Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[mikegriffith1]

[

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.
.

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and revenues rose for 7 years in a row.

Which is better? 4 years in a row or 7 years in a row?

LOL! Bill Clinton signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in history and increased tax cuts for people with dependent children! Sheesh, seriously, how can you not know this stuff? Yes, Clinton raised some taxes, but he cut others, and he held spending to its lowest rate of increase since JFK, which is the opposite of what Obama has done.

Stand in front of a mirror and just dare yourself to read some facts:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

 

[Dad2three]

[

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.
.

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and revenues rose for 7 years in a row.

Which is better? 4 years in a row or 7 years in a row?

LOL! Bill Clinton signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in history and increased tax cuts for people with dependent children! Sheesh, seriously, how can you not know this stuff? Yes, Clinton raised some taxes, but he cut others, and he held spending to its lowest rate of increase since JFK, which is the opposite of what Obama has done.

Stand in front of a mirror and just dare yourself to read some facts:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

YOU DIDN'T REFUTE THE POSIT. Weird

Stay on the right wing echo chambers MYTH that tax cuts increase revenues moron


Only the deceptive and partisan could argue that tax revenues increased with the Bush tax cuts.


So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[Dad2three]

Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled, "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.



Vox Baby: A New Year's Plea

 

[Dad2three]

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

October 2006

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."


Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role

 

[Dad2three]

YOO HOO BUBBA? You in your right wing echo chamber today? lol

 

[mikegriffith1]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

Nope!

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

To make my responses easier to understand, your post is repeated and my response to each paragraph is in Blue text to enable the full context to be understood:

"Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students. [ The GDP of a Nation is the value of all goods and services produced over a given period of time, usually a fiscal year; the annual Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is subject to a multitude of taxes. Those taxes on the GDP are the vast majority of all Treasury receipts for a FY. If business overall is in a slump nationally, the GDP falls, taxes are applied and, as a result of the decreasing GDP, Treasury receipts follow the GDP downward. However, if business nationally is booming and maybe on a bubble as has happened say from 1940-1945, 1983-1990 and 2002-2008 due to large increases in defense spending or other factors, then the GDP rises rapidly with the increased spending in both sectors. So there is an OBVIOUS link between the GDP, taxes and treasury receipts and that goes on one side of the ledger! Revenue increased because the national productivity increased, in part due to accelerated defense spending or other factors. ]

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened. [ The other side of the ledger are the outlays...what the Treasury pays out from the Public Purse. If the outlays are less that the total revenues, there is a surplus for that FY. However, if the outlays are greater than revenues, there is a deficit for that FY. Given the years between 2003 and 2008 had deficits of $412.7B, $318.3B, $248.2B and $160.7B respectively, it should be obvious that the 2003 tax cuts had some degree of impact on receipts. To declare tax cuts were a panacea to increase tax revenues by boosting the economy and productivity would need a through examination of ALL parameters and not a simple comparison of only two variables.

For instance, one cannot claim the 2003 tax cuts, in and of themselves alone caused the revenue increases for those years given the large deficits for each of those years! Well actually, one could make that claim, but one would be in error. The tax cuts could have increased the deficits or reduced them. There is no way of telling with such an oversimplified comparison. What impact did the 52 appropriation bills which were enacted have on the outlays over those four years? Without further in depth analysis of the all variables involved and their interaction on market forces taken as a whole and allowed for appropriately, NO CONCLUSION can be approached with any degree of certainty! To carry your claim to the absurd extreme, cutting taxes to a tenth of its current level would boost the economy to the stars, increase revenues and yield Treasury surpluses. Would that have any chance of happening, you think? ]

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion. [ Those comparisons are irrelevant to say nothing of absurdly meaningless. ]

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making." [mikegriffith1, post #155 Emphasis and Comments Added] [ As already shown above, revenue is DIRECTLY linked to GDP owing to the fact that revenues are the result of taxes applied to the millions of individual units of income from a myriad of discrete sources which make up the GDP. To claim revenue has no relationship with GDP is absolute nonsense!

If R is revenue, T1...n are applicable taxes and GDP is the gross national product, then R = GDP x T1, T2, T3...Tn. that is Guv'ment Econ 101 for civilians! Your assertions are in error! ]

You're just not going to let yourself think rationally, are you? My assertions are not "in error." Your assertions are idiotic evasions of the simple, demonstrable fact that following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for four years in a row and remained at a very high level even during the Great Recession. In fact, the four years following the Bush tax cuts saw the largest increase in revenue in American history. So clearly, obviously the tax cuts did not in any way contribute to the deficit. If spending hikes had been held to the rate of inflation or close to it, there would have been no deficits.

Again, using your GDP-comparison argument, one could prove all sorts of silly things, and both sides have made this argument when it suited them and both sides have rejected it when the other has used it! But, of course, never mind that, right?

As mentioned, if you ever get a $10K raise from your boss but your income decreases as a percentage of GDP, go back to your boss and tell them you didn't really get a raise because your income is a smaller percentage of GDP. Math is math and an increase is an increase. Revenue rose substantially for 4 years in a row following the 2003 tax cuts, and it would have continued rising had it not been for the government-induced 2008-2009 recession. Yet, even then, federal revenue in 2008 was higher than it was in 2005, and revenue in 2009 nearly matched revenue in 2005.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

Nope!

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

To make my responses easier to understand, your post is repeated and my response to each paragraph is in Blue text to enable the full context to be understood:

"Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students. [ The GDP of a Nation is the value of all goods and services produced over a given period of time, usually a fiscal year; the annual Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is subject to a multitude of taxes. Those taxes on the GDP are the vast majority of all Treasury receipts for a FY. If business overall is in a slump nationally, the GDP falls, taxes are applied and, as a result of the decreasing GDP, Treasury receipts follow the GDP downward. However, if business nationally is booming and maybe on a bubble as has happened say from 1940-1945, 1983-1990 and 2002-2008 due to large increases in defense spending or other factors, then the GDP rises rapidly with the increased spending in both sectors. So there is an OBVIOUS link between the GDP, taxes and treasury receipts and that goes on one side of the ledger! Revenue increased because the national productivity increased, in part due to accelerated defense spending or other factors. ]

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened. [ The other side of the ledger are the outlays...what the Treasury pays out from the Public Purse. If the outlays are less that the total revenues, there is a surplus for that FY. However, if the outlays are greater than revenues, there is a deficit for that FY. Given the years between 2003 and 2008 had deficits of $412.7B, $318.3B, $248.2B and $160.7B respectively, it should be obvious that the 2003 tax cuts had some degree of impact on receipts. To declare tax cuts were a panacea to increase tax revenues by boosting the economy and productivity would need a through examination of ALL parameters and not a simple comparison of only two variables.

For instance, one cannot claim the 2003 tax cuts, in and of themselves alone caused the revenue increases for those years given the large deficits for each of those years! Well actually, one could make that claim, but one would be in error. The tax cuts could have increased the deficits or reduced them. There is no way of telling with such an oversimplified comparison. What impact did the 52 appropriation bills which were enacted have on the outlays over those four years? Without further in depth analysis of the all variables involved and their interaction on market forces taken as a whole and allowed for appropriately, NO CONCLUSION can be approached with any degree of certainty! To carry your claim to the absurd extreme, cutting taxes to a tenth of its current level would boost the economy to the stars, increase revenues and yield Treasury surpluses. Would that have any chance of happening, you think? ]

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion. [ Those comparisons are irrelevant to say nothing of absurdly meaningless. ]

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making." [mikegriffith1, post #155 Emphasis and Comments Added] [ As already shown above, revenue is DIRECTLY linked to GDP owing to the fact that revenues are the result of taxes applied to the millions of individual units of income from a myriad of discrete sources which make up the GDP. To claim revenue has no relationship with GDP is absolute nonsense!

If R is revenue, T1...n are applicable taxes and GDP is the gross national product, then R = GDP x T1, T2, T3...Tn. that is Guv'ment Econ 101 for civilians! Your assertions are in error! ]

You're just not going to let yourself think rationally, are you? My assertions are not "in error." Your assertions are idiotic evasions of the simple, demonstrable fact that following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for four years in a row and remained at a very high level even during the Great Recession. In fact, the four years following the Bush tax cuts saw the largest increase in revenue in American history. So clearly, obviously the tax cuts did not in any way contribute to the deficit. If spending hikes had been held to the rate of inflation or close to it, there would have been no deficits.

Again, using your GDP-comparison argument, one could prove all sorts of silly things, and both sides have made this argument when it suited them and both sides have rejected it when the other has used it! But, of course, never mind that, right?

As mentioned, if you ever get a $10K raise from your boss but your income decreases as a percentage of GDP, go back to your boss and tell them you didn't really get a raise because your income is a smaller percentage of GDP. Math is math and an increase is an increase. Revenue rose substantially for 4 years in a row following the 2003 tax cuts, and it would have continued rising had it not been for the government-induced 2008-2009 recession. Yet, even then, federal revenue in 2008 was higher than it was in 2005, and revenue in 2009 nearly matched revenue in 2005.

A rise in GDP will naturally produce more tax revenue, all else being equal.

To try to claim that natural rise in revenue was caused by a tax cut is fallacious, unless you can prove with factual evidence that such a cause and effect occurred.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

Nope!

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

To make my responses easier to understand, your post is repeated and my response to each paragraph is in Blue text to enable the full context to be understood:

"Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students. [ The GDP of a Nation is the value of all goods and services produced over a given period of time, usually a fiscal year; the annual Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is subject to a multitude of taxes. Those taxes on the GDP are the vast majority of all Treasury receipts for a FY. If business overall is in a slump nationally, the GDP falls, taxes are applied and, as a result of the decreasing GDP, Treasury receipts follow the GDP downward. However, if business nationally is booming and maybe on a bubble as has happened say from 1940-1945, 1983-1990 and 2002-2008 due to large increases in defense spending or other factors, then the GDP rises rapidly with the increased spending in both sectors. So there is an OBVIOUS link between the GDP, taxes and treasury receipts and that goes on one side of the ledger! Revenue increased because the national productivity increased, in part due to accelerated defense spending or other factors. ]

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened. [ The other side of the ledger are the outlays...what the Treasury pays out from the Public Purse. If the outlays are less that the total revenues, there is a surplus for that FY. However, if the outlays are greater than revenues, there is a deficit for that FY. Given the years between 2003 and 2008 had deficits of $412.7B, $318.3B, $248.2B and $160.7B respectively, it should be obvious that the 2003 tax cuts had some degree of impact on receipts. To declare tax cuts were a panacea to increase tax revenues by boosting the economy and productivity would need a through examination of ALL parameters and not a simple comparison of only two variables.

For instance, one cannot claim the 2003 tax cuts, in and of themselves alone caused the revenue increases for those years given the large deficits for each of those years! Well actually, one could make that claim, but one would be in error. The tax cuts could have increased the deficits or reduced them. There is no way of telling with such an oversimplified comparison. What impact did the 52 appropriation bills which were enacted have on the outlays over those four years? Without further in depth analysis of the all variables involved and their interaction on market forces taken as a whole and allowed for appropriately, NO CONCLUSION can be approached with any degree of certainty! To carry your claim to the absurd extreme, cutting taxes to a tenth of its current level would boost the economy to the stars, increase revenues and yield Treasury surpluses. Would that have any chance of happening, you think? ]

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion. [ Those comparisons are irrelevant to say nothing of absurdly meaningless. ]

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making." [mikegriffith1, post #155 Emphasis and Comments Added] [ As already shown above, revenue is DIRECTLY linked to GDP owing to the fact that revenues are the result of taxes applied to the millions of individual units of income from a myriad of discrete sources which make up the GDP. To claim revenue has no relationship with GDP is absolute nonsense!

If R is revenue, T1...n are applicable taxes and GDP is the gross national product, then R = GDP x T1, T2, T3...Tn. that is Guv'ment Econ 101 for civilians! Your assertions are in error! ]

You're just not going to let yourself think rationally, are you? My assertions are not "in error." Your assertions are idiotic evasions of the simple, demonstrable fact that following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for four years in a row and remained at a very high level even during the Great Recession. In fact, the four years following the Bush tax cuts saw the largest increase in revenue in American history. So clearly, obviously the tax cuts did not in any way contribute to the deficit. If spending hikes had been held to the rate of inflation or close to it, there would have been no deficits.

Again, using your GDP-comparison argument, one could prove all sorts of silly things, and both sides have made this argument when it suited them and both sides have rejected it when the other has used it! But, of course, never mind that, right?

As mentioned, if you ever get a $10K raise from your boss but your income decreases as a percentage of GDP, go back to your boss and tell them you didn't really get a raise because your income is a smaller percentage of GDP. Math is math and an increase is an increase. Revenue rose substantially for 4 years in a row following the 2003 tax cuts, and it would have continued rising had it not been for the government-induced 2008-2009 recession. Yet, even then, federal revenue in 2008 was higher than it was in 2005, and revenue in 2009 nearly matched revenue in 2005.

So basically you are saying that tax revenues are not at all related to GDP, and, in essence, that the Treasury, the FED, money markets, et al, are irrational for making use of the hundreds of economic comparisons between the two and all the variants thereof. So you are right and the world is wrong. I got it now!

You are in error, fool! Live with it!

 

[Dad2three]

Indeed, it is remarkable that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP only dropped about 3% even though tax rates were slashed by at least 6% overall (I'm deliberately low-balling here). From 2004 to 2008 fedrev as a percentage of GDP was only about 3% less on average than it was from 1995-2000.

When you cut taxes, you expect that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP could very well dip a bit, depending on several factors, but that does not change the fact that federal revenue skyrocketed after the Bush tax cuts and saw the largest four-year increase in recent history.

I guessed you ignored my post showing that 4 of the 7 times in the last 54 years that revenues fell occurred during the Bush administration.

Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students.

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened.

Nope!

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion.

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making.

To make my responses easier to understand, your post is repeated and my response to each paragraph is in Blue text to enable the full context to be understood:

"Ughh. . . . Are you really incapable of grasping the simple, basic, indisputable facts at hand? We're talking about what happened after the massive 2003 tax cuts. Revenue rose 4 years in a row and was higher in the fifth and sixth years than it was in any of the first three years after the cuts were passed. This is Math 100 for GED students. [ The GDP of a Nation is the value of all goods and services produced over a given period of time, usually a fiscal year; the annual Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is subject to a multitude of taxes. Those taxes on the GDP are the vast majority of all Treasury receipts for a FY. If business overall is in a slump nationally, the GDP falls, taxes are applied and, as a result of the decreasing GDP, Treasury receipts follow the GDP downward. However, if business nationally is booming and maybe on a bubble as has happened say from 1940-1945, 1983-1990 and 2002-2008 due to large increases in defense spending or other factors, then the GDP rises rapidly with the increased spending in both sectors. So there is an OBVIOUS link between the GDP, taxes and treasury receipts and that goes on one side of the ledger! Revenue increased because the national productivity increased, in part due to accelerated defense spending or other factors. ]

That means the tax cuts had *nothing* to do with the deficit. If revenue had been less in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 than it was in 2003, then you could say that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit. But that simply is not what happened. [ The other side of the ledger are the outlays...what the Treasury pays out from the Public Purse. If the outlays are less that the total revenues, there is a surplus for that FY. However, if the outlays are greater than revenues, there is a deficit for that FY. Given the years between 2003 and 2008 had deficits of $412.7B, $318.3B, $248.2B and $160.7B respectively, it should be obvious that the 2003 tax cuts had some degree of impact on receipts. To declare tax cuts were a panacea to increase tax revenues by boosting the economy and productivity would need a through examination of ALL parameters and not a simple comparison of only two variables.

For instance, one cannot claim the 2003 tax cuts, in and of themselves alone caused the revenue increases for those years given the large deficits for each of those years! Well actually, one could make that claim, but one would be in error. The tax cuts could have increased the deficits or reduced them. There is no way of telling with such an oversimplified comparison. What impact did the 52 appropriation bills which were enacted have on the outlays over those four years? Without further in depth analysis of the all variables involved and their interaction on market forces taken as a whole and allowed for appropriately, NO CONCLUSION can be approached with any degree of certainty! To carry your claim to the absurd extreme, cutting taxes to a tenth of its current level would boost the economy to the stars, increase revenues and yield Treasury surpluses. Would that have any chance of happening, you think? ]

In fact, revenue in 2009, in spite of the Great Recession, was **higher** than it was in 2003 or 2004! It was $2.1 trillion in 2009, compared to $1.78 trillion in 2003 and $1.88 trillion in 2004. Moreover, 2009 revenue was nearly identical 2005 revenue! $2.1 trillion vs. $2.15 trillion. [ Those comparisons are irrelevant to say nothing of absurdly meaningless. ]

Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise. It means nothing. You're talking about two different types of economic activity. Again, if your boss gives you a $10K raise, nobody in their right mind would claim that the extra $10K per year meant nothing because their new salary was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was the previous year. That's exactly the kind of idiotic argument you're making." [mikegriffith1, post #155 Emphasis and Comments Added] [ As already shown above, revenue is DIRECTLY linked to GDP owing to the fact that revenues are the result of taxes applied to the millions of individual units of income from a myriad of discrete sources which make up the GDP. To claim revenue has no relationship with GDP is absolute nonsense!

If R is revenue, T1...n are applicable taxes and GDP is the gross national product, then R = GDP x T1, T2, T3...Tn. that is Guv'ment Econ 101 for civilians! Your assertions are in error! ]

You're just not going to let yourself think rationally, are you? My assertions are not "in error." Your assertions are idiotic evasions of the simple, demonstrable fact that following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for four years in a row and remained at a very high level even during the Great Recession. In fact, the four years following the Bush tax cuts saw the largest increase in revenue in American history. So clearly, obviously the tax cuts did not in any way contribute to the deficit. If spending hikes had been held to the rate of inflation or close to it, there would have been no deficits.

Again, using your GDP-comparison argument, one could prove all sorts of silly things, and both sides have made this argument when it suited them and both sides have rejected it when the other has used it! But, of course, never mind that, right?

As mentioned, if you ever get a $10K raise from your boss but your income decreases as a percentage of GDP, go back to your boss and tell them you didn't really get a raise because your income is a smaller percentage of GDP. Math is math and an increase is an increase. Revenue rose substantially for 4 years in a row following the 2003 tax cuts, and it would have continued rising had it not been for the government-induced 2008-2009 recession. Yet, even then, federal revenue in 2008 was higher than it was in 2005, and revenue in 2009 nearly matched revenue in 2005.

"if you ever get a $10K raise from your boss but your income decreases as a percentage of GDP, go back to your boss and tell them you didn't really get a raise because your income is a smaller percentage of GDP."


ANOTHER wingnutter comparing a household to Gov't *shaking head*


NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS HAS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES, THAN IF THERE WERE NO TAX CUTS. NONE!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been ever worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), etc., etc.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I repeat, since there's been no reply yet:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), etc., etc.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

 

[Dad2three]

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been ever worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), etc., etc.

DIDN'T DUBYA TAKE OVER IN 2001 DUMMY? Taking US from 20% of GDP to LESS than 15% Bubba? LMAOROG

Yeah, Dubya/GOP 8 years of "job creator" economy left Obama/UIS in a DEEP hole yet Obama STILL is bringing US out of it AND from Dubya's LESS THAN 15% OBAMA INHERITED DUMBFUKKK

OBAMA FIRST F/Y YEAR BUDGET BEGINS OCT 1, 2009

F/Y 2010- 14.6% OF GDP
F/Y 2014 17.5%

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Federal deficits and debt have been sharply higher under President Obama, but the evidence continues to show that the Great Recession, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obama’s watch — based on the latest Congressional Budget Office projections as well as legislation enacted since we last issued this analysis of what lies behind current deficits and debt.

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush



January 12, 2009



Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.


.."For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin ( a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers) said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

There you go again.... You're as bad as PoliticalChica with the deflecting, dodging and dancing! Foolish of you to do the same thing over and over!

 

[Dad2three]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

MORE right wing talking points NOT BASED IN REALITY. Shocking

AN HONEST PERSON WOULD AGREE YOU START AT THE TAX REVENUES LEFT TO YOU, WITHOUT POLICIES THAT WERE HAMPERING YOU, LIKE BJ BILL'S 20% OF GDP, 4 STRAIGHT SURPLUSES (3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $700+ BILLION TAX CUT, LOL)

Heritage Foundation said the 2001 cuts alone would result in paying off the debt by 2010 dumbass!


The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.



How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider





When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion.

Axelrod claims Bush saddled Obama with a big deficit

 

[Dad2three]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


October 17, 2008



...Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

Now let's look at the update that James Kennedy posted last week to his numbers. While he does not have an update to the chart above, we do have the actual numbers for new mortgage equity withdrawals through the second quarter of this year. And what they show is MEWs simply withering on the vine. The engine of our GDP growth has essentially been turned off. Look at the fall in the numbers for yourself:

In 2005 there was almost $595 billion in mortgage extractions that went into some kind of consumer spending. Remember, according to the graph above, that translated into a 3% rise in GDP. In 2007, MEWs were down to $470 billion, for a boost of 2% to GDP.

The second quarter of 2008 saw an anemic $9.5 billion. At that run rate, we could see a drop-off of over 90% from 2005! Now, think what the second quarter would have been without the federal stimulus program of $150 billion. It might have looked and felt like this quarter!


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

 

[mikegriffith1]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

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

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


October 17, 2008



...Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

Now let's look at the update that James Kennedy posted last week to his numbers. While he does not have an update to the chart above, we do have the actual numbers for new mortgage equity withdrawals through the second quarter of this year. And what they show is MEWs simply withering on the vine. The engine of our GDP growth has essentially been turned off. Look at the fall in the numbers for yourself:

In 2005 there was almost $595 billion in mortgage extractions that went into some kind of consumer spending. Remember, according to the graph above, that translated into a 3% rise in GDP. In 2007, MEWs were down to $470 billion, for a boost of 2% to GDP.

The second quarter of 2008 saw an anemic $9.5 billion. At that run rate, we could see a drop-off of over 90% from 2005! Now, think what the second quarter would have been without the federal stimulus program of $150 billion. It might have looked and felt like this quarter!


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

You can duck and dodge and copy and paste all day, but you clearly have no substantive, relevant response to the following facts, facts that anyone can confirm by checking federal data sites on the federal budget and the GDP:

* Following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for 4 years in a row, and even in the recession year of 2008 revenue was higher than it was in 2005 and 2006.

* The federal revenue growth that occurred in the 4 years that followed the 2003 tax cuts exceeded the revenue growth of any 4-year period in the Clinton years.

* The federal revenue growth that followed the 2003 tax cuts came with a sizable reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate, an increase in median family income, and 52 consecutive months of economic growth.

* Obama's federal revenue growth has exceeded Bush's, but, oddly enough, revenue as a percentage of GDP is much lower than it was under Bush. So, according to you guys, that means the revenue growth really didn't happen and/or that it shoulda/coulda/woulda been larger if other policies had been followed.

* The rise in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama has come with a drop in median family income, a sizable increase in the U-6 unemployment rate, and the weakest recovery of the modern area (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth).