Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
Stop lying, there is no correlation. Clinton increased taxes in 1993 and Obama increased in 2013 an revenues increased. Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenues decreased those years, increasing only after he raised taxes. Bush cut taxes in 2001 through 2003 and revenues fell those years, increasing only after the real estate bubble began to explode out of control.
Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?
Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
Great, more lies.
You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
From January, 2010 through January, 2017, 14 million full time jobs were added; while during that same period, part time jobs fell by almost 400K.
I swear, you rightards have cottage cheese for brains.
The recession ended only 2 months after 9/11. It lasted only 6 months. It was over in 2001. Meanwhile, income tax revenues fell again in 2002 and then again in 2003.
You’re simply ******* retarded. There is no other explanation.You dumbfuck, your chart shows what my BLS charts showed. Full time jobs increased steadily since the job market recovery starting in 2010 while part time jobs remained stagnant.Stop lying. The vast majority of jobs gained under Obama were full time jobs. How many times must you be told this until you stop lying?
Starting from 2010 when the jobs recovery began, full time jobs rose steadily, adding 14 million jobs...
... while during that same period, part time jobs remained stagnant...
View attachment 168482
From January, 2010 through January, 2017, 14 million full time jobs were added; while during that same period, part time jobs fell by almost 400K.
I swear, you rightards have cottage cheese for brains.
You know, I always knew liberals lived in their own little world, but to look at that chart and say part-time jobs decreased is something I think psychiatrists all over the country should see.
Great, more lies.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
I’ve already refuted that bullshit and need not repeat the smack down merely because you feel compelled that repeat your bullshit.Great, more lies.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
Great, more lies.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
No, they can’t. Isn’t that beyond obvious by now?Great, more lies.
While you try to minimize Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 by referring to it as “modest,” it was actually considered the biggest increase in modern history at that time.
And with Reagan, you’re looking at revenues in starting in 1983, which occurred after he raised taxes. Before he raised taxes, revenues fell after he lowered income tax rates.
As far as the [first] recession under Bush, that was short, mild, and ended in 2001. Meanwhile, revenues fell again in 2002 and 2003. They rose in 2004 because the economy exploded on the crown of the real estate bubble.
Oh my goodness. A few facts in reply:
* Clinton's tax hikes were modest by any historical standard.
* Clinton left most of the Reagan tax cuts intact.
* Clinton signed a huge tax cut in 1997, and revenue increased even more than it had before.
* You're simply lying or dreaming about Reagan's record. His tax hikes did not come until after his tax cuts, and the hikes were a fraction of the cuts. And revenue rose steadily every year after Reagan's tax cuts took effect, in spite of the modest tax hikes later--because by then the economy was roaring. I showed you the revenue numbers, and you just kept lying/dreaming.
* The 2001 Bush tax cuts were really just a one-time tax rebate. No rates were cut. When the recession got worse, Bush proposed a massive tax cut bill, which passed, and after those tax cuts took effect, revenue boomed.
* It is beyond lame to attribute all of the additional federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts to the housing bubble. Would you accept such a similarly silly argument that said that Clinton's boom years were entirely due to the dot.com bubble?
* Although Obama's stimulus included $275 billion in tax cuts, Obama raised the capital gains tax, raised the top tax brackets, and raised a slew of other federal taxes (such as the tax on cigarettes). He also exploded spending and added $7 trillion to the debt, more than Bush and Reagan added in 16 years combined.
Let's look at the revenue numbers again:
Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.
It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year--the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let's look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion
Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)
As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.
I get it. Tax cuts always increase revenues so why the **** don't we keep slashing tax rates every year & soon no one will pay any taxes & the government will be rolling in cash.
Your argument has NO logic.
The Bush tax cuts added to the deficit for over a decade.
Republicans suck dick when it comes to the economy.
Bush cut taxes & set us on the path to recession after a great Clinton economy.
Now you assholes are doing it all over again. Can't you morons learn?
Your article is from 2009. This is NOT 2009. We are NOT in a massive recession.
