PF Exclusive: Debt increase in FY2015 lowest in 14 years

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Iriemon, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where do you? Oh I know from Democrat propaganda.

    Where do you get the idea Presidents control the budget? They don't CONGRESS does. A Presidents influence on the budget is entirely determined by the make up of the Congress from he might as well not waste the paper his REQUEST is written to having some influence based on his party holding one or both houses of the Congress. When the Republicans controlled the Congress with Bush43 as President the deficit hit a one year high of $400B in 2004 as we went from recession to recovery. HIs tax rate cuts began to phase in in 2003 with full phase in in 2006. Because the cuts were having enough effect, they were were too small, Congress voted to accelerate that phase in a fully implemented them. The economy took and we had 52 months of full employment with average labor participation rates, rising incomes, steady GDP growth and tax revenues SOARED and by 2007 they had brought the deficit down to a paltry $161B.

    THAT was the last Bush/Republican deficit heading to surplus. The Democrats then took control of the Congress and immediately increased spending in 2008 by 9%, only that much because Bush threatened to veto any higher and then in 2009 took him completely out of the picture and increased spending 18% taking that last Republican deficit of that measly $161B to their WHOPPING $1,400B in just TWO YEARS. They then kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years and it only came down after the Republican sequester. The Democrats never even came close to the WORST Republicans deficit let alone that final $161B deficit the Republicans produced.

    So tell me how 52 months of full employment, rising incomes, soaring tax revenues and solid GDP growth cause the recession and the explosion of Democrat spending and their HUGE deficits and more than doubling of the debt?

    I'll ask you the same question.

    Which capital gains rate produced the highest tax revenues to the treasury

    Clinton's 29% rate?
    Gingrich/Kaisch's 20% rate?
    Bush43's 15% rate?
     
  2. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I said and you can't debate it clearly ain't Bush since his rates were in efeect during the Obama administration. The right answer is Clinton of course but that doesn't fit your narrative because you only want to look at the Bush revenues from his tax rates up to 2008.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dodge noted again.

    Yes his tax revenues that increased at 15%, why do you want to ignore those increases?

    The Dem's controlled the budget and had majority control of the government starting in 2007, 2008 is theirs.

    Since apparently you are too afraid to answer the question I will supply the answer to you.

    Clinton's 29% rate? $66.4B
    Gingrich/Kaisch's 20% rate? $127.3B
    Bush43's 15% rate? $137.1B

    So make the case why we should increase capital gains tax rates.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2017
  4. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already showed you:

    Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
    1996 $260.696B $66.396B [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
    2002 $268.615B $49.122B [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
    2009 $263.460B $36.686B [Cap gains tax rate 15%]
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

    For periods of equivalent realizations, we had higher tax revenues when the cap gains tax rates were higher.

    if you're going to argue about years with greater realizations, then prove your claim that the tax rates produced the higher realizations which generate tax revenues.

    I've answered it many times. You're question is based upon a false premise. The $1,400 deficit was the result of policies from when Bush was president and the Great Recession he left.


    The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

    When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

    Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

    Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

    Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

    On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
     
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You showed how you compare tbe BEST year at the Clinton rate with WORST year at the Bush rate. And that worst year occuring under Democrat control.

    And then you show how you pretend the Democrats did not control the Congress and the budget from 2007 for FY 2008 through 2015.

    So your post has nj credibilty to the discussion.

    "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

    The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
    The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


    "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

    "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

    Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely false.

    I pretended no such thing

    Only based on your false claims.

    "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

    The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
    The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


    "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

    "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

    Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm[/QUOTE]

    From *your* source:

    "I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

    Sure. I'll agree that you can tag Obama with $31 billion in new FY09 spending.

    As for the rest:


    The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

    When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

    Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

    Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

    Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

    On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it's not and yes you do. You are comparing the worst economic year under the 15% rate with the best year under the 29%

    When you can discuss it honestly let me know



    Those aren't my claims that is the reporting at the time

    "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

    The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
    The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


    "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

    "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

    Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm[/QUOTE]

    The FY2008 and FY2009 budgets were DEMOCRAT budgets and especially 2009 where Republicans were totally blocked out. And those budgets increased spending 9% and then 18% and took the last Republican budget deficit of just $161B to $1,400B in just two years. What date Senator Obama moved over the White House is of no matter the Democrats had taken budget control TWO YEARS EARLIER.
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I compared periods of equivalent realizations. Otherwise you are not comparing apples to apples, since realizations are what generate revenues.

    You're trying to cherry pick data by comparing periods of higher realizations with periods of low realizations, when you have repeatedly and completely failed to prove that cap gains tax policy produced those realizations.

    When you can discuss it honestly let me know

    The FY2008 and FY2009 budgets were DEMOCRAT budgets and especially 2009 where Republicans were totally blocked out. And those budgets increased spending 9% and then 18% and took the last Republican budget deficit of just $161B to $1,400B in just two years. What date Senator Obama moved over the White House is of no matter the Democrats had taken budget control TWO YEARS EARLIER.[/QUOTE]

    You're repeating yourself. Your post is no more accurate or persuasive than the first time you posted it.

    I'll repost my response as well.

    From *your* source:

    "I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

    Sure. I'll agree that you can tag Obama with $31 billion in new FY09 spending.

    As for the rest:


    The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

    When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

    Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

    Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

    Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

    On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're comparing worst year a recession year, to best year a strong growth year, yeah we get it.


    It doesn't fool anyone.


    It doesn't matter you are still trying to pretend FY2008 and FY2009 were Republican budgets they were not they were Democrat budgets with their 9% and then 19% spending increases taking the last Republican deficit of a paltry $161B to their whopping $1,400B in just two years.
     
  10. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because you cannot debate my answer doesn't make it a dodge. Or are you going to,pretend that the Bush rates were not in effect during the Obama administration.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dodge noted again

    Make the case to increase capital gains tax rates.

    Clinton's 29% rate? $66.4B
    Gingrich/Kaisch's 20% rate? $127.3B
    Bush43's 15% rate? $137.1B
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already did or are you going to deny that the Bush rates were on effect during the Obama administration. You are being intellectually dishonest to just use the capital gains during the housing bubble tompretend that the lower Bush rates have been a boon to capital gains revenues.

    How about you be honest and do an average tax revenue over the entire period when the rates were in effect.
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Housing is a mere 3% of GDP and very little of capital gains.

    Dodge noted again. Try again what rate should cap gains be set. These are peak revenue if you want to compare revenues during downturns feel free.

    Clinton's 29% rate? $66.4B
    Gingrich/Kaisch's 20% rate? $127.3B
    Bush43's 15% rate? $137.1B

    But I am curious what is your point about the rate during the Obama term?
     
  14. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well glad you admit they are peak revenues. Has nothing to do with anything but thanks for trying
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well DUH I don't have to "admit" my assertions, the question is which rate produces the most revenue and the most economic activity and what is the best rate to produce the most revenue.

    So do you think you can try to answer this time or is all I'm going to get are your obtuse answers. If the latter just let me know so I can stop wasting my time.

    Clinton's 29% rate? $66.4B
    Gingrich/Kaisch's 20% rate? $127.3B
    Bush43's 15% rate? $137.1B

    Which rate should we tax cap gains? What is your goal with setting tax rates? To try and take as much of someone's income as you can because they make a lot of money or to bring in the most revenues to the treasury?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stop wasting your time since you don't have any actual data or actual correlation of tax rates with revenue. All you seem able to do is pist the same fraudulent statistics over and over which I guess is your substitute for intelligent thought.
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That IS actual data showing the top results under each rate which you can't deal with in a faftual or civil manner. And if you are now claiming there is no correlation between tax rates and tax revenues then I guess we will no longer here you clamour for higher rates.

    The FACT remains we collect FAR more capital gains tax revenues at the lower Republican rates than the higher Democrat rates and you cannot give a reason why it would be better to raise those rates back to the Democrat rate.
     
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Top results are of course irrelevant as anyone with an IQ above a Republican should be able to figure out. That is course is why you can't actually include the receipts from 2008, 2009, etc, etc even though the capital gains rate was still the Bush rate.

    And of course in fact the highest revenues in constant dollars were 1999 and 2000 when the capital gains rate was five percent higher than the Bush years. But of course that is just using your phony highest return measurement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when you can't refute the facts.
     
  20. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is correct. You have been unable to refute the fact that the low capital gains rate was in effect in 2008, 2009, etc when the federal revenues from capital gains taxes cratered.

    And you cannot refute that the actual two highest revenue years were 1999 and 2000 when the capital gains rate was 20%.

    So to summarize you lose when actual facts are used instead of when you cherry pick data points.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,794
    Likes Received:
    18,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What does that have to do with anything are you asserting the low capital gains rates caused a recession?

    1999 $112B
    2000 $127B
    2007 $137B
     
  22. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but we are talking constant dollars.
     
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,609
    Likes Received:
    4,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope but your assertion that the low Bush rates made for great revenues is clearly disproved by the fact that the Bush rates were also in effect in 2008 when revenues cratered which leads one to suspect that the great revenues in 2006 and 2007 were not really due to the reduced Bush rates but might actually have had another cause like perhaps the real estate bubble and the stock market bubble.
     
  24. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FY 2016 ended with a debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79 an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 from FY 2015


    FY 2017 Mo 1 ended with a debt of $19,805,715,214,641.75 an increase of $232,270,500,704.96

    FY 2017 Mo 2 ended with a debt of $19,948,064,697,245.75 a monthly increase of $142,349,482,604.00

    FY 2017 Mo 3 ended with a debt of $19,976,826,951,047.80 a monthly increase of $28,762,253,802.05 increasing our debt $403,382,237,111.01 during the first three months of FY 2017.

    01/20/2017 $19,947,304,555,212.49 Debt when Trump inaugurated

    FY 2017 Mo 4 ended with a debt of $19,937,261,314,503.29 a monthly decrease of $39,565,636,544.51

    FY 2017 Mo 5 ended with a debt of $19,959,593,604,841.58 a monthly increase of $22,332,290,338.29

    FY 2017 Mo 6 ended with a debt of $19,846,420,062,676.87 a monthly decrease of $113,173,542,164.71
     
  25. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FY 2016 ended with a debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79 an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 from FY 2015


    FY 2017 Mo 1 ended with a debt of $19,805,715,214,641.75 an increase of $232,270,500,704.96

    FY 2017 Mo 2 ended with a debt of $19,948,064,697,245.75 a monthly increase of $142,349,482,604.00

    FY 2017 Mo 3 ended with a debt of $19,976,826,951,047.80 a monthly increase of $28,762,253,802.05 increasing our debt $403,382,237,111.01 during the first three months of FY 2017.

    01/20/2017 $19,947,304,555,212.49 Debt when Trump inaugurated

    FY 2017 Mo 4 ended with a debt of $19,937,261,314,503.29 a monthly decrease of $39,565,636,544.51

    FY 2017 Mo 5 ended with a debt of $19,959,593,604,841.58 a monthly increase of $22,332,290,338.29

    FY 2017 Mo 6 ended with a debt of $19,846,420,062,676.87 a monthly decrease of $113,173,542,164.71

    FY 2017 Mo 7 ended with a debt of $19,846,129,308,635.72 a monthly decrease of $290,754,041.15
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017

Share This Page