Will the GOP Tax Plan help or hurt the Republicans in 2018?
When Obamacare passed it began life with a high approval rating. Once the GOP propaganda juggernaut kicked into high gear (along with some amazing, but temporary Dem incompetence), that approval rating tanked and stayed that way until the GOP tried to repeal it. Today, Obamacare is well liked by Americans.
The GOP Tax Plan is broadly disliked just prior to passage; in fact ONLY 25% of Americans like it. 65% if Independents think it will NOT help the Middle Class but WILL help the Wealthy.
With that as a baseline, the fact that the Ds will begin their own GOP-style propaganda effort, and that the 2018 election is only 11 months away, it would seem likely the GOP will get killed worse than the Democrats did in 2010. (Remember, even at its worse, Obamacare was liked better than the GOP Tax Plan is today.)I think you have to separate the two - The tax plan from the two year elections , Those seats generally go to the opposing party of the president for legislative balance ,I think both parties realize that need for consistency ?
The tax plan however WILL reelect Trump in 2020 , that's almost a guarantee guarding some other issue showing up ! You know how the incumbent generally has the greater advantage , lets face it THAT and the tax plan depend wholly on how the voters wallets are doing?
You think ?#UnpresidentTrump barely won when is approval rating was 10 points higher than it is now and running against a flawed (yet immeasurably more qualified) candidate. The ONLY people who will vote for Trump in 2020 are the 25 - 30% that are his die-hard supporters.
The rate he is going in tearing down and isolating America, I wouldn't be surprised that he loses one or two ruby-red states. Like they did in the resolution condemning America for reinstating the Cuban boycott, all but a handful of nations will condemn Trump for officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember back to the 1950s when America earned the title of Ugly Americans, but you are seeing the reemergence of that insult; also well earned.Yep - he's "tearing it down" all right. Lowering unemployment, raising wages, lowering excessive taxation, increasing protection from terrorism, getting rid of people in the country illegally, working on protecting our southern border from the invasion that has been going on through the last 5 or so presidents, refusing to kiss N Korea's behind...he just keeps tearing it down. All the crap that the liberals found reasonable and proper but was causing massive harm to the country.
Great! Let him continue, if that's "tearing down America".Yes, and Trump inherited a mess economywise.
Lowering unemployment. He lowered it from 4.8 to 4.1%, WOW. All he did was carry on what Obama started.
Lowering "excessive taxation". America has lower taxes than the rest of the industrialized world already. Even at 35%, corporations EFFECTIVE tax rate was around 21%, about the same as the rest of the industrialized world and they have a VAT tax that the US doesn't. WOW, I am impressed. (You didn't mention the extra $1.5 trillion in Debt Trump just added and that doesn't include the interest needed to service the debt)
What increasing the protectin from terrorism? At best he is carrying on Obama's legacy since we have not had a foreign terrorist attack since 9/11. WOW.
Obama got rid of more illegals that Trump has, WOW.
The last 5 presidents didn't push North Korea into accelerating their missile, nuke, and H-bomb technology and capability. NK launched 16 missiles from the 1st one in 1984 until Trump takes office. It has fired 20 more since he took office. Clinton got NK to agree to a moratorium of missile launches in 1999 and it lasted until 2004. Boy, I sure feel safer because of Trump ... NOT. WOW, I am even more impressed.
I am also impressed that the entire world has condemned the United States twice now in the UN, once for stupidly reinstating the Cuban embargo (hurting American industry in the process) and again with dangerously officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Oh yes, let us not forget pulling out of a very beneficial TPP and probably NAFTA as well as endangering the world by pulling out of the climate accord ... The ONLY nation in the world to do so.
Let's see, oh yeah, signing a tax bill that will raise taxes by 2027 on EVERY taxpayer earning less than $200,000. Very impressive.You think the GOP will be hurt in the mid term election? Perhaps, but my prediction is that all the imcumbents, both parties, will have a hard time. They are the insiders and part of the swamp. They will all be held accountable for the failure to repeal the ACA. In addition, the ACA will fail in about two years and then the Democrats will own it for they did not support the bill to repeal and replace...McCain will go down as the critical vote that left this mostrosity of a bill in tact.
The tax reform bill, though pasted by only Republican votes, is a much better bill than ACA. It will give the people more money in their pockets...and will help our businesses compete overseas.
make america first and MAGA.
"The GOP Tax Plan is broadly disliked just prior to passage; in fact ONLY 25% of Americans like it. 65% if Independents think it will NOT help the Middle Class but WILL help the Wealthy."
Do you think that is because of the lies, misinformation and partial tales being told about it, or do you actually believe the majority of the middle class is too stupid to do basic arithmetic?
You forget - unlike ObamaCare, this tax code helps those the most that are paying the most. It is not a simple giveaway, from someone else's pocketbook, as ObamaCare was made out to be. Greed, then, is a major difference, don't you think?That it is the problem with those on the Right, they think everything is so simple and cut and dried. There is no "basic" arithmetic that will help them understand the impact of this #GOPTaxScam. That is why any smart person needs to rely on unbiased analysis from the Tax Policy Center or the Joint Committee on Taxation Or even the right-leaning Tax Foundation.
But, to answer your question, no I don't think the middle class (me) are "too stupid to do basic arithmetic." I actually think they can normally tell fact from fiction which is why 65% of them think they will see little if any benefit from this law.
Give me examples of the "lies, misinformation and partial tales " that you are referring to.Well, maybe they're right. After all, all the projections are that 80% of the middle class will see lower taxes; that only leaves 45% (minimum) that are wrong.
#1: 65% of middle class will not see any benefit.
#2: Only the rich will get a tax cut. And corporations.
#3: The deficit will skyrocket, to 2T.
#4: Most Americans will get no tax cut or an increase.
#5 Trump's plan (as if he crafted it) will benefit only the rich.
That enough, or do you need more?No, the projections are that (based on the tax plan signed into law) EVERYBODY, by 2027, earning less than $200,000 will be paying HIGHER taxes.
What do you mean "No"? That IS what the projections are: that 80% of the middle class (that pays taxes, anyway) will see a tax cut next year.
But if (IF) congress doesn't extend the tax cuts, perhaps they will go up in 10 years. Of course, had Democrats been concerned about the middle class in the first place they would have made a large enough majority that those cuts would not have expired in 8 years.
But that has nothing to do with what people are being led to believe, does it? Nobody is concerned (except those with TDS) about 10 years from now, just what their bill will be next year.So you're not concerned with the deficit this may/will create in ten years, Dan. Is this the new conservative outlook under Trump followers?
By what means are you getting the deficit projections? If you are basing the CBO, you might as well flip a coin. They have been wrong on past estimates from ACA...
Any projections more than 1 year is totally useless. IMHOJack, I used to do the same job as the CBO for the Air Force so I know exactly what they are capable of and how to interpret their findings.. The CBO is mostly correct given the assumptions and constraints used at the time of their estimate.
It is unfortunate that most on your side don't understand how the field of cost and economic estimation works. Also, why do you believe a politician's claim that their corporate tax cuts will spur enough growth to cover the Huge increase in national debt as a result of this bill. I hope you say (so that you are consistent) you don't believe that either, or that there will be tax cuts for the middle class, since that is more than one year out as well.
BTW, the CBO WAS within their margin of error based on the assumptions and constraints that were available at the time of the estimate. They were also correct with their estimates (which kept getting better for ACA) as more data came in.So you are telling me you were part of the problem that created this mess of out goverment over the last 30 years....
It is that kind of funny government economics that created the deficits and over the top spending...and to call an annual buget increase a cut... zero based budgeting.
The CBO should be disbanded. If they were in the private sector, they would have been fired for incompetence.Every government entity I've ever known, local , state or federal ,mushrooms the budgets by 5- 10% a year in "capital-spending projections" for the coming fiscal budgets , and so spending too. Inflating every budget ever known to man .
And any and all military offices are some of the worst .Then why, ahorseback, did the deficit decline so much after 2010.
As to the military, that was my job, trying to keep the private sector contractors we hired honest. For the most part, until all of the personnel cuts in DoD, we did a reasonably good job considering what we were up against.
As to your "capital-spending" assertion, I checked it with Table 9.2—MAJOR PUBLIC PHYSICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT OUTLAYS IN CURRENT AND CONSTANT (FY 2009) DOLLARS: 1940–2018
- between 2010 and 2015 capital investment spending DECREASED by roughly 5%/yr.
- during the 8 years of Bush 43's term. it Increased 5%/yr
- take away the last year which included the recession, and the increase was a little less.
- during Clinton's 8 years, it was a Decrease of 1%/yr
- On the Spending front, Clinton's term - +1.1%; Bush 43's term - +3.6%; Obama's term - +0.2%
The source was Table 1.3—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–) IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 2009) DOLLARS, AND AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1940–2022
How does the above fit into your theory.
I'll ask you once more, Jack. Should we simply trust the cons estimate?
He's not going to answer you Randy, he can't.
Don't know about anyone else here , But I wouldn't ever trust the economic reasoning of a people who elected Obama , who then independently spent more federal money than all previous presidents combined !
Enough said. You on the left should avoid all political economic threads , totally ! Kind of makes you all look ........well we won't go there.I know Eso, looks as if Jack's going into the "ignore pool" of those who simply opine with empty words and refuse to answer questions. I refuse to waste time with them. I respect other posters of the Trump persuasion as they at least try to discuss opinions properly.
Sorry for not weighing in but I was at Malibu beach visiting a friend all day.
Some of us have a life outside of hubpages...
To answer your question, the CBO is inaccurate as we all know.
I don’t trust any projections more than 1year.
Laws changes, congress changes, economic fsctors changes...life is full of changes.
That said, the basic tax reform is good for out country at this moment in time.
If there will be a temporary rise in deficits, I am ok with it. Obama drove it up double our debt and no one on the left cared a damn...
Now you are worried about a deficit that is giving people back their money?
The incentive will hopefully increase our GDP, leading to more jobs and more people paying payroll taxes and thereby bringing more revenue to the IRS. It happened in the past under Kennedy and Reagan.
Trump is a businessman and a successful one at that. I trust his judgement on this topic more than Congress or financial experts or NBC analysts or Paul Krugman of the NYT.This is the last time I'm going to ask you the same question, Jack. Do you trust the cons estimate more than the CBO's and why?
I swear. it's a simply question, dude!
And you know Obama inherited a recession and two wars from the last trickle down administration, Jack. Imagine how good our economy would be if Obama inherited what Trump did. Did you vote for Dubya?It would take a moron for a president to not develop a war , however "left to him "....into an economic boom [war economy ]! Obama however ,managed somehow to spend more deficit in China than all previous U.S. presidents combined . Doubling the national debt . Must be your free Obama phone ?
Of course he hated America , has no use for patriotism and did all he could do to destroy America from inside out , I swear , he should be next on the Mueller list !
That just shows how much you don't know, Jack, although you still probably know more than #UnpresidentTrump
Just what "huge increase in debt" do you refer to? All I've seen is approximately 2T in 10 years; that's a huge decrease in the rate of rise compared to the last decade or so. Even disregarding spending our way out of a recession it's STILL a huge reduction in the rate of increase.
So you want me to trust the Cons estimate, Jack?
Looks pretty good to me - deficits of around 200B per year compared to 666B current. Where do you get the idea that deficits will rise?
Because the majority of the tax breaks will go to the stockholders who will simply buy more stock rather than create more jobs and higher salaries. You think that would do it?
And when did trickle down economics--or voodoo economics according to the Dems-- work like the cons said it would? Remember the mess Obama inherited from Dubya? Did you think it ended well for him, or Bush Sr., or Reagan for that matter???? "Because the majority of the tax breaks will go to the stockholders" is where you get the idea deficits will rise? You will have to elucidate further, especially as most stockholders will simply spend any tax cuts they get. The majority, after all, are straight middle class, and will get $1,000 or less.
What in the world does trickle down economics have to do with CBO estimates of future deficits? Are you making assumptions I'm not aware of?
I haven't looked around much Wilderness, but your numbers are confusing to me.
You have referred to the "new," annual deficit as being $200 billion annually -due to the tax bill, instead of the current $666 billion, a praise worthy decrease. But, the few articles I looked at had the tax bill adding, ($56 billion to $150 billion), to the annual deficit - not reducing it to $200 billion.
What did I miss?
GAI got mine from the CBO estimate that 2T will be added to the debt over the next 10 years. That's 200B per year, average. I recognize that it isn't static over the entire 10 years, but it's all I found.
Haven't seen your figures anywhere!
And will say that although I don't remember where I saw that, it WASN'T a CBO document, only a report from someone else saying that that's what the CBO reported. Could have been a complete fabrication, and it was before the final round of small changes to get the votes necessary.Well, I'm still foggy. In this response you are saying what I did - the tax bill will "add" to the deficit, not reduce it to... a number.
The numbers I used came from a NT Times article that gave a range of three estimates from the CBO and think tanks, that said the bill would add a ten year total of $500+ billion to $1.7 trillion.
GA?? If 2T is added to the national debt, over 10 years, it's a simple calculation to see what the average amount added is. 2T/10=200B per year added to the debt. That's a 200B yearly deficit.
That's actually the figure I saw - 1.7T added to the debt. Not to the deficit, not to whatever else the debt might increase by; 1.7T added to the debt that we currently owe. Which is a little under 200B per year being added to the national debt, which means we ran a 200B deficit.You do mean an "additional" $200 billion yearly don't you? On top of whatever the deficit would be without the tax bill? If so, then I just misread the point of your comments.
GANo. The national debt is $20T (close enough). According to the CBO we will have added $2T (close enough) to it in 10 years: it will become $22T. Not $28T {$2T (from tax plan) plus $6T (600BX10 of current deficit spending)}. Just $2T of additional debt, and assuming that each year is the same (almost certainly false) that breaks down to $200B per year.
Personally I don't believe it: while I understand that budgets should fit income, I don't believe our vaunted leaders are capable of reining in their spending impulses to accomplish the CBO projections. Nevertheless, that is the projection - and increase of debt (debt, not deficit) of 2T in 10 years.One of us must be misreading the debt projections. And since I haven't jumped into the details with very much effort, it might be me.
But... what I have read discusses the tax bill adding $2 Trillion, (just to stick with a round number), to our national debt - not that our debt will only increase by that $2 Trillion. If that is the case, then it is an addition to our annual deficit - not the total amount of it.
Here are a couple blurbs relative to the CBO estimates:
The amended House Republican tax plan will increase budget deficits by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the CBO.
It will also cause U.S. debt to rise more than current projections, the CBO said.
GALOL For sure, one of is misreading. Or mis-"interpreting".
I suspect it's me, for I haven't done an extensive search and the figure is too good to be true. Even for a politically biased projection it seems impossible. And like I said, I don't think it's possible to rein in congressional spending to the point it even might happen.
But I do stand by what I said; that is the CBO projection. I don't see "adding 2T to our debt" as meaning "adding 2T plus whatever the past projection was, to our debt". If it does, it's pretty good spin, for that is NOT what the statement says.It looks like you were right Wilderness, it does appear to be you that misread, or misinterpreted the CBO report. ;-)
Here is the actual CBO summary; from the CBO website:
The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation determined that provisions in the Chairman’s amendment would increase deficits over the 2018-2027 period by $1.4 trillion (not including the macroeconomic effects of enacting the legislation). By CBO’s estimate, additional debt service would boost the 10-year increase in deficits to $1.7 trillion. CBO’s June 2017 baseline projects that debt held by the public in 2027 will be 91.2 percent of gross domestic product. As a result of those higher deficits, debt held by the public in that year, under H.R. 1, would be about 6 percent greater, reaching 97.1 percent of gross domestic product.
Using your method, I bolded what I think are the phrases/words pertinent to our discussion. The consistent use of "increase," vs. "add or added" seems to be clear that it is an addition to something, not the entirety of the "something."
Also, if you look at the CBO report itself, you can see that the additional tax bill deficit costs are added to previously projected CBO deficit estimates.
Of course you can stand by what you thought the CBO report said, but the fact is that the report didn't say what you thought it said. It consistently used "increase" and not "add," and in a context that clearly inferred an additional sum, not a total sum.
In short, I couldn't find where the CBO said the tax bill would "add 2T to our debt." The only "debt" reference in their summary was to the 10-year, $333 Billion increase in debt service costs.
ps. The CBO report predicts a $677 billion deficit for 2018.. Increasing to a $1 Trillion deficit by 2021. Your $200 billion deficit sure would be nice if it were true. No wonder you were so enthused about it.
pps. “Never try to outstubborn a cat.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
GAYes, as I thought, it looks like you're right. Although I WILL point out that "By CBO’s estimate, additional debt service would boost the 10-year increase in deficits to $1.7 trillion." reads that deficits (amount of debt increase per year will become 1.7T by 2028. With a straight line progression, that's .85Tper yearX10years=total debt increase of 8.5T PLUS .7Tcurrent deficit X 10years = total debt in 2028 of approximately 35.5T (20+8.5+7).
That's what happens when reporters play games with terminology to convince readers that a lie is truth. As I never trusted the CBO anyway, it wasn't hard to believe that they said it.
But GA, I find it a little difficult how anyone can give any kind of accurate figure anyway. After all, [i]spending[i] gives the deficit, not income. Budgets are made, setting spending limits and defining how much the deficit will be with a given tax income.
We've now set the income (outside of variables like economic growth); after we set the budget we'll know more about the deficit, and at the end of the year we'll see how much we went over budget and what the deficit actually is. But it seems silly to give predictions of a deficit when the budget isn't even constructed yet.No argument here bud, I was just confused that several of your comments said the new post-tax bill deficit would be $200 billion - an improvement over the current $666 billion.
No worries, I think it's straight now. And you are right, I have seen 10-year cost estimates that ranged from $500 billion to $1.7 Trillion. That's quite a spread. Probably more like a guess - as you implied. And we both know how the term "budget" is used relative to government spending. Certainly not as we would use it - as in living within...
GA
Wilderness, I see you added in the caveat "NEXT YEAR", to your response (It was missing in the original). So yes, MOST (not ALL like Trump, Ryan, and McConnell PROMISED) middle class will see a tax cut in 2018. But in 2019 it will be fewer, and in 2020 it will be fewer still, and by 2027 ALL middle class will see a tax HIKE). So you think that giving you a dollar next year but taking away 10 dollars in 2027 is good law?
Are you telling me you take "IF Congress does something" as a rational that it will happen? Until Congress does it, you can use only what is on the table today to say what is going to happen in the future. To do otherwise is foolish or partisan.
I have no idea what you mean by "large enough majority".
And of course, the Rs are banking on the idea that taxpayers don't care what their tax bill is going to be 2, 3, ... 10 years from now. I think they are going to be surprised in 2018 when they pay the price for what they did this week.Ah, but your tax hike is based on current tax law, which is virtually certain to change before the 10 years is up. When has it not happened, after all - when have we gone 10 years without any tax law changes? That IS why I asked - because you seem to have a crystal ball hidden somewhere.
Are you unaware that the time limit was imposed to meet requirements that without a large majority of Senate voters it must end? That with only a bare majority it could not be extended further? That with additional Democratic votes it could have been?
Sounds like ObamaCare, doesn't it? Nobody cared...as long as they got their free health care (massive confusion between "care" and "insurance"), and certainly nobody cared that the system was completely unsustainable as written. But the Dems of the time indicated it was only a first try - that it WOULD be changed before it fell apart. Does that sound familiar at all?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0How about that " ........Too stupid to do basic arithmetic........ " . That about covers the whole tax plan obstruction. When a people are so entitled as to not recognize MORE governed entitlement packages ? Seriously , What else do you call it ?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
I look at all the charts , even CNN's, and in every category of income for "middle class" incomes , there IS savings ! Now , either those fighting it are too polluted by ideological deals or really ARE shallow on basic adding , subtracting skills . Middle class wins , yet true to liberal attention spans and the "history of now "believers ,we are all going to suffer . Interestingly , they used the middle class losses in campaigning the corrupt Hilary , Sanders , Stein , Warren , candidates ?
' ....splain that ?
Liberals don't give a damned about any cl ass but their own entitlement cl ass .How can it be a good thing when the GOP gives the middle class $1 in 2018 and take back $10 in 2027. That is what the #GOPTaxScam does. Another thing the Scam does is allow huge corporations to pay zero taxes like they did before the corporate alternative tax was put in place. More extremely wealthy will be able to pay zero taxes for a while as well.
Oh yeah, no tax cut in history during a growing economy as EVER stimulated measurable growth. So this huge, beautiful, non-historic tax scam will probably not grow the economy enough to offset the massive increase in national debt this law will cause.
Yep, this is a GREAT bill alright, lol.
"Die-hard supporters"? You mean people who do not want to admit what a mistake they made putting him in office.
Kathleen , you are one of the truly blind ones of the obstruction class . Explain to us all again just where the "Progress" part is in the Progressive Left ?
Oh , you are a believer in the "cost " of tax cuts right ?Progressive is:
- creating a public school system
- creating a public library system
- ending slavery
- giving blacks the right to vote
- giving women the right to vote
- making it easier for EVERYONE to vote, not just whites
- providing true Civil Rights to blacks after conservatives took them away after reconstruction was overI don't think your list would be considered improvements or achievements by him, Eso.
I have posted that list before and conservatives had the audacity to try to take credit for it (forgetting of course that until 1929, conservatism and Democrats were synonymous. As time past conservatism became synonymous with Republicans and Southern Democrats, The transition completed itself in the mid-1990s when Southern Ds were either defeated or switched parties)
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
How much does it cost to realign the previously Obama, administrated and then doubled national debt ? Does anyone fail to envision a little slack in the "train car effect " for a few years down the road ?
Or do you all expect Trump to write a personal check to China for Oh, $20 trillion or so, therefore paying for all our debts and Obama's too , kind of like donating his presidential salary ?I need to correct your revisionist history. The Truth is the Deficit/Debt started skyrocketing in 2008. It started its rapid increase from the accumulated effects of the Bush tax cuts (without corresponding increase in growth) and his two wars. They quickly accelerated with the effects of automatic economic stabilizers kicking in as the result of his recession. The final push was Obama's response in trying to stop a depression from happening. This rapid increase stopped in early 2011.
Now, explain this history for me. The public debt started increasing in earnest with Reagan at the beginning of 1982,
- from 1982 - 1994, Public Debt increased at an annual rate of 12.6%
- from 1994 - 2001, Public Debt increased at an annual rate of an incredibly low of 3.2%
- from 2001 - 2008 (Q2), before Obama was elected and had any chance to influence the course, it grew at an annual rate of 7.3%
- from 2008 - 2011, it grew at 13.7% (not far from Reagan's record)
- finally, and this sort of deflates your assertion, from 2011 - 2017(Q3) Obama obtained the second LOWEST growth of 5.6% (MUCH better than Bush, isn't it).
How do you explain that Bush did worse than Obama when it comes to increasing the Public Debt?
Oh, BTW, how do you account for the fact that China accounts for so Little of Public Debt. While they do own 30% of all debt held by foreign nations, they account for ONLY 6% of the total Treasury bills, notes, and bonds outstanding. Not so big is it now?Weww, what a line ,You call me a revisionist ? O-b-a-m-a can you spell?
"- finally, and this sort of deflates your assertion, from 2011 - 2017(Q3) Obama obtained the second LOWEST growth of 5.6% (MUCH better than Bush, isn't it)."
Uh, no. It isn't much better than Bush. Don't forget, if Obama hadn't doubled the debt prior to that it would have grown at double the rate, or 11%. WITHOUT having to fight two wars. And you might mention that after his years of Trillion dollar deficits, Obama managed to squeeze just one year under the otherwise highest deficit ever recorded, albeit it by only $20B, - the rest of his tenure saw it climb rapidly once more.How anyone defends Obama's spending habits is far , far beyond the left's sense of alt-reality . From George Washington and 42 more presidents later to G.W Bush's
combined , he topped them all and we still get to pay for his retirement !
There was no Obama intent there but the economic destruction of America I guess , along with constitutional destruction , race-relation accomplishment destruction , the annihilation of our foreign policy achievements , etc.........Now, now. The only known tactic to end a recession is to spend our way out of it, and he did that with a vengeance. Of course, he kept spending, but for that one year he followed tried and true methods that DID work.
Shame we didn't get anything out of that spending though. Past time we worked on infrastructure, built up the military, etc. Obama just threw it away.Someone should do a comprehensive study one day of his economic wastes ? I'll bet anything no republican could even match it for his spending habits .
I mean , How does anyone double the national debt ?
A unemployed social worker doing a REAL presidents job ?I don't know, ahorseback, try asking asking Reagan-Bush I who TRIPLED it or asking Bush II why he caused the Great 2008 Recession that (plus is tax cut and wars) is the root cause of it. After Obama solved the recession, his rate of debt increase is half that of Bush II and almost 4 times LESS than Reagan-Bush (and they didn't have a major recession to blame it on, it was all their doing).
Why aren't you castigating them who did a terrible job rather than criticize the man who saved America from arguably the worst depression in history. You ought to be kissing his feet out of gratitude.
As to unemployed social worker (which is a lie of course since he was never unemployed) you trust a neophyte president who has a habit of bankrupting most things he touches. (The only business successes #UnpresidentTrump has is selling his name to others who actually do the work of running the business while he takes the credit.)Which added more $$ to the debt? The 16 years combined of Reagan/Bush or the 8 years under the "spend it all!" president - Obama? You can even adjust for inflation if you wish.
There you go again, wilderness, trying to pull a fast one over a mathematician. As ALL mathematicians know, it isn't the Size that matters, it is the RELATIVE size and as a percent of WHERE THEY STARTED, the Reagan-Bush team spent TWICE as much as Obama.
(Yes, I made an arithmetical error in my calculations. The real numbers for rate of increase in debt is Reagan-Bush - 8.4%; Clinton-1.6%; Bush-4.4%; Obama (minus the Bush recession)-4.6%; and the recession-12.7%)
Congratulations , the left has actually turned the day into the night of economic-political reality , Obama shuffling into office 10 Trillion , and running out 20 Trillion ? But somehow to you that was a savings , uh huh ? I have some swamp I'd like to give you , free . Just pay the fifty thou in closing costs please ?
"... Of course, he kept spending,... " Try backing that up with some meaningful data, then people might believe you. As it is now, it is just an opinion piece.
http://usgovernmentspending.com/federal … chart.html
I'd say running an ever increasing series of deficits, deficits greater than we had ever seen, is indicative of spending, wouldn't you? Or does it not count if he just gives it away rather than purchasing something for the nation?Show me how the deficits were "ever increasing" when they weren't after 2011 when they became "ever decreasing" until 2017.
And since it is Congress that appropriates money, it is impossible for a president to give anything away. I presume you knew that or do you have #UnpresidentTrump's lack of knowledge of how gov't works to?Increasing...after he got off of the trillion dollar per year kick. They dropped to something half that or less, then began rising once more. All while remaining higher than ever seen before in this country.
Aren't you blaming Trump for the perceived deficits 10 years from now? Isn't that how it works - blame the president for everything?Nope, not blaming Trump for any deficits right now. That will come when his tax plan kicks in.
I understand you would have much rather had the worst Depression in world history rather than spend money to stop it from happening (in addition to the hundreds of billions that "kick in automatically because of Bush's recession), but fortunately, Obama had a much better, and in the long-run, less costly idea of stimulating an economy..
Also, in real terms, Obama's 2014 and 2015 deficits were smaller than Bush's 2003 and 2004 deficits. Sorry to burst your bubble.Uh...Congress, both houses, passed that plan, the plan that the Senate came up with and the House modified. Not Trump. But you'll still blame him anyway, which is what I said, isn't it? The president gets the blame when it goes wrong, and Obama gets the blame for his truly excessive spending.
"Also, in real terms, Obama's 2014 and 2015 deficits were smaller than Bush's 2003 and 2004 deficits."
Unless you're defining "real terms" as a percentage of the grossly inflated debt load Obama accumulated, that doesn't seem quite factual.
http://usgovernmentspending.com/spendin … 111mcn_G0f
But I certainly do applaud picking Obama's lowest values and comparing them to the highest, as we entered the recession and fought a war, of Bush's. That's what we all call "fair and reasonable", isn't it?Could also say that Obama fully realized his incredible early spending gluts and tried to stifle it in 2014 , 15 too ?
Possibly. Seeing what he had done to the national debt would shock anyone - maybe he actually tried to rein in a bit. Didn't work, though.
Trump pushed for, approved of, and most importantly SIGNED, that terrible tax plan ... he owns it.
I used "Real" in the way economist use it when comparing dollars across years, I thought you knew that. What "Real" means is "less the effect of inflation". Sorry. The chart you referred to is useless as it is in nominal dollars.
If by "truly excessive spending" you mean spending enough money to dig America out of what virtually all economists agree was going be the worst depression in world history, then Obama is guilty as charged, something he should rightly be very proud of. You should be condemning Bush for creating the situation that required Obama to spend that much.
Using your approach of comparing to GDP, which is actually a more meaningful metric (although the one I used is quite acceptable) the Obama deficit, even counting in some of the aftereffect of saving America, Obama's average deficit/GDP is lower than the average Reagan, or Reagan-Bush, deficit/GDP. You know Reagan, [falsely] vaunted as the economic miracle worker.Don't see any reason to argue what a president "owns" and what he doesn't. Mostly because he will own whatever the speaker finds good and will not own what the speaker finds bad.
OK, "real" deficits, adjusted for inflation. So I repeat: does it seem reasonable to pick Obama's two lowest years and compare them to Bush's highest number, while he was fighting a war? By that reasoning you should be comparing 2007 and 2009 or 20010.
"Excessive spending" - why did it take 4 years to spend our way out of trouble? Past years took one - why wasn't just one or two adequate for Obama? And Roosevelt gave us dams, the interstate highway system, etc. while spending our way out of recession, while Obama gave us...nothing. I can't think of a single thing all that money left behind - can you? But Bush did not create the situation; the recession happened because of liberal demands that people unable to afford a house get one anyway.
GDP-deficit; sounds reasonable, as long as one assumes that a continual accumulation of additional debt is proper. But without actually adding the numbers, I'd have to say that your claim of Obama's being lower than the prior 20 years or so. At least it appears so when looking at the graph:
https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spendin … as_Pct_GDP
*edit* went back to the graph and added all of Reagans and both Bush % of GDP to deficit, averaging them. 2.54% of GDP, on the average. Obama, using only his second term, was 3.77%. So much for the claim it was less than Reagan/Bush.
You guys might be interested in this https://hubpages.com/politics/President … he-Numbers , it is a work in progress.
BTW, did you even look at the your chart? It shows decreasing deficits throughout MOST of Obama's presidency, why is that? Could it be he did a great job?
You do understand don't you , ahorseback, that your hyperbole is based on alt-facts. You have virtually no reliable, provable, facts to justify your positions.
Related Discussions
- 15
Will House adopt the just passed Senate version of the GOP Tax Plan
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
The Senate jammed through their version of the GOP Tax Plan the morning of 12/2/17 with only one vote to spare since GOP Sen Bob Corker voted against it. To get 4 or 5 wayward Senators to vote for the bill, various types of pork had to be included in the final version (which was being written...
- 14
A Simple Flat Tax Plan by Ted Cruz
by Susie Lehto 9 years ago
It would put more money in the hands of the working class, and provide growth and opportunities. It would eliminate taxes that are ridiculous (example: Obamacare). It would end the IRS and Washing cartel. It would be post-card size filing, a real simple form. To me, it looks like what...
- 40
The DARK SIDE of the Democratic Party-Do THEY CARE About America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 months ago
It is not as much as an ideological war but a socioeconomic/educational war as well. The Democratic Party now represents the upper middle to upper class, highly educated populace. The Democratic Party has a covert disdain for the solidly middle class although the party claim that...
- 37
How is President Trump Destroying America?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Every day another news story hits the cycle about how President Trump is doing terrible damage to America and hurting the American citizens. The Economy is better than it's been in 50 years, unemployment is low, the Stock Market high, and the number of drone strikes & military...
- 99
Why Did GOP Tax Cuts Not Work?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
The GOP sold gullible Americans on the promise their tax give-a-way to the rich and corporate America would mostly benefit the Middle Class. Why isn't it.They said all of this money staying in corporate coffers would go to investment, more jobs, and higher wages. It has been six months...
- 17
What do Americans think of the Democrat & Republican parties?
by Tim Mitchell 9 months ago
How Americans describe the Democratic and Republican parties by YouGov (July 8, 2024)"A new YouGov survey asked Americans which positive and negative traits they associate with the Democratic and Republican parties. Each party is described as corrupt by 34% of Americans, and similar shares...