Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[healthmyths]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

 

[The Derp]

o you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!

You're the ones who were making those promises. Bush made them, Brownback made them, now Trump's making them. Without any qualifiers. Fact is, Bush never reached 3% growth outside of the debt bubbles he was building. Conservatives are kings when it comes to debt creation and deficit expansion. They are also the queens of under-delivering on promises.

The first four years of the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue below 2000 levels. The first four years of the Bush tax cuts lost about 800,000 jobs. The first four years of the Bush tax cuts had growth below 3%. The surplus was erased and you produced FOUR record deficits in 8 years (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009). You added more to the debt than any President before. Bush nearly doubled the debt after 8 years when -if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code- we could have had our debt paid off by 2010. You couldn't even do nothing right.

So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!

GDP growth for 2001 was still positive. Revenues, however, declined as a result of the tax cuts and the deficits would reach record highs in 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2009. You make all sorts of excuses for why Bush's trickle down didn't work, you make all sorts of excuses for why Brownback's trickle down didn't work, so why the fuck would Trump's trickle down work? All it's done is explode the deficit to over $1T "indefinitely". So after screeching about deficits during Obama, here you are defending trillion dollar deficits during Trump. It's exactly why nothing you say should be taken seriously and why you should never be allowed a seat at the grown-up's table.

So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!

Absolute fucking horseshit. All the market losses on 9/11 were regained by November 2001. The loss of life on 9/11 directly impacts the economy, how? Seems like you're just coming up with an excuse that doesn't hold any water. GDP for 2001 was positive. The market regained everything it lost about 2 months after. So there's no excuse for the shit economy of 2001 except for the fact that Conservatives simply cannot manage an economy under any circumstances. In fact, after 9/11, Bush said that the best way to fight terrorism was to spend in the economy. So that's what people did...they went into debt to spend in the economy. And even then, you couldn't achieve good growth. Why? Because your policy sucks.

Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%

So what was going on in the economy from 2004-7? Oh right, the subprime mortgage bubble. So here you are, crediting Bush for the growth from the subprime mortgage bubble that you blame on Democrats, Clinton, and Barney Frank. So if you are blaming them for the mortgage bubble, then you must also give them credit for the growth. That's how it works. Which means Bush and the Conservatives were completely useless, can't manage an economy, and are simply riding on the coattails of others.

That's all because Conservatism teaches people like you that you are never responsible for the failures of your policies. And you believe that because you're a sucker.

 

[Brain357]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

View attachment 176205

When have tax cuts ever lead to lower deficits?

 

[bendog]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

View attachment 176205

When have tax cuts ever lead to lower deficits?

Healthcare has some math issues (-: but to be fair the OP was that tax cuts don't always lead to lower revenues. And that is correct, assuming there is enough gnp growth to make up for the lowered tax rate. We are over eight years into an expansion. and while it's an historically weak expansion, I don't see much chance that cutting rates with 80% going to the 1% is going to give us 3-4% growth for several years.

The corp tax cut was a different issue. Not to defend how it was done

 

[Darkwind]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

 

[Darkwind]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Show me the politician in Congress who will vote for cutting the federal budget by one third.

 

[danielpalos]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

 

[Darkwind]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

 

[healthmyths]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

 

[Darkwind]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

To an extent. Those savings came about due to Trump's successful reduction in unnecessary regulations.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

We have a Constitution; there is no guesswork involved.

Congress is delegated the power to Tax,

to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[Darkwind]

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

We have a Constitution; there is no guesswork involved.

Congress is delegated the power to Tax,

to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Why are you making an argument I'm not discussing?

First, you determine what is absolute Constitutional spending, the priorities of that spending, and how much.

You THEN tailor taxes to meet those requirements.

These pie in the sky spending programs designed to keep a political party in power and garner votes should be illegal and people who propose them should be shunned out of Congress on ethics violations.

 

[danielpalos]

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

We have a Constitution; there is no guesswork involved.

Congress is delegated the power to Tax,

to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Why are you making an argument I'm not discussing?

First, you determine what is absolute Constitutional spending, the priorities of that spending, and how much.

You THEN tailor taxes to meet those requirements.

These pie in the sky spending programs designed to keep a political party in power and garner votes should be illegal and people who propose them should be shunned out of Congress on ethics violations.

why is the right wing so useless?

Providing for the general warfare and common offense is not included, without appropriate tax rates to pay for it.

 

[bendog]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

Now that's comical. We all know that eVERY president's budget is just a political exercise for headlines, and the gop just passed two years of trillion dollar deficits.

 

[Darkwind]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

We have a Constitution; there is no guesswork involved.

Congress is delegated the power to Tax,

to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Why are you making an argument I'm not discussing?

First, you determine what is absolute Constitutional spending, the priorities of that spending, and how much.

You THEN tailor taxes to meet those requirements.

These pie in the sky spending programs designed to keep a political party in power and garner votes should be illegal and people who propose them should be shunned out of Congress on ethics violations.

why is the right wing so useless?

Providing for the general warfare and common offense is not included, without appropriate tax rates to pay for it.

Why are you so ignorant?

When I say Constitutional spending, that means Defense. It is the single greatest responsibility the Federal Government has.

BTW, your continued misuse of the general welfare clause makes you look even more ignorant.

Let Me clue you in.

The Federal government provides for the general welfare by ensuring that the States remain on a level playing field and that commerce between them is above board and within limits set by law.

Providing for the general welfare is ensuring that the States are not so burdened by mandates from the Fed that they can provide safety and security to their citizens.

Providing for the general welfare is ensuring that other nations do not invade us with their dregs and drive down our economies.

These are the means and definitions of providing for the general welfare.

Not giving money to people. That is the responsibility of the States and in order for that to happen, the Federal government cannot unduly burden the States.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's end the drug war.

Right after we end the un-Constitutional spending found in our discretionary budget. There are only three things that the Feds should be spending on right now.

Defense (and our veterans), Department of the Interior (federal lands only), and government employees (which needs to be cut by 60%+)

All other spending is the responsibility of the States and if they don't want, or can't afford it, then they need to cut too.

We have a Constitution; there is no guesswork involved.

Congress is delegated the power to Tax,

to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Why are you making an argument I'm not discussing?

First, you determine what is absolute Constitutional spending, the priorities of that spending, and how much.

You THEN tailor taxes to meet those requirements.

These pie in the sky spending programs designed to keep a political party in power and garner votes should be illegal and people who propose them should be shunned out of Congress on ethics violations.

why is the right wing so useless?

Providing for the general warfare and common offense is not included, without appropriate tax rates to pay for it.

Why are you so ignorant?

When I say Constitutional spending, that means Defense. It is the single greatest responsibility the Federal Government has.

BTW, your continued misuse of the general welfare clause makes you look even more ignorant.

Let Me clue you in.

The Federal government provides for the general welfare by ensuring that the States remain on a level playing field and that commerce between them is above board and within limits set by law.

Providing for the general welfare is ensuring that the States are not so burdened by mandates from the Fed that they can provide safety and security to their citizens.

Providing for the general welfare is ensuring that other nations do not invade us with their dregs and drive down our economies.

These are the means and definitions of providing for the general welfare.

Not giving money to people. That is the responsibility of the States and in order for that to happen, the Federal government cannot unduly burden the States.

The Common Defense. There is no power to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

The general welfare is a general power not a common power.

 

[Brain357]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

View attachment 176205

When have tax cuts ever lead to lower deficits?

Healthcare has some math issues (-: but to be fair the OP was that tax cuts don't always lead to lower revenues. And that is correct, assuming there is enough gnp growth to make up for the lowered tax rate. We are over eight years into an expansion. and while it's an historically weak expansion, I don't see much chance that cutting rates with 80% going to the 1% is going to give us 3-4% growth for several years.

The corp tax cut was a different issue. Not to defend how it was done

Every time we have a tax cut that doesn’t decrease revenue there is lots of spending. Lots of military spending. Much of this spending goes to tax paying companies. This spending is why revenue does not go down. The spending of course is more than the revenue increase and the deficit increases. The repubs just passed lots of spending...

 

[bendog]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

View attachment 176205

When have tax cuts ever lead to lower deficits?

Healthcare has some math issues (-: but to be fair the OP was that tax cuts don't always lead to lower revenues. And that is correct, assuming there is enough gnp growth to make up for the lowered tax rate. We are over eight years into an expansion. and while it's an historically weak expansion, I don't see much chance that cutting rates with 80% going to the 1% is going to give us 3-4% growth for several years.

The corp tax cut was a different issue. Not to defend how it was done

Every time we have a tax cut that doesn’t decrease revenue there is lots of spending. Lots of military spending. Much of this spending goes to tax paying companies. This spending is why revenue does not go down. The spending of course is more than the revenue increase and the deficit increases. The repubs just passed lots of spending...

they did indeed pass 2 one trillion dollar deficits while we are at full employment, all time equity highs, rising interest rates and in an 8 year expansion.

Will voters remember that?

 

[Brain357]

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?

So you stupidly think that "Hey... it's now June 2001 and because the tax bill just passed the GDP will be immediately from this day forward greater than 3%"!
Are you truly that dumb?
So let's realistically see what happened AFTER the recession that started under Clinton and the Dot.com bust occurred after Clinton the reality of GDP GROWTH!
So you can't count 2001 as we had 911 occur remember that? Cost about $1 trillion and 3,000 lives but of course THAT had NO affect on the GDP!
Then 2002 GDP grew 1.8%... wait 2003 grew 2.8% What happened 2004?? Grew 3.8%... 2005... 3.3% (still greater than 3%!)..2006..2.7% will went down.. 2007 1.80%
But the predictions were meet! FACTS not guesses!

View attachment 176205

When have tax cuts ever lead to lower deficits?

Healthcare has some math issues (-: but to be fair the OP was that tax cuts don't always lead to lower revenues. And that is correct, assuming there is enough gnp growth to make up for the lowered tax rate. We are over eight years into an expansion. and while it's an historically weak expansion, I don't see much chance that cutting rates with 80% going to the 1% is going to give us 3-4% growth for several years.

The corp tax cut was a different issue. Not to defend how it was done

Every time we have a tax cut that doesn’t decrease revenue there is lots of spending. Lots of military spending. Much of this spending goes to tax paying companies. This spending is why revenue does not go down. The spending of course is more than the revenue increase and the deficit increases. The repubs just passed lots of spending...

they did indeed pass 2 one trillion dollar deficits while we are at full employment, all time equity highs, rising interest rates and in an 8 year expansion.

Will voters remember that?

I certainly hope so. Congress should be cutting now.

 

[healthmyths]

A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue

1. Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did. The tax cut passed in 1964, after Kennedy was killed and was called The United States Revenue Act of 1964...so right away you get basic facts wrong.
2. LBJ increased spending by 50% from 1964-1968. It was that spending that made revenue gain positive.
3. LBJ's tax cut was from 90% to 70% on the wealthy, which is a rate I'd be happy with today.
4. LBJ's tax cut wasn't weighted at the top for the 1%; the majority of benefit from those tax cuts went to middle class workers as it was a 20% rate reduction across the board. The majority benefit of your tax cut goes to the 1% and their pet corporations, and your tax cut actually raises taxes on those in the first bracket, going from 10% to 12%.

B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)

1. Inflation today is near 0%, so the Trump tax cuts were completely unnecessary and will actually cause inflation to increase.
2. The Fed policy of high inflation was set by Conservatives during Nixon who wanted to blunt the wage growth that unions were achieving for their workers; Nixon's Fed thought the workers were getting too wealthy, so that's why the Fed's monetary policy was to counteract that wage growth with higher inflation...which is exactly what is going to happen today.
3. So you're admitting that it was high inflation, not Carter policy, that caused the stagflation we saw. Carter actually had a higher monthly job creation average than Reagan did...higher wage growth on average too. And the prescription for solving the stagflation wasn't tax cuts, but rather a lowering of the interest rate by the Fed. So when you credit Reagan with recovering from stagflation, you're crediting the wrong person...you should be crediting the Fed with bringing us out of the recession in the early 80's, not Reagan or his tax cuts.

C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreasespeople in the following years are laid off. Meaning NO federal payroll taxes, or personal income taxes WHILE at the same time unemployment and welfare outlays increase.

Every time taxes have been cut since 1980, there has been a slowdown in revenue growth. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, nor do they increase revenue growth. In fact, both Clinton and Obama had higher revenue growth than Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Dumber, according to the Tax Policy Center Historical Federal Outlays & Receipts:

Reagan
Receipts 1981: $599.3
Receipts 1989: $991.1
Revenue growth: 65%

Clinton
Receipts 1993: $1,154.3
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Revenue growth: 73%

Bush the Dumber
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Revenue growth: 6%

Obama
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Receipts 2017: $3,643.7
Revenue growth: 73%

So Reagan and Bush cut taxes, revenue growth comes in below that of Obama and Clinton, who raised taxes.

WRONG!!!!!
Reagan had 15.9% growth in taxes revenue in 1982
GWB had 14.5% in 2006!

Get your facts straight!

FACTS FACTS...
of top 15 federal receipts growth GOP...9 years ....Dems 6 years.