The Liberal Excuse to Ignore Federal Revenue Increases After Tax Cuts

[mikegriffith1]

Well, predictably, when faced with the fact that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s, some of the liberals here are once again trotting out the silly argument that the "real" way to measure revenue growth is to measure its percentage of GDP and that therefore the actual dollar numbers don't matter.

I'm still trying to get a single liberal to explain in rational, logical terms how/why federal revenue as a percentage of GDP has anything to do with the actual revenue numbers themselves. It's an irrelevant comparison. But, let's take a look at revenue-to-GDP under the Bush and Obama recoveries:

First Year: Bush 15.6% (2004) – Obama 14.6% (2009)
Second Year: Bush 16.7% (2005) – Obama 14.6% (2010)
Third Year: Bush 17.6% (2006) – Obama 15.0% (2011)
Fourth Year: Bush 17.9% (2007) – Obama 15.3% (2012)
Fifth Year: Bush 17.1% (2008) – Obama 16.7% (2013)

Bush's revenue-to-GDP percentage would have been much higher in 2008, but the recession started in September of that year. Even so, it was higher than Obama's revenue-to-GDP percentage for 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Obama's revenue-to-GDP percentage did not top 17% until 2014; it did not match Bush's best year (17.9%) until 2015; and it dropped by nearly half a percentage point in 2016 (17.5%).

And what did we get under Obama's "recovery"? What did we get from adding over $7 trillion to the debt? The weakest economic growth in decades, a long-term drop in median family income, a gigantic spike in people on food stamps, the worst U-6 unemployment rate in decades, and more debt in 8 years than Bush and Reagan accrued in 16 years.

Of course, the percentage-to-GDP percentage is irrelevant in relation to the amount of federal revenue. Imagine this: Your boss gave you a hefty raise last year. But, your income as a percentage of GDP has dropped in the 10 months since your raise. So, you tell your boss that you want another raise because your income-to-GDP percentage has gone down. Or, imagine this: You think you're getting a decent raise for next year. But, your boss advises you that your income-to-GDP percentage has gone up substantially in the last 10 months and that therefore you don't need a raise. In both cases, the answer would be that the income-to-GDP percentage is a meaningless number in relation to how much income you are getting from one year to the next.

Revenue-to-GDP percentage
Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Obama's historically bad recovery:
Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery
The Reasons Behind the Obama Non-Recovery
3 Economic Facts That Counter Obama's Recovery Narrative

 

[Moonglow]

Still means nothing without budget reduction..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does not mean a thing without budget cuts.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Still means nothing without budget reduction..

It means nothing if revenue goes up substantially because the economy grows at a better rate than the weak, pitiful growth rate we had under Obama? It means nothing that taxpayers get to keep at least $1.2 trillion of their own money?

Yes, the government needs to bring spending down to the level of revenue, just like any sane family does. But in the meantime, I would rather see taxpayers allowed to keep more of their money than to leave that money with the government.

 

[Moonglow]

Still means nothing without budget reduction..

It means nothing if revenue goes up substantially because the economy grows at a better rate than the weak, pitiful growth rate we had under Obama? It means nothing that taxpayers get to keep at least $1.2 trillion of their own money?

Yes, the government needs to bring spending down to the level of revenue, just like any sane family does. But in the meantime, I would rather see taxpayers allowed to keep more of their money than to leave that money with the government.

Don't let them have it in the first place..Fool...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still means nothing without budget reduction..

It means nothing if revenue goes up substantially because the economy grows at a better rate than the weak, pitiful growth rate we had under Obama? It means nothing that taxpayers get to keep at least $1.2 trillion of their own money? Yes, the government needs to bring spending down to the level of revenue, just like any sane family does. But in the meantime, I would rather see taxpayers allowed to keep more of their money than to leave that money with the government.

Voo Doo economics, hey? Has not worked before.