The numbers are in, and Trump's tax cut didn't reduce the deficit – despite his many promises

The tax cuts ARE spending. The way the CBO accounts for tax breaks is to include them in spending, because they consider them "refunds".

 

Why shouldn't I blame Democrats for their budgets and huge spending increases they ran on and then bragged about? And BTW we had a HUGE .com bubble that burst during the 2000 recession and then 9/11 but the Republicans took mostly the correct actions to mitigate the damage and then get us into a full and strong recovery. The Democrats ran on the premise elect us and we will better handle the economy and government fiscal policy. They totally failed and we are still living with that failure.

 

Which is one of the fallacy of CBO predictions.

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
Residential housing is only about 3% of GDP. It was an across the board expansion. Then the Democrats in their failure to pass measures to help mitigate the coming recession and failed policies to get us into a full recovery increased spending 10% and then 20% and bragged about.

What are you disputing and be specific.

 

No, Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House. Full control. Also, Bush was not warning them of a crises, he was asking the Congress to surrender the regulation of financial institutions to the White House. In 2004 him and Greenspan were both on TV encouraging people to take advantage of exotic mortgages, and that was a time where the rates had nowhere to go but up. He also initiated a massive campaign to push mortgages to Hispanics and other minorities who did not qualify for them. But then again, it was an election year so......

These were big mistakes, and both parties should try to learn from them so they wont be repeated.

 

It is always a mistake to deny that mistakes were made. Instead of trying to deny them, or worse, blame others for them, you should always try to learn from them. Unfortunately people tend to repeat mistakes of the past. Bush did loosen the lending standards on multiple occasions, and it did contribute to the melt'down few years later.

America's Homeownership Challenge - George W Bush

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/homeownership/homeownership-policy-book-ch2.html

- Mobilizing the Private Sector: America's Homeownership Challenge

- Establish a national goal of at least 5.5 million new minority homeowners before the end of the decade.

- Challenge the private sector real estate and mortgage finance industries to dramatically increase their efforts to reduce the barriers to homeownership faced by minority families and to work with the nonprofit sector in a concerted effort to achieve this goal through national and local partnerships.

- Convene a White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership, to highlight the homeownership barriers faced by minorities and develop proposed solutions.

- A substantial increase of at least $440 billion in the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;

- Twenty-five different local initiatives to be undertaken across the nation, geared toward eliminating the specific homeownership barriers faced by minority families in those communities;

- A commitment to raise $750 million in below-market-rate investments by 2007, which will work in collaboration with local homeownership initiatives and be targeted to heavily minority program areas;

- Pursuing strategic partnerships in 20 top housing markets between homebuilders, lenders, local officials, and community leaders to develop approaches that address the local challenges to building homes for minority families living in urban centers;

- Establishing of faith-based housing partnerships between the participants and at least 100 churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions;

- Aggressively developing new mortgage products so that conventional market alternatives are available to combat the predatory loan products that are disproportionately targeted to minorities;

- Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants;

- Dramatically expanding financial education efforts for minorities, providing financial counseling to at least 380,000 minority families, and taking measures at the local level to reduce predatory lending; and

- Establishing multilingual, consumer-oriented internet Web sites designed to help minorities overcome barriers to homeownership, including creation of a central data bank of affordable housing programs made available to real estate agents when working with clients.

 

My graph shows it was tanking when Trump took over and turned it around.

 

Dems took control of both Houses in 2006. I posted a video of Bush warning of the crisis as far back as 2001

You obviously are mistaken.

 

But, that did not happen.

The budget and huge spending increase is the one Trump signed just a little over a year ago., The one that produced a three quarter of a trillion dollar defecit, just as folks like me predicted it would. We've seen this borrow and spend game before. Reagan did it. George W Bush did it. Now Trump is doing it.

After eight years of watching you yell about spending and balancing budgets, you're shouting directly out of the other side of your mouth and making false claims (again) to boot.

The US was not in serious economic trouble in 2001, as it would be at the end of the Bush years. The recession was very mild. Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with them either. They pissed away the surplus and started running deficits within weeks of the passage of Bush's tax law. Critics like me predicted "deficits as far as the eye could see"

And that's exactly what we got. Now Trump is upping even that. Borrow,. spend, and who cares what happens next. Trump certainly doesn't.

 

Dems assumed control in Jan 2007, so when Bush made his requests in 2001 (as you say) Dems did NOT have power. Republicans had control. Bush was not warning them, he was asking them to surrender the regulation of financial institutions to the White House, and they laughed him out of the building. Why would they surrender it to WH, when the Constitution mandated it is the duty of the Congress? Can you imagine if they had agreed and Obama has inherited such authority? Anyway, the Supreme Court would have overturned it even if Congress had allowed it. Besides, I showed you Bush's agenda to help minorities get exotic mortgages after the so called 'warning'. Why would he warn, and then throw fuel in the fire?

Also, you probably know the Republicans have controlled the purse for the past 8 years, and the debt has been increasing rapidly, and still is.

We need real conservatives, like Rand Paul to stop this mayhem.

 

Since McConnell took over Senate speakership in 2015 the deficit has only gone one way UP!!And as was to be expected he and Lyin Ryan want to pay for their profligate spending by cutting Social Security,Medicare and Medicaid benefits which are already inadequate, TYPICAL GOP POLICY OF THE POOR SHOULD ENRICH THE WEALTHY!!!

 

No, he isn't. The White House has a lot of tools at its disposal to make changes to ameliorate the coming crisis. Beyond talking aobut it obliquely, they did nothing. Nor did the GOP. The Republcian congress made no attempt whatsoever to put the brakes on the runaway speculative boom, and the Bush White House actually did things to make it worse (for their short term benefit).

All they did was manufacture a talking point trying to blame Barney Frank for the collapse of Fannie Mae, even though Frank was not a committee chairman, nor a majority member, and the majority did nothing aside from vague comments at irregular intervals.

By the time Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the horse was already walking out of the barn. The real estate market started to break the previous summer. It was quite a dramatic break, too. Most of us in the construction industry knew that hard times were coming even then. We just didn't know how hard.

But have no fear! Trump wants to put the same rules and the same people who caused the last crash in charge of setting up the next one. You cheer for that too!

 

Thats actually correct.

Liberal tax policies are designed to transfer wealth. Conservative tax policies are designed to spur economic growth.

 

Why is that a fallacy?

Ok, so here's a question for a broader group of people who might know. When people post these charts of how much revenue has been collected thus far in 2018, is there a way to know (or estimate) how much of that money will eventually get refunded? Is that number already built into those charts?

 

For the fourth time, this thread is a big fat stupid lie.
Since the economy is growing every day (due to tax cuts and other things), that means new people are going back to work every day, and that means NEW revenue is coming in every day, and THAT means that the tax cuts are paying for themselves more and more every day. To say "the numbers are already in" is sheer stupidity and ignorance.

 

Zorro for the win!

 

Seriously, why do you people make this stuff up. Prior to the new tax policy, earner making > $730,000 paid 38% of the tax burden. After the new tax policy, earners making > $730,000 are paying 43% of the total tax liability. A 5% net increase.

Eaners making > $150,000 accounted for 84% of the tax burden prior to the tax reform. After the tax reform, earners making > $150,000 accounted for 87% of the tax burden. A net INCREASE.

The beneficiaries of the tax policy was the middle class.

 

The way the CBO accounts for tax breaks is to include them in spending, because they consider them "refunds". The projections are notoriously inaccurate.

 

Because they can't fight with actual facts, so they make stuff up. If this were Obama's economy, they would be going crazy with love and blowing soft kisses into the wind all day long. But, it's Trump, so they make up garbage and hope people believe it.

 

Yes it did happen the Democrats failed to take measures to help mitigate the recession and bragged about HUGELY increasing spending and ran the deficit to $1400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three years as their stimulus failed to get us into a full recession.

Still not close to the Democrats record trillion dollar ones. Regan requested less spending than Congress authorized and had they accepted his budgets deficits would have fallen to under $100B, Bush43 had the deficit down to that paltry $161B after the recession peak of $400B. The Democrats never came close to the WORST Republican deficits.

What false claim and be specific. What I have been clear on is we need to elect more CONSERVATIVE Republicans and get rid of the RINO's and Democrats. More Gingrich/Kaish (at the time Kaisch) Republicans who know how to balance budgets and produce surpluses.

The US was most certainly in serious economic trouble with the slowdown/recession which began before Bush was elected, the huge dot.com bust and collapse of the tech sector and then the hit from 9/11. To claim otherwise is preposterous. And YES the Republicans took mostly the correct measures which helped to mitigate the damage and get it turned around into a full recovery. Their mistake was phasing in the tax rate cuts instead of just passing them and the small $600 prebate stimulus which did nothing. You make the mistake of thinking the tax rate cuts DID go into effect immediately when they did nothing of the sort and were barely in effect at all in 2001 and 2002.

And STILL better than what we would get from more RINO's and Democrats.

 

This is not true at all. But then you figures only include income tax, something that right wingers are careful to try and limit the discussion to. Most middle class people pay far more in FICA/FUTA taxes than they do in income taxes. For the wealthy, FICA/FUTA taxes hardly matter. For Joe Trumpster, its' the biggest part decucted from their check every week.

I have no idea why., The average Trumpster pays far more of their income in taxes than any of the billionaires they so passionately defend do.

 

What people do not realize is that Trump's tax policy revitalized the economy way more effectively than quantitative easing EVER did and we didn't use tax payer dollars to flood the market.

 

Another collection of false and clearly misleading claims.

As I noted, the train was off the rails before the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. And the GOP still controlled the Senate and the White House. And they weren't going to do anything the bankers would disapprove of (after spending the previous six years in the same mode).

The Democrats did not radically increase domestic spending in 2007, contrary to your false claim. There were two racial spending bills AFTER Lehman Bros had crashed and the economy was in freefall. These were the TARP Bill passed by the GOP Congress in the fall of 2007, and the stimulus bill passed the following summer under the Obama Administration. The deficits were largely the fault of 750,000 people a month being thrown out of work at the time. Of course, had we done what the Republicans wanted to do (which was nothing), people would have been living in Bushvilles and sleeping under bridges.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 were not prompted by the collapse of the DOT com boom. Your claim about the tax rates barely being in effect is also false. But you did note that the Treasury did go from surplus to deficit as it borrowed the cost of the "prebate".

Trump's tax cuts are 100% dependant on borrowed money. The bankers didn't even try and con you with the old "trickle down" play this time.

 

There is no evidence of that.

The trends in economic growth remain consistant with the trend lines of the last seven years. Quantative easing worked very well. It delivered us the longest running economic recovery in our nation's history. One that Trump is trying to take credit for. The only change under Trump is that he has mortgaged the out years of this recovery. The bill will come due, as the bills for all of the other GOP borrow and spend sprees did.

 

We had low unemployment and strong GDP when the Democrats took control JANUARY of 2007.

They did for FY2008 and then ESPECIALLY for FY2009 when they took Bush completely out of the picture don't make false claims about what I say.

The spending increases were the results of Democrats failed Keynesian policies and getting Bush out of the way who held them to a $400B deficit in 2008 but could not stop them and their $1,400B for 2009 and then their total mismanagement kept them over $1,000B for the next 3.

In fact they were, to help get us over the recession and into a full recovery. And the prebate was paid back on the following April tax return, it was just an advance. As far as your claim about the rates they had only been cut by 1% through 2003. https://www.scribd.com/document/245...wth-and-Tax-Relief-Reconciliation-Act-of-2001

Tax rate cuts aren't dependent of borrowing, that makes no economic of budgetary sense on it's face. SPENDING is dependent on borrowing to pay for it if spending is higher than revenue. The last two times we have balanced those two or gotten close was under Republican conservative policies.