBAMA DEFICIT??? LOL

And the GOP hasn't had the House for 4 years???lol



Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Reagan's $1.6 trillion was awful. And all we got was a victory in the Cold War.
Obama added $7.4 trillion, so far, and what have we won?

Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”
Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Economist Mike Kimel has noted that the former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness

Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, observed a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt) and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)


David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast"


2001 vs. 2011


In June 2012, the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011, the budget office said, could be attributed largely to:

• $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession) (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $1.5 trillion – Increased non-defense discretionary spending
• $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (DUBYA)
  
• $1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $0.9 trillion – Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010

Changes in CBO s Baseline Projections Since January 2001 Congressional Budget Office


So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama

Does Obama have the 8216 worst 8217 record of any president on the national debt - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

As the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy



The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.

 

[Dad2three]

Only stupid Libtards would think that a country that raises $3 trillion in Federal tax money, borrows almost another trillion a year and raises another $2.5 trillion in state and local taxes doesn't have enough money to pay for roads without raising more taxes.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Well I guess using conservative 'math' you might be correct, everyone else looks at CONTEXT and the size of the economy and where money goes


Republicans talk about the deficit, but more than three quarters of the budget is basically social security, medicare, defense and debt service. the president touches anything and he gets criticized for that, too.

 

[Dad2three]

They are no more punative than they were under Eisenhower and yet his economy flourished.

That's pretty damn putative. If you want to bring back the same economic conditions that existed during the Eisenhower era you'll have to bomb the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

Workers earn their money also. Most say moreso than the wealthy. Warren is just advocating that they should keep more of what they earn

They haven't "earned" anything that isn't the result of a voluntary transaction. Warren intends to impose force into the transaction between employer and employee. That's more akin to the kind of transaction that occurs during an armed robbery.

No moron, force and fear are the elements of an armed robbery, as well as the use of a weapon.

The IRS doesn't use force and fear?

The force of law, not violent force. And you wonder why I consider you a dishonest moron.

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Typing moronic ideas in really big fonts does not make them less moronic

Got it, typical right winger wants to treat Gov't like a family budget, lol

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Dad2three]

Elizabeth Warren says "America's middle class is in deep trouble."

this is because liberals have attacked the middle class with the highest corporate taxes in the world and by making labor unions legal. Just those two have driven 30 million jobs off shore.

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High ThinkProgress




Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High


So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

 

[Dad2three]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent.

Real revenues increased by 24% AND the people got to keep an additional 1.1% of GDP?

Win-Win!!!

You can do that if government grows less than GDP.

Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?

Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Vigilante]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

 

[Dad2three]

[


Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

That is the business of the Romney's, not mine. Stop being so greedy. If you are going to bother yourself with class envy then look at John Kerry. That is a rich bastard. I don't see you bitching about the filthy Kennedys or that asshole George Soros, who has more overseas accounts than Carter has Liver Pills.

Every cent paid to every government employee is either taken from a person who earned it or taken from our children if borrowed money.

The money would have been used in the productive economy or used by however the person that earned wanted it to be used.

You don't create jackshit by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. That simple fact of economics seems to escape the mind of all Moon Bats.

"John Kerry,Kennedys, George Soros"


Those guys supporting going back to higher tax rates? How horrible of them.

They must want 'class warfare' right? They must be envious too? lol

Warren Buffett’s:

Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won.

There rsquo s been class warfare for the last 20 years and my class has won rsquo - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


HE MUST BE ENVIOUS TOO RIGHT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

 

[initforme]

While she may give lip service about trickle down and how basically nothing trickles down, its hard to believe that she really cares. Why is there no politician who comes out and says "first we take care of middle class"? Instead, all politicians expect the middle class to "sacrifice" for the good of the country. Perhaps middle class workers aren't that smart and the politicians know it.

 

[Dad2three]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,

WHILE DUBYA/GOP POLICY WAS TANKING THE ECONOMY, 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008, LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS IN 2009!!!


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left

 

[Vigilante]

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

 

[Dad2three]

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan tax cuts boomed the US economy and money poured into the federal coffers.

Sucks to be you.

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

SO CONGRESS CONTROLS SPENDING AND IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT THE OBAMA DEFICIT??? LOL

And the GOP hasn't had the House for 4 years???lol



Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Reagan's $1.6 trillion was awful. And all we got was a victory in the Cold War.
Obama added $7.4 trillion, so far, and what have we won?

Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”
Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Economist Mike Kimel has noted that the former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness

Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, observed a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt) and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)


David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast"


2001 vs. 2011


In June 2012, the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011, the budget office said, could be attributed largely to:

• $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession) (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $1.5 trillion – Increased non-defense discretionary spending
• $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (DUBYA)
  
• $1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances (DUBYA/GOP)
  
• $0.9 trillion – Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010

Changes in CBO s Baseline Projections Since January 2001 Congressional Budget Office


So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama

Does Obama have the 8216 worst 8217 record of any president on the national debt - The Washington Post

the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011

Well shit, when you base your estimate on an unsustainable bubble peak, you're going to get ridiculous projections.

Why don't we take a 10 year estimate of the budget from 2006-2016?
Then we can blame the shortfall on Obama.

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context,

I know, $1.9 trillion, horrible.
$7.4 trillion, so far, not so bad. LOL!
Liberal logic.....and math......is funny.

 

[Vigilante]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,

WHILE DUBYA/GOP POLICY WAS TANKING THE ECONOMY, 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008, LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS IN 2009!!!


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left[/QUOTE
Which is it ,,,, your Filibuster-proof Majority for 60 working days, OR your link to veto

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE

I know, Obumble lied!

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama's FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

 

[Vigilante]

Caught in another LIE!