Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?Why didn't liberals voice any concern about the national debt when Barack Obama was piling up more debt than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan combined? And what did we have to show for all that debt? Answer: the weakest economic growth since the Great Depression, the worst median family income levels in decades, and the worst U6 unemployment rate for an 8-year period in decades. Liberals were okay with that debt because it came from government borrowing and spending. Yet now, suddenly, liberals are screaming about the national debt because they mistakenly believe that tax cuts will cause a decrease in federal revenue and that therefore tax cuts will increase the deficit and the debt, yet history shows that federal revenue has gone up after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.
Anyway, let's just get some facts straight about the debt:
If the Republicans had not forced some modest spending restraint on Obama in his last three years, he likely would have ended up adding more debt than the Bushes and Reagan combined did in 20 years. The Republicans saved Obama from achieving that infamy, but Obama still piled up more debt than both Bushes did in 12 years and more debt than Bush Jr. and Reagan did in 16 years.
- Obama added $7.9 trillion to the national debt in 8 years.
- Bush Jr. added $5.8 trillion to the national debt in 8 years.
- Clinton added $0 to the national debt in 8 years.
- Bush Sr. added $1.5 trillion to the national debt in 4 years.
- Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the national debt in 8 years.
More info: Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
Yeah, they believe that, but it NEVER ACTUALLY WORKS. You balloon the debt and eventually you have a recession.
Not everybody managed their money as bad as you. Companies still had money to invest but nowhere to invest. Nobody knew what the big-eared joker was going to do next. Was he going to raise taxes on businesses, choke off our energy supply, attack banks...... nobody knew.
Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993 and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes. Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.Yeah, they believe that, but it NEVER ACTUALLY WORKS. You balloon the debt and eventually you have a recession.
Actually, you simply keep ignoring federal revenue data for the periods following tax cuts, which show that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut since the early 1900's. I have personally cited the dollar amounts for you, but you keep repeating your lies.
The deficit did not increase after Harding's tax cuts, nor after JFK's tax cuts, nor after Clinton's tax cuts. Why? Because spending was either held to a modest growth rate or it was reduced. Tax cuts never cause deficits. Tax cuts lead to increased revenue, every single time so far. Government over-spending causes deficits.
And are you guys ever going to grasp the difference between percentage and amount? Liberal talking heads, as they did with the Bush tax cuts, are going around citing the dollar amounts of the Trump tax cuts and claiming that the cuts unfairly benefit the rich. Only someone who never learned math beyond the grade-school level would fall for this phony argument. The issue is not the dollar amount but the percentage that people pay.
If a guy making $1M per year gets a 2% tax cut so that his tax rate drops from 30% to 28%, he saves $20K. If a guy making $80K per year gets a 10% tax cut so that his rate drops from 20% to 10%, he saves $8K. Now, who is paying a larger percentage of his income in taxes? Who is getting to pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes? The millionaire is only saving more in dollars because he makes so much more in dollars, but he is still paying a larger percentage of his income in taxes than the guy making $80K. Conversely, the guy making $80K per year is paying a much smaller share of his income in taxes after getting a 10% tax cut. Did you guys skip math in high school and college or something?
Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?Not everybody managed their money as bad as you. Companies still had money to invest but nowhere to invest. Nobody knew what the big-eared joker was going to do next. Was he going to raise taxes on businesses, choke off our energy supply, attack banks...... nobody knew.
Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Who do you think you're talking to? I was there, remember? Just like I was there during the Reagan recession. I'm not from another country reading this stuff out of a book.
And just how do you define strong growth? The slowest recovery out of a recession since WWII?
The growth that did take place were mostly part-time jobs, and the full-time jobs were not paying all that much. Typically when growth really is strong, wages increase as the labor pool diminishes.
The thing is DumBama could have been all that you try to credit him to be if he just thought about country first and party last. But he didn't. It was party first as is typical of the left. He had a great opportunity to really be one of the best Presidents we ever had,, but his precious healthcare nonsense was more important to him.
Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?Not everybody managed their money as bad as you. Companies still had money to invest but nowhere to invest. Nobody knew what the big-eared joker was going to do next. Was he going to raise taxes on businesses, choke off our energy supply, attack banks...... nobody knew.
Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Who do you think you're talking to? I was there, remember? Just like I was there during the Reagan recession. I'm not from another country reading this stuff out of a book.
And just how do you define strong growth? The slowest recovery out of a recession since WWII?
The growth that did take place were mostly part-time jobs, and the full-time jobs were not paying all that much. Typically when growth really is strong, wages increase as the labor pool diminishes.
The thing is DumBama could have been all that you try to credit him to be if he just thought about country first and party last. But he didn't. It was party first as is typical of the left. He had a great opportunity to really be one of the best Presidents we ever had,, but his precious healthcare nonsense was more important to him.
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
Great, more lies.Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
Clinton modestly raised taxes in 1993 and left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact, a fact that liberals always ignore. Moreover, Clinton also imposed significant spending discipline. Then, in 1997, Clinton signed a huge tax cut bill that massively slashed the capital gains tax, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption.
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
What? Uh, Obama cut taxes by over $260 billion as part of his 2009 stimulus package! How can you not know this? And, he left most of the Bush tax cuts intact when he signed tax reform in 2012. But, sadly, he also tripled the deficit by jacking up spending and adding $7 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, which is more debt than Reagan and Bush combined added in 16 years.
Yeah, revenue increased, but at what cost? The worst recovery in decades. Tripling the deficit. Adding $7 trillion to the national debt. A drop in median family income. The worst average U6 unemployment rate in decades.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
You keep repeating this lie. I've already cited the revenue numbers for the Reagan years. Revenue rose every single year after his tax cuts. And his tax increases were tiny compared to his tax cuts, which is why tax rates across the board were far lower when he left office than when he took office. How can you guys keep lying about this stuff?
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Gosh, this is nutty revisionism. A recession hit in 2001, and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were a pittance. Following his 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose by $480 billion in just four years and remained at well above pre-2003 levels even during the 2008 recession.
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?Not everybody managed their money as bad as you. Companies still had money to invest but nowhere to invest. Nobody knew what the big-eared joker was going to do next. Was he going to raise taxes on businesses, choke off our energy supply, attack banks...... nobody knew.
Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Who do you think you're talking to? I was there, remember? Just like I was there during the Reagan recession. I'm not from another country reading this stuff out of a book.
And just how do you define strong growth? The slowest recovery out of a recession since WWII?
The growth that did take place were mostly part-time jobs, and the full-time jobs were not paying all that much. Typically when growth really is strong, wages increase as the labor pool diminishes.
The thing is DumBama could have been all that you try to credit him to be if he just thought about country first and party last. But he didn't. It was party first as is typical of the left. He had a great opportunity to really be one of the best Presidents we ever had,, but his precious healthcare nonsense was more important to him.
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001.
You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?Not everybody managed their money as bad as you. Companies still had money to invest but nowhere to invest. Nobody knew what the big-eared joker was going to do next. Was he going to raise taxes on businesses, choke off our energy supply, attack banks...... nobody knew.
Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Who do you think you're talking to? I was there, remember? Just like I was there during the Reagan recession. I'm not from another country reading this stuff out of a book.
And just how do you define strong growth? The slowest recovery out of a recession since WWII?
The growth that did take place were mostly part-time jobs, and the full-time jobs were not paying all that much. Typically when growth really is strong, wages increase as the labor pool diminishes.
The thing is DumBama could have been all that you try to credit him to be if he just thought about country first and party last. But he didn't. It was party first as is typical of the left. He had a great opportunity to really be one of the best Presidents we ever had,, but his precious healthcare nonsense was more important to him.
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
From January, 2010 through January, 2017, 14 million full time jobs were added; while during that same period, part time jobs fell by almost 400K.
I swear, you rightards have cottage cheese for brains.
The recession ended only 2 months after 9/11. It lasted only 6 months. It was over in 2001. Meanwhile, income tax revenues fell again in 2002 and then again in 2003.As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001.
How do you figure that? We suffered the worst attack on US soil in history. The Clinton News Network disagrees with that statement:
Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001
You’re simply fucking retarded. There is no other explanation.You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?Oh, bullshit. First, we had strong growth in the Obama years...
second, the Great Recession was really a lot worse than you pretend it was.
Who do you think you're talking to? I was there, remember? Just like I was there during the Reagan recession. I'm not from another country reading this stuff out of a book.
And just how do you define strong growth? The slowest recovery out of a recession since WWII?
The growth that did take place were mostly part-time jobs, and the full-time jobs were not paying all that much. Typically when growth really is strong, wages increase as the labor pool diminishes.
The thing is DumBama could have been all that you try to credit him to be if he just thought about country first and party last. But he didn't. It was party first as is typical of the left. He had a great opportunity to really be one of the best Presidents we ever had,, but his precious healthcare nonsense was more important to him.
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
From January, 2010 through January, 2017, 14 million full time jobs were added; while during that same period, part time jobs fell by almost 400K.
I swear, you rightards have cottage cheese for brains.
You know, I always knew liberals lived in their own little world, but to look at that chart and say part-time jobs decreased is something I think psychiatrists all over the country should see.
Great, more lies.Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
Clinton modestly raised taxes in 1993 and left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact, a fact that liberals always ignore. Moreover, Clinton also imposed significant spending discipline. Then, in 1997, Clinton signed a huge tax cut bill that massively slashed the capital gains tax, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption.
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
What? Uh, Obama cut taxes by over $260 billion as part of his 2009 stimulus package! How can you not know this? And, he left most of the Bush tax cuts intact when he signed tax reform in 2012. But, sadly, he also tripled the deficit by jacking up spending and adding $7 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, which is more debt than Reagan and Bush combined added in 16 years.
Yeah, revenue increased, but at what cost? The worst recovery in decades. Tripling the deficit. Adding $7 trillion to the national debt. A drop in median family income. The worst average U6 unemployment rate in decades.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
You keep repeating this lie. I've already cited the revenue numbers for the Reagan years. Revenue rose every single year after his tax cuts. And his tax increases were tiny compared to his tax cuts, which is why tax rates across the board were far lower when he left office than when he took office. How can you guys keep lying about this stuff?
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Gosh, this is nutty revisionism. A recession hit in 2001, and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were a pittance. Following his 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose by $480 billion in just four years and remained at well above pre-2003 levels even during the 2008 recession.
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
I’ve already refuted that bullshit and need not repeat the smack down merely because you feel compelled that repeat your bullshit.Great, more lies.Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
Clinton modestly raised taxes in 1993 and left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact, a fact that liberals always ignore. Moreover, Clinton also imposed significant spending discipline. Then, in 1997, Clinton signed a huge tax cut bill that massively slashed the capital gains tax, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption.
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
What? Uh, Obama cut taxes by over $260 billion as part of his 2009 stimulus package! How can you not know this? And, he left most of the Bush tax cuts intact when he signed tax reform in 2012. But, sadly, he also tripled the deficit by jacking up spending and adding $7 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, which is more debt than Reagan and Bush combined added in 16 years.
Yeah, revenue increased, but at what cost? The worst recovery in decades. Tripling the deficit. Adding $7 trillion to the national debt. A drop in median family income. The worst average U6 unemployment rate in decades.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
You keep repeating this lie. I've already cited the revenue numbers for the Reagan years. Revenue rose every single year after his tax cuts. And his tax increases were tiny compared to his tax cuts, which is why tax rates across the board were far lower when he left office than when he took office. How can you guys keep lying about this stuff?
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Gosh, this is nutty revisionism. A recession hit in 2001, and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were a pittance. Following his 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose by $480 billion in just four years and remained at well above pre-2003 levels even during the 2008 recession.
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
What is amazing are assholes like you who think we need to borrow 1.5 trillion dollars & waste the majority of it handing money to those who don't need it & will have little positive effect on the economy.
Nobody is handing money to anybody. The money was not governments in the first place. Commies and Socialists think all money belongs to government, but it doesn't. Money belongs to the people that created that money.
If you want to boost the economy, only give the money to those who will spend it. That is boosting the economy.
How much you want to bet that wealthy people spend just as much if not more than you do?
'Trump is just handing big bucks to his rich buddies and duping dumbasses like you.
He is cutting taxes for most people. Again, he's not handing anybody anything.
Great, more lies.Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
Clinton modestly raised taxes in 1993 and left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact, a fact that liberals always ignore. Moreover, Clinton also imposed significant spending discipline. Then, in 1997, Clinton signed a huge tax cut bill that massively slashed the capital gains tax, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption.
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
What? Uh, Obama cut taxes by over $260 billion as part of his 2009 stimulus package! How can you not know this? And, he left most of the Bush tax cuts intact when he signed tax reform in 2012. But, sadly, he also tripled the deficit by jacking up spending and adding $7 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, which is more debt than Reagan and Bush combined added in 16 years.
Yeah, revenue increased, but at what cost? The worst recovery in decades. Tripling the deficit. Adding $7 trillion to the national debt. A drop in median family income. The worst average U6 unemployment rate in decades.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
You keep repeating this lie. I've already cited the revenue numbers for the Reagan years. Revenue rose every single year after his tax cuts. And his tax increases were tiny compared to his tax cuts, which is why tax rates across the board were far lower when he left office than when he took office. How can you guys keep lying about this stuff?
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Gosh, this is nutty revisionism. A recession hit in 2001, and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were a pittance. Following his 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose by $480 billion in just four years and remained at well above pre-2003 levels even during the 2008 recession.
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
No, they can’t. Isn’t that beyond obvious by now?Great, more lies.Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993
Clinton modestly raised taxes in 1993 and left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact, a fact that liberals always ignore. Moreover, Clinton also imposed significant spending discipline. Then, in 1997, Clinton signed a huge tax cut bill that massively slashed the capital gains tax, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption.
and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased.
What? Uh, Obama cut taxes by over $260 billion as part of his 2009 stimulus package! How can you not know this? And, he left most of the Bush tax cuts intact when he signed tax reform in 2012. But, sadly, he also tripled the deficit by jacking up spending and adding $7 trillion to the national debt in 8 years, which is more debt than Reagan and Bush combined added in 16 years.
Yeah, revenue increased, but at what cost? The worst recovery in decades. Tripling the deficit. Adding $7 trillion to the national debt. A drop in median family income. The worst average U6 unemployment rate in decades.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes.
You keep repeating this lie. I've already cited the revenue numbers for the Reagan years. Revenue rose every single year after his tax cuts. And his tax increases were tiny compared to his tax cuts, which is why tax rates across the board were far lower when he left office than when he took office. How can you guys keep lying about this stuff?
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Gosh, this is nutty revisionism. A recession hit in 2001, and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were a pittance. Following his 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose by $480 billion in just four years and remained at well above pre-2003 levels even during the 2008 recession.
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
I get it. Tax cuts always increase revenues so why the fuck don't we keep slashing tax rates every year & soon no one will pay any taxes & the government will be rolling in cash.
Your argument has NO logic.
The Bush tax cuts added to the deficit for over a decade.
Republicans suck dick when it comes to the economy.
Bush cut taxes & set us on the path to recession after a great Clinton economy.
Now you assholes are doing it all over again. Can't you morons learn?
Trump is likely to have 40 million more after the tax cut than he would have had without it.
That is handing him money.
Amd Jesus Christ you are a fucking moron. You give a person living check to check a tax cut & they will spend all of it.
Give 40 million to a rich person, what the fuck do you think he spends it on? The shit he couldn't afford before?
This is why you are such an ignorant dick.
Your article is from 2009. This is NOT 2009. We are NOT in a massive recession.Trump is likely to have 40 million more after the tax cut than he would have had without it.
That is handing him money.
It is?
So if you are my neighbor and you take your dog for a half hour walk the same time each day. Once a week I sneak into your house and take $100.00. After a while, I feel I'm doing wrong, so instead of taking $100.00, I only take $75.00.
Did I just give you $25.00 a week?
Amd Jesus Christ you are a fucking moron. You give a person living check to check a tax cut & they will spend all of it.
Give 40 million to a rich person, what the fuck do you think he spends it on? The shit he couldn't afford before?
This is why you are such an ignorant dick.
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/12/03/why-rich-consumers-matter-more
