Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[AntonToo]

Tarp was put into play by George bush administration. Obama had nothing to do with it. More rewriting of history

Hey dummy!

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!
BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!
But did that stop Obama from running up $9 Trillion in additional debt and for WHAT???

Hey dummy! What did Obama spend 9 Trillion on?

I keep asking this simple question and there is NEVER any answer.

Why do you think that is?

Spoiler

Because you are full of shit

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

View attachment 176342

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion. Bear in mind, discretionary spending at 1.2 trillion is half as much as mandatory socialist spending.


Entitlement Spending — considered as government pensions, healthcare and welfare — started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 2.81, entitlement spending was negligible until the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Chart Key:

- Welfare spending

- Healthcare spending

- Pension spending
In response to the Great Depression President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked up welfare spending to 1.5 percent of GDP by the mid 1930s and over 2.0 percent on the eve of World War II in 1940.

In 1950, entitlement spending had reached 3.3 percent of GDP, mostly welfare, but by 1960 entitlement spending had reached 5 percent of GDP as Social Security spending started to ramp up.

In 1965 Congress passed Medicare, Medicaid and the Great Society programs, and entitlement spending exploded, breaching 11 percent of GDP in 1976.

By the early 1980s, entitlement spending reached 13 percent of GDP and pensions spending stabilized at a little over five percent of GDP, with welfare spending stabilized at three to four percent of GDP. But healthcare spending sustained a steady rise, from three percent of GDP in 1980 to five percent of GDP in 2000.

Since 2000, entitlement spending has increased, peaking briefly at 18 percent of GDP in 2010, with pension spending at 6.4 percent of GDP, health care at 7.3 percent GDP and welfare spending at 4.5 percent of GDP in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2007-09.

In the 2010s welfare spending has contracted but health care and pensions spending has increased. In 2015 pension spending is estimated at 7.14 percent GDP, health care spending is estimated at 7.85 percent GDP, and welfare spending is estimated at 2.51 percent GDP.

 

[AntonToo]

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

View attachment 176342

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so ******* insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

 

[The Derp]

They are required by law to use medicare, and they pay/paid for it, that's not a freebie..

They're not required to use Medicare and Medicaid, they just have to because no insurer would insure your parents for a reasonable fee.

Now that we've established your parents use both, how do you feel about the fact that Medicare and Medicaid will be cut starting January next year which means your parents (or you) will have to pay more out of pocket for things like care, drugs, and co-pays? Because those cuts are going to happen. Do you think the meager tax cut you got will make up for the increase in costs for you and your parents?

 

[The Derp]

Get back to me when you have some clue about what you're talking about, the only things that don't require a cloture vote in the senate is budget reconciliation and confirming judicial nominations..

Not true, actually. What was the reason the Trump Tax Cut required 60 votes and couldn't be done through budget reconciliation? Oh right, because it adds to the deficit. What can pass with just 50 votes? Things that don't add to the deficit.

So when you say that you need 60 votes, what you're really saying is that whatever you're proposing is going to increase the debt. This, after peacocking about the deficit and debt throughout Obama. What a hypocrite.

 

[The Derp]

I see you don't know the difference between programs you pay into and freebies, they don't use medicade. They both pay more than $1,500 a month for medicare and supplemental insurance, plus out of pocket expenses..

Yes, they absolutely DO use Medicaid. You might not realize it, but they do. Nearly every single person over the age of 65 uses Medicaid to some degree. Furthermore, that $1,500 a month they pay is going to go up significantly starting January next year. Why? Because the tax plan you supported explodes the deficit to over $1T which triggers automatic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Which means that $1,500 a month they pay is going to go even higher.

All so you could give Trump a personal tax break.

Sure hope it was worth it for your parents and you.

 

[The Derp]

Maybe you can provide some back up to that assertion. I stand by my statement that in some cases lower tax rates will increase GDP and thus increase tax revenues. This item from NPR shows more economist agree with that than disagree.

I've posted this twice in this thread, so we can go through this exercise again.

Let's look at total revenue growth, according to the Tax Policy Center's Historical Federal Outlays & Receipts over each President's term. Receipts = Revenue

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

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

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

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

So Reagan and Bush the Dumber both cut taxes, and both had slower revenue growth than Obama and Clinton, who both raised taxes.

So the fantasy of yours is bunk and bullshit.

 

[The Derp]

First, defense spending is discretionary in the budget, not mandatory.

What difference does that make? You're saying you're willing to cut defense spending!? LOL, OK. If that's the case then that certainly changes things. If you eliminated half of defense spending, you'd still have a deficit of about $500B, which was the size of Obama's last deficit. So what would you have accomplished? Nothing other than continuing to increase the debt at the rate it was prior to the Trump tax cut.

In 2016 the entitlement (mandatory) spending for socialist programs like social security, welfare and healthcare was 62%, interest was 6.2%, non-mandatory defense was 15%.

Socialist programs? Well my friend, if you don't like them then you don't have to use them. Go **** yourself, then. If you want to cut Medicare and Medicaid, just ******* say it. Don't dance around it like some wussy.

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

No, what's happened is that you shitheads cut revenues, which resulted in deficits. Then you use those deficits you created by cutting taxes to argue that there needs to be cuts to spending. So basically, you're practicing fiscal terrorism; where you fly planes of tax cuts into the budget to manufacture a phony deficit crisis that you use as your argument to cut the spending you are ideologically opposed to, yet lack the courage, support, and will to repeal through legislation. So instead, you deliberately wreck the budget so you can enact cuts on those whom you judge through your sanctimony, for no other reason than to inflict harm on them. That makes you a terrorist.

 

[healthmyths]

Tarp was put into play by George bush administration. Obama had nothing to do with it. More rewriting of history

Hey dummy!

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!
BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!
But did that stop Obama from running up $9 Trillion in additional debt and for WHAT???

Hey dummy! What did Obama spend 9 Trillion on?

I keep asking this simple question and there is NEVER any answer.

Why do you think that is?

Spoiler

Because you are full of shit

A.) Obama had 7 years of INCREASING TAX RECEIPTS.
B) Remember Obama withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011 and Ira analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.
"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."
Fact Check: Did Obama Withdraw From Iraq Too Soon, Allowing ISIS To Grow
Fact Check: Did Obama Withdraw From Iraq Too Soon, Allowing ISIS To Grow?
So instead of helping Obama's desire to wind down Iraq exacerbated the problem!
Plus Obama's dumb ass ROEs...for example.."Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
how stupid!
C) finally rules and regulations!

• Total final rule costs: $24.4 billion for Obama vs. $1.2 billion for Trump.
• Annual final rule costs: $4.2 billion for Obama vs. $378 million for Trump.
• Paperwork burden: 6,803,249 hours for Obama vs. 848,239 for Trump.

 

[Brain357]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

View attachment 176342

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so ******* insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%. That is an unsustainable relationship. A relationship that neither political party wants to address.

What Is Driving Growth in Government Spending?
Specifically, overall government spending on entitlement programs increased at a 4.8 annual rate in the 40 years between 1972 and 2011, net of inflation. Health care spending increased at 5.7 percent per year (and federal government spending on health care increased at a 6.7 percent pace). In contrast, the gross domestic product grew at a rate of 2.7 percent over this period, with tax revenues increasing at about the same rate as the G.D.P.

Entitlement-Driven Long-Term Budget Substantially Worse Than Previously Projected
More realistic assumptions show that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs will leap from 8.4 percent of GDP to 18.9 percent by 2050. Unless lawmakers reform these programs, they will have to fund their costs by:

1. Raising taxes every year until federal taxes are 57 percent ($11,000 per household, adjusted into today's economy)[2] above the current levels;
2. Eventually eliminating every other federal program, including spending on defense, education, anti-poverty programs, and veterans benefits, by 2045; or
3. Running massive budget deficits (the status quo option). This is the most expensive option because it would cause the federal debt to increase from the current level of 40 percent of GDP to 500 percent of GDP. Beginning in 2025, just a small interest rate response would push federal spending to 44 percent of GDP by 2040 and 73 percent by 2050-levels twice as high as previous projections.

 

[healthmyths]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

What are these then?What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budget

 

[Brain357]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

What are these then?What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budget

View attachment 176400

Repubs just passed a huge spending increase, Trump signed on.

 

[healthmyths]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

What are these then?What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budget

View attachment 176400

Repubs just passed a huge spending increase, Trump signed on.

I present facts. Where are your facts? Please prove your comment or remain an idiot!

 

[Brain357]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

What are these then?What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budget

View attachment 176400

Repubs just passed a huge spending increase, Trump signed on.

I present facts. Where are your facts? Please prove your comment or remain an idiot!

White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When have tax cuts ever increased revenue without huge increases in spending? They haven’t. Repubs just passed huge increases in spending...

What are these then?What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budget

View attachment 176400

The problem with your little graph is it does not include dollar amounts. In Trump's budget the pluses are greater than the minuses and thus overall spending is increased.

 

[Brain357]

Trump Signs Budget Deal to Raise Spending and Reopen Government

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday morning signed into law a far-reaching budget deal that will boost spending by hundreds of billions of dollars and allow the federal government to reopen after a brief shutdown.

 

[Brain357]

Repubs think this is cuts. What dopes:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

 

[healthmyths]

https://budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Summary-PDF-for-web.pdf
If any of you idiots that keep making statements without ANY facts just simply read this and the other pages!

 

[healthmyths]

Repubs think this is cuts. What dopes:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

PROVE it! Where are your links!