Tax Cuts Ruined Kansas. Now Trump Wants To Do That Nationwide

[Mitchell Holman]

Trump's Tax Plan Has Echoes Of The Kansas Tax Cut Experiment
September 30, 2017


Members of Congress might want to familiarize
themselves with the story of Kansas' failed
tax-cutting experiment as they begin deliberations
on President Donald Trump's tax-reform plan.

It could serve as a cautionary tale because some
elements of the president's updated proposal
mirror pieces of the tax-cut plan that Republican
Gov. Sam Brownback pushed through the state
legislature in 2012, promising it would deliver
a "shot of adrenaline" to the Kansas economy.

It didn't. Instead, revenues crashed, forcing
Brownback and lawmakers to resort to spending
cuts, borrowing and accounting tricks to maintain
a balanced budget.

"Are you kidding me," says University of Kansas
political scientist Burdett Loomis. "I think it
is pretty clear that the Kansas experiment was
a failure."

William Gale of the centrist Brookings Institution
called the Kansas tax cuts "a lab test for how
supply side tax cuts may work at the federal level."

Not well, he concluded in a July blog post.

"The Brownback plan aimed to boost the Kansas
economy, but instead led to sluggish growth,
lower than expected revenues and brutal cuts to
government programs," Gale wrote.

In his self-described "red-state experiment,"
Brownback, who's been nominated for a State
Department post with the Trump Administration,
slashed individual income tax rates and lowered
to zero the tax on so-called pass-through business
income, which usually comes from small businesses
and partnerships.

In Kansas, business owners responded by restructuring
their companies as limited liability corporations to
avoid paying income taxes. State revenues plummeted
by hundreds of millions of dollars and continued to
miss projections for several years

With state revenues in free fall, Brownback rejected
calls to roll back parts of his signature tax cuts.
Instead, he slashed university budgets, cancelled
highway projects and convinced reluctant lawmakers
to go along with a plan to borrow $1 billion to shore
up the state's public pension fund.

Angry voters responded in 2016 by ousting dozens of
conservative Republicans who supported the tax cuts
and replacing them with Democrats and moderate
Republicans who promised to "fix the mess" in Topeka.

http://tinyurl.com/yc43ofz3

[Steve]

<LOL> Leftist moron Holman tried to equate cutting state taxes with a
national tax cut. Holman can check out the JFK tax cut to get a clue.



Lefty morons, like many other immature children, seem to
believe that the more fervently they voice their fantasies,
the more likly they are to come true.

[Matt]

Or, we could look at the pattern. In fact, sTrumpet wants to do exactly what was done in Kansas. Cut business taxes, cut individual taxes for the rich, raise them for the middle class and poor.

Why would it work differently on a larger scale, Steve? Did you take macroeconomics?

Matt

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Steve wrote:

JFK's cuts aren't comparable to Tubby's. For one, the corporate rate was reduced by 20% under JFK (Lyndon signed the bill), whereas Tubby wants a reduction of at least 40%, which is sheer insanity. No wonder you're dirt poor, you couldn't even do the math on your own finances.

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:43:04 PM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Steve wrote:

> I guess cutting spending never occurred to them.


If you believe in cutting, then begin with the defense budget. Strip half of its $630 billion budget and then follow it up with stripping half the $1.17 trillion health budget and the $1.39 trillion social security budget (the 3 biggest ticket items) to bring down Tubby's proposed $4.2 trillion budget to $2.7 trillion. Would that be good enough for you? But woops! What are you going to do with half the people that get sick without health care and half the people who won't get Social Security and half the trouble spots in the world the US won't be able to push its weight around in anymore? Got any easy answers for that?

[AlleyCat]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT), ed...@post.com says...

> > I guess cutting spending never occurred to them.

> If you believe in cutting, then begin with the defense budget.

Fuck you, Cuntnadian Welfare Queen. YOU don't pay taxes here OR in Canada,
so your words mean NOTHING, especially on Usenet. LOL

OUR defense spending allows OUR military to make sure Russia and the like
don't come storming or flying in over your borders, you dumb fuck.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 09/30/2017 01:34 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Trump's Tax Plan Has Echoes Of The Kansas Tax Cut Experiment
> September 30, 2017
>
>
> Members of Congress might want to familiarize
> themselves with the story of Kansas' failed
> tax-cutting experiment as they begin deliberations
> on President Donald Trump's tax-reform plan.

Didn't Liberals crow about how great State run RomneyCare was when
passing it into a Federal system as ObamaCare?

The problem is it failed as a Federal program...



--
That's Karma

[Mitchell Holman]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
news:ajlvsc99cit1pqgjl...@4ax.com:

Care to show us the last time a national tax
cut reduced the deficit?

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Reagan is the last I can remember that when they pushed the GDP to up
around 7% or more with tax and regulation cuts, tax revenue coming into
the TREASURY went up.... whether the Democrat Congress spent more to
keep the deficit the same is something I don't recall, but the deficit
as a percentage of the GDP fell. That means the economy was growing as
fast or faster than the debt. And that's a good thing.

--
That's Karma

[ed...@post.com]

You're such a stupid fuckhead fuckface, you fuckjerk. Reagan had only one year of 7% GDP, 1984, and that was the result of a tax hike and defense spending. When he did cut taxes in 1981, he only got a 2.6% GDP, and then again in 1986, he got 3.5%. Raise taxes and increase spending and you get double to triple the GDP. So all you remember is fuckshit, you fuckcreep.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

You do know that welfare and government redistribution subsidies are NOT
part of the GDP.....

[" *Transfer Payments*
For the purposes of calculating GDP, government spending does not
include transfer payments – the reallocation of money from one party to
another – which includes Social Security, Medicare, unemployment
insurance, welfare programs and subsidies. Because these are not
payments for goods or services they do not represent a form of final
demand, or GDP.]"

*Tax increases* don't create growth in GDP. The money is generally
spent by a Democrat congress since a Republican President will sign tax
cuts but when we have a Republican President that will sign a tax cut we
usually have a Democrat Congress. And Democrats spend on Social
Programs (TRANSFER PAYMENTS) NOT on the Military. So the Democrats
fritter away any gains they hoped to see from any new tax (and then
some) on social programs that don't grow the GDP.

Good luck with that Keyboard Tourette's....

--
That's Karma

[Mitchell Holman]

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in news:D1YzB.116744
$fF2....@fx17.iad:

Total federal spending went up every
year Reagan was president.

Year Fed Spending (in billions)
1981..........3126.8
1982..........3253.2
1983..........3534.6
1984..........3930.9
1985..........4217.5
1986..........4460.1
1987..........4736.4
1988..........5100.4

http://tinyurl.com/y5bva7u





And so did the national debt.





Year.........................National Debt


09/30/1981 ...................$997 Billion
09/30/1982 .................$1,142 Billion
09/30/1983 .................$1,377 Billion
09/30/1984 .................$1,572 Billion
09/30/1985 .................$1,823 Billion
09/30/1986 .................$2,125 Billion
09/30/1987 .................$2,350 Billion
09/30/1988 .................$2,602 Billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt



Now show us where the Reagan tax cuts
reduced the debt OR the deficit.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Deficits/GDP by fiscal year (1981 is the last Carter budget)

1981: -2.5%
---------------------------------
1982: -3.9%
1983: -5.9%
1984: -4.7%
1985: -5.0%
1986: -4.9%
1987: -3.1%
1988: -3.0%
1989: -2.7%

Table 1.2 in
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/hist.pdf

[Gronk]

Yak wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Steve wrote:

>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:34:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman

>>> Instead, he slashed university budgets, cancelled
>>> highway projects and convinced reluctant lawmakers
>>> to go along with a plan to borrow $1 billion to shore
>>> up the state's public pension fund.

>

> I guess cutting spending never occurred to them.

"Instead, he slashed university budgets, cancelled

highway projects..."


But Hey! those ARE republicans doing this. They're idiots. This is
what happens when they're in charge. Look what's happening at the
national level.

[Gronk]

The Senate was GOP controlled under most of Reagan's years in office...

[Steve]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 20:31:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Right after you show where a tax increase reduced the deficit,
Loser... reducing the deficit means not spending more than you take
in.

[ed...@post.com]

Phony argument. The US has always been in debt and by now, at $20 trillion, no tax increase or reduction will eliminate or reduce the deficit by any significant amount with respect to the debt.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

And the spending on Military weapons systems reflected it, my statement
is still accurate as I suggested "most" Republican Presidents have a
Democrat congress.

In the case of Reagan they combines the tax cut with spending the tax
revenue from the increased GDP on items like Military hardware that
counts to increase GDP and that helps reduce the ratio of debt to GDP.

We essentially grew faster and that made the government spending look
like it was less. You can either cut spending or grow the GDP faster and
since Democrats always obstruct any cuts in spending, the only option is
to grow the economy faster and sadly the Democrats Obstruct that when
they can but fortunately they can't obstruct growth when Republicans run
it all and get spending passed that increases GDP.

The system is set up to allow the obstruction of spending cuts but it
never allows obstruction when it comes to more deficit spending, that's
just the way it works.



--
That's Karma

[Fred Oinka]

Fuck off, Canadian fag.

[Mitchell Holman]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
news:u3f1tc913s63g4plm...@4ax.com:

Just answer the question.

>
> Right after you show where a tax increase reduced the deficit,
> Loser...

Following Clinton's tax raise in 1993.......


Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 10/1/2017 6:36 AM, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

{snip}

> In the case of Reagan they combines the tax cut with spending the tax
> revenue from the increased GDP on items like Military hardware that
> counts to increase GDP and that helps reduce the ratio of debt to GDP.

Again, deficit/GDP grew under Reagan:

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 10/1/2017 3:01 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 20:31:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@verizont.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>> news:ajlvsc99cit1pqgjl...@4ax.com:

{snip}

>>> <LOL> Leftist moron Holman tried to equate cutting state taxes with a
>>> national tax cut. Holman can check out the JFK tax cut to get a clue.
>>
>> Care to show us the last time a national tax
>> cut reduced the deficit?
>
> Right after you show where a tax increase reduced the deficit,
> Loser... reducing the deficit means not spending more than you take
> in.

No. Reducing the deficit means reducing the amount by which tax
revenues fall short of spending. After the tax increase of 1993, the
deficit was reduced from $255B (1993) to $203B (1994).

[First-Post]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 06:01:49 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:

Looking at deficits is no way to judge any tax cuts. As you say, the
deficit is dependant upon how much the government over spends, not how
much it gets in revenues.
If they want to know the effects of any tax cuts then they need to be
looking at revenue increases or decreases after such cuts.
And every tax cut since Kennedy has resulted in some increase in
revenues.
And as long as they don't reduce revenues, then they are undoubtedly
good for the tax paying public in that it gives them more disposable
income to spend which is good for private business and the economy in
general.

The only people who can bankrupt the government is congress. They're
the ones that have the gov't check books.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 10/1/2017 8:04 AM, First-Post wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 06:01:49 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

{snip}

> If they want to know the effects of any tax cuts then they need to be
> looking at revenue increases or decreases after such cuts.

Not quite. You need to look at the impact on revenues with the tax cut
(actual revenues) compared to what revenues would have been without the
tax cut (an estimate).

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Peaked in 1985 which was about half way through the Reagan 8 years.
Which says that I am correct, get the GDP high enough and the debt will
grow slower. Obama on the other hand had no GDP above 3% and the debt
grew by $10 Trillion dollars or 100%. Both Clinton and Bush did better
than Obama growing the economy and Clinton even cut WELFARE and taxes to
spur growth and cut other spending to decrease deficits. And Bush did
better than Clinton by a little. The direction of the GDP sets the
direction of the deficits (up or down) which means that cutting taxes
and using the money from increased business activity for something other
than Social Subsidizing (Transfer payments) seems to help grow the
private sector economy and increase GDP growth closer to the rate that
government is growing at. The thing I was looking for was parity, when
the GDP is increasing at the same rate that government is growing
(spending money) be it with Social programs and/or regulations.

["""""As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08),
federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during
the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose
outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged
22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as
a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only
a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his
spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any
three years since World War II."""""""]

That above was early in the ObamaRegime 2009-2012.


["""""""The deficit is projected to increase only slightly in 2017 over
2016, but this projection might be optimistic. The Congressional Budget
Office projects that unless the next administration gets spending under
control, the trend of increasing deficits is likely to continue beyond
2017."""""""""]

Obama front loaded the deficits by creating large deficits in the first
years and decreasing back to what it was before he took office and then
after he leaves it will rise for as far as can be projected. These
rising deficits were going to happen regardless of who took office. This
shows that someone like Obama can try to fake the deficit dropping but
we still see that he ONLY front loaded the spending. The average
deficit spending was still the highest and higher than Reagan and and
Reagan's deficits did NOT rise but went down and stayed down for both
Clinton who improved that ratio by cutting spending and keeping the GDP
up around a 4% average and Reagan managed a 3.5% average GDP growth. The
one thing Clinton did that Reagan couldn't get done with a Democrat
Congress was to cut Social programs. SO cutting spending along with
cutting taxes worked even better than cutting taxes and spending on the
military as Reagan did, it's better to cut taxes and also cut government
spending. You can look back to the Depression of 1920 to see more.

[""""""The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year
unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP
declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert
Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics
— urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn
the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly
in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was
equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The
national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one
economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction,
the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around
and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of
recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back
down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.""""""""]

["""""Clinton enacted Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which
reduced taxes for many small business. Furthermore, he signed
legislation that increased the tax deduction for self-employed business
owners from 30% to 80% by 1997. The Taxpayer Relief Act reduced some
federal taxes. The 28% rate for capital gains was lowered to 20%. The
15% rate was lowered to 10%."""""""]

Remember Clinton Bush who built on the Reagan tax cuts and reduced
spending on Social welfare (transfer payments) and Clinton had the
*PEACE* *DIVIDEND* where Clinton could cut military spending.

The best performance was a combination of cutting spending and lowering
tax so that (less money was being thrown down the BLACK HOLE of transfer
payments to welfare) it all started with Reagan and his tax cuts and
while he didn't cut so much, he did direct the money to the Military
spending rather than to useless transfer payments like welfare that
doesn't increase GDP.


["""""President Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly
doubling the debt. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top
income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and the corporate rate
from 48 percent to 34 percent. Reagan also increased government spending
by 2.5 percent a year. That included a 35 percent increase in the
defense budget and an expansion of Medicare. """""""]

Medicare is a BLACK HOLE and I remember Reagan having to negotiate with
a Democrat Congress. Reagan also increased the GDP growth to near 7%
which increased tax revenue. Too bad he didn't just cut spending more.

--
That's Karma

[Mitchell Holman]

First-Post <ProgressivesW...@invalid.org> wrote in
news:ck02tc5hunmffmcs5...@4ax.com:

>
> And every tax cut since Kennedy has resulted in some increase in
> revenues.

Proof?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The deficit/GDP was higher in every Reagan year than in 1981, so the tax
cut never reduced the debt. Moreover while waiting for the increased
GDP, the debt ballooned through 1986.

And one more very big thing: it wasn't the tax cut that caused the
deficit to suddenly go down in 1987. It was the bipartisan 1986 tax
reform. Without that, deficits would have continued to be very high.

The Reagan tax cut greatly increased the debt.

[TS]

Mitchell Holman wrote

What's wrong with taxes? We need to back to the good old days of
Republican Ike Eisenhower when the budget was balanced, the
wealthy were taxed 90% and didn't argue because if they did,
they'd be busted as commies and tossed in prison with all the
other soviet spies. It was that damn Democrat Kennedy who cut
taxes and started is on the road to massive deficits and debt.
Trump just wants to be like JFK!

Trump was sucking from his daddy's cock in those days, so he
doesn't remember.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Reagan was dealing with the Jimmy Carter double digit inflation if you
recall.

["""""In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation --
crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan
blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan
then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives
call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in
peacetime history." """""""]

The economy expanded and so did revenues when Reagan cut taxes.... even
this sourpuss Liberal is admitting it. What happened with those taxes
that increased with the economy is another story.

Democrats wanted Social programs and Reagan wanted to build the
Military. The bargain meant that Reagan had to waste money on Medicare
and welfare (TRANSFER PAYMENTS) and those didn't help the GDP so the GDP
was still around 6.9%.


Which is why I say we need at least 7% to dig us out of the Democrats hole.





--
That's Karma

[Josh Rosenbluth]

As it relates to your claim that the Reagan tax cut didn't increase the
debt, SFW?

[Mitchell Holman]

super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote in news:super70s-
1E3FBB.125...@srv3.v.de.weretis.net:

> Kansas' experiment was 2012-2016. With the entire nation the shit won't
> hit the fan until a decade or longer, and Republicans hope by then they
> either won't be the party in power that has to do the responsible thing
> and raise taxes, or (less likely with changing demographics) they'll
> still be in power but voters will forget they were entirely responsible
> for the hopeless fiscal mess to begin with.
>


That is the Republican strategy on all things. Never
mind the long term, never thing about America as it will
be in 20 or 50 years, concentrate on short term ideas.
Climate change, educational goals, population changes,
electric driverless cars, solar energy - too long term
for them to care about. Like businessmen who only
concentrate on the next quarterly profits instead of
where the company will be in the next decade they
suffer from an antiquated form of tunnel vision.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
news:XnsA801D67338C...@216.166.97.131...

> That is the Republican strategy on all things. Never mind the long
> term, never thing about America as it will be in 20 or 50 years,
> concentrate on short term ideas.

The debt and deficit only matter when the President's name has a "(D)" after
it ... Hell, apparently the sacred CBO score doesn't matter anymore.

[Mitchell Holman]

Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net> wrote in
news:XnsA801604C087...@216.166.97.131:

Mo response from Steve "Ace" Canyon........

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/30/2017 10:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> [bullshit]

First of all, tax cuts didn't "ruin" Kansas. Secondly, the federal
government is different from state governments. It can run deficits;
states can't.

[Mitchell Holman]

Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mxCAB.204284$e33.13380
@fx01.iad:

Since when have conservatives cared
about the deficits THEY run up?



"Deficits don't matter"
Dick Cheney, Jan 11, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/yq8pnn

[Rudy Canoza]

On 10/2/2017 7:47 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mxCAB.204284$e33.13380
> @fx01.iad:
>
>> On 9/30/2017 10:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> First of all, tax cuts didn't "ruin" Kansas. Secondly, the federal
>> government is different from state governments. It can run deficits;
>> states can't.
>>
>
>
> Since when have conservatives cared
> about the deficits THEY run up?

Not the issue. The point is the federal government can incur short term
deficits if it will produce long term higher growth. States can't.

Shut up about "Kansas". You don't know what you're talking about.

[MattB]

Question how will this effect the deficit? It needs to be lowered.
>

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 09/30/2017 10:52 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in news:D1YzB.116744
> $fF2....@fx17.iad:

>
>> On 09/30/2017 09:31 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>> news:ajlvsc99cit1pqgjl...@4ax.com:
>>>

>>>> <LOL> Leftist moron Holman tried to equate cutting state taxes with
> a
>>>> national tax cut. Holman can check out the JFK tax cut to get a
> clue.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Care to show us the last time a national tax
>>> cut reduced the deficit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> Reagan is the last I can remember that when they pushed the GDP to up
>> around 7% or more with tax and regulation cuts, tax revenue coming into
>> the TREASURY went up.... whether the Democrat Congress spent more to
>> keep the deficit the same is something I don't recall, but the deficit
>> as a percentage of the GDP fell. That means the economy was growing as
>> fast or faster than the debt. And that's a good thing.
>>
>
>
>

> Total federal spending went up every
> year Reagan was president.
>
> Year Fed Spending (in billions)
> 1981..........3126.8
> 1982..........3253.2
> 1983..........3534.6
> 1984..........3930.9
> 1985..........4217.5
> 1986..........4460.1
> 1987..........4736.4
> 1988..........5100.4
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y5bva7u
>
>
>
>
>
> And so did the national debt.
>
>
>
>
>
> Year.........................National Debt
>
>
> 09/30/1981 ...................$997 Billion
> 09/30/1982 .................$1,142 Billion
> 09/30/1983 .................$1,377 Billion
> 09/30/1984 .................$1,572 Billion
> 09/30/1985 .................$1,823 Billion
> 09/30/1986 .................$2,125 Billion
> 09/30/1987 .................$2,350 Billion
> 09/30/1988 .................$2,602 Billion
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
>
>
>
> Now show us where the Reagan tax cuts
> reduced the debt OR the deficit.
>
>
>
>
>
Typical.... And I was talking about the ratio of debt to GDP.

The whole point of what I posted was what you missed. You are lost in
the weeds.


No wonder you're a Liberal.

If the deficit is $10 and GDP is $100 then the deficit to GDP is 10%.

If the deficit rises to $20 and the GDP rises to $300 then the deficit
is NO longer 10% of GDP. The deficit becomes 6% of the GDP which mean
the deficit increased but the GDP increased more to the ratio and the
deficit is actually down. So the deficit increased and yet the ratio is
decreasing. By doing this the Deficit is actually going down in
relative terms..... it's the other side of the coin in getting the
deficit down. One way is to cut the actual deficit the other is to
increase the GDP and keep the deficit the same or slow it's growth while
increasing the GDP growth. We should have a statistic of the growth of
the deficit percentage that we can compare to the GDP growth and then we
need to strive for parity or a negative deficit to GDP percentage so
that the GDP grows faster than the deficit.

In the past Reagan and Clinton and Bush have managed to produce a better
deficit to GDP ratio. That creates a positive economy where we owe less
compared to our income. As it is when you get a mortgage and the
bankers look at your income and then compare it to your bills. If you
spend most of what you make, you're a bad risk.


[""""""The size of the federal budget deficit is tightly linked to how
well the U.S. economy is performing. When the economy grows at a faster
rate, this raises tax revenues and tends to lower spending on social
safety net programs (since fewer people need these programs when the
economy is doing well). Therefore, faster GDP growth reduces the budget
deficit, """"""""]
http://econofact.org/government-budget-deficits-and-economic-growth


If you look at that article then the chart shows the CBO and the TRUMP
projected deficits..... the CBO has to use the Obama laws and taxes as
their base for the projection and the TRUMP administration used their
own laws and tax cuts in their projections.

The CBO says we are in DEEP SHIT THANKS TO OBAMA. The TRUMP TEAM THINKS
THEY CAN TURN THAT AROUND WITH CHANGES IN TAX AND REGULATIONS.

The CBO suggested a 1.9% GDP growth where TRUMP suggested a 3.0% GDP
growth, this recent GDP number was 3.0% GDP growth.

Looks like TRUMP is close to being on target.


ANYWAY, the point this time is that you only present half the story when
you list deficits only...

Deficits should be discussed as a percentage of the GDP and deficit
growth should be as a percentage of GDP growth. One without the other
doesn't give the whole story.
--
That's Karma

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

*ADDENDUM*

*Also* ....when you get to the end of the article they point out or echo
what I have said here before about the GDP needing to be higher to get
the deficit to GDP ratio to a point that we are in recovery and
shrinking the deficit relative to the GDP. I have suggested we need a
7% GDP growth to reverse the trend of rising deficit to GDP ratio.

And I also suggested that we'll hit a tipping point in 4 to 5 years that
will either start the recovery if we can create the 7% growth needed or
if we limp along at Obama's 2% then we will be caught in the deficit
death spiral and we will be unable to grow out of the rising deficits
and the economy will fall into a depression that will make the GREAT
DEPRESSION look like a minor thing.




--
That's Karma

[Gronk]

Prove it.