Total US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

nice chart and explanation



Max E. said:
Everyone who is not an idiot knows who sets the purse strings, reality is not on your side on this one Tony, when did spending explode? When Dems took everything, when is the only times in history it has slowed or went down, when republicans had control of both chambers.

For you to make it out like liberals are the ones who are the low spenders and the deficit hawks is just a complete and utter denial of reality, the only places with higher debt/GDP than liberal states, are canadian provinces like Ontario and quebec, and news flash, its all run by liberals. In order for someone to think that liberals are the ones running a tight ship, you need to have a strong deference to reality.

If you were to project this chart out further the deficit only dropped when republicans took control again, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous to make the claim you are making, and it blows my mind that so called educated individuals would even make the argument that the party of big government actually saves us money.

us_federal_debt_as_percent_of_gdp_color_coded_congress_control_and_presidents_highlighted.png
More...
 
Tsing Tao said:
Here's your coherent reply, Spike, though I'd bet that once you get it you'll go scurrying back under your rock and not offer anything to the conversation.

Comparing Obama to Bush - which is something the left has done since Obama was a household name - is not an excuse. Bush was a horrible President. He wasn't a conservative, and he spent like a drunken sailor. Obama promised to be someone different. Remember all that hope and change? Do I have to pull up the videos again that show Obama talking about how reckless it is to raise the debt limit? How irresponsible it is to spend beyond our means, etc? It's too bad Senator Obama wasn't in the White House. All we got was President Obama.

Bush is irrelevant for the discussion, unless all you're trying to do is come up with excuses (which is the left's M.O.). Stop trying to blame Bush and focus on the things that Obama is doing wrong. Conservatives will agree that Bush was horrible. Liberals will defend Obama's actions to the death, no matter how horrible.

That is the difference between the sides. I'd like to hear your coherent reply, though I won't hold my breath.
More...




Is that your coherent reply? You conveniently omit the situation the country was in 2008.

When Paulson called Pelosi on that fateful weekend and told her to be at a meeting asap Pelosi told him to send the documents to her early Monday morning.

Paulson's reply was ''Monday will be too late , there will be no operating financial system Monday morning. It will be a meltdown.

Why don't you tell us how and where the money was spent. There are many excellent videos on the subject. Go refresh.
 
that is fake news model scoring.
Nobody can state the the Trump tax cuts cost us tax revenues.
Revenues went up after the bush tax cuts.
that cbo stuff is static model fantasy bullshit.


receipts went up after the bush tax cuts.
even the taxes collected from the 1 percent were higher.

tax revenue went up after the tax cuts.
we don't care about how much the govt could have made in those models...
because they models assume a certain level of growth.
Growth that may not have happened if the economy languished without the tax cuts.

Tony Stark said:
Tthe Bush tax cuts cost more than the stimulus.While the stimulus was a one time hit some of the Bush tax cuts are still in place and is still costing money


CBO Scoring
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury:

  • The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002-2011 decade, excluding interest.[2]

  • The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the Bush tax cuts would add approximately $3.0 trillion to the debt over the 2010-2019 decade if fully extended at all income levels, including interest.[3]
More...
 
jem said:
that is fake news model scoring.
Nobody can state the the Trump tax cuts cost us tax revenues.
Revenues went up after the bush tax cuts.
that cbo stuff is static model fantasy bullshit.


receipts went up after the bush tax cuts.
even the taxes collected from the 1 percent were higher.

tax revenue went up after the tax cuts.
we don't care about how much the govt could have made in those models...
because they models assume a certain level of growth.
Growth that may not have happened if the economy languished without the tax cuts.
More...


Tax receipts from 1990 to 2000 went up 10 years in a row and were double in 2000 than they were in 1990.
  • FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
  • FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
  • FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
  • FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
  • FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
  • FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
  • FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
  • FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
  • FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
  • FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
  • FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.


After the first bush tax cuts in 2001 tax receipts were lower than 2000 levels until 2005 then went up 3 years and then crashed back down to near 2000 levels in 2009 and 2010

  • FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
  • FY 2009- $2.1 trillion.
  • FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
  • FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
  • FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
  • FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
  • FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
  • FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
  • FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
  • FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
  • FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Clinton

FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Bush

FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
 
Last edited:
remember.... the dot com bubble with big cap gains payments on stock gains...

and then 9/11... tax revenues fell... and it took the bush tax cuts revive the economy and tax revenues...


The first conclusion from this table is that Federal Tax Revenues fell after the “Dot Com” bubble of 2000 and the tragedy of 9/11 in 2001. Tax revenues peaked during the last year of the Clinton Presidency at $2.026 trillion. Had tax revenues just been flat during the first three years of the Bush Presidency, despite significant growth in spending (from $1.789 trillion in Clinton’s last year to $2.160 trillion in 2003), the cumulative net outcome for those first three Bush years would have resulted in a budget surplus of $212.7 billion. But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion

(and then...)


https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...s-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#1b08725958d5

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

The key question here is what did the wealthy contribute to this impressive increase in tax revenues? Let’s examine four income groups based on their adjusted gross income: the top 0.1% of earners representing about 129,000 tax returns in 2003 and 141,000 tax returns in 2007; the top 1% of earners representing 1,286,000 returns in 2003 and 1,411,000 returns in 2007; the top 25-50% of earners representing 32,152,000 returns in 2003 and 35,268,000 returns in 2007; and finally the bottom 50% of earners representing 64,305,000 returns in 2003 and 70,535,000 returns in 2007. Table 2 shows the total income tax and percent of total Federal tax revenues paid by each income group in 2003 and in 2007. As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.) The top 1% of earners paid an increase of $58 per day, the top 25-50% of earners paid an extra $1 per day, and the bottom 50% paid an increase of 14 cents per day.


So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes? Despite the fact that politicians and the media repeatedly make this claim, the truth is they are simply wrong. What happened after the Bush tax cuts was accelerated growth of our economy (GDP) and a significant reduction in unemployment (See: Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and the GDP). Higher income earners earned more during the four years after the Bush tax cuts but also disproportionately increased their already disproportionate share of taxes paid.
 
jem said:
the main bush tax cut was in 2003.

here is what happened... tax revenue boomed... especially from the one percent...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...s-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#1b08725958d5

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

The key question here is what did the wealthy contribute to this impressive increase in tax revenues? Let’s examine four income groups based on their adjusted gross income: the top 0.1% of earners representing about 129,000 tax returns in 2003 and 141,000 tax returns in 2007; the top 1% of earners representing 1,286,000 returns in 2003 and 1,411,000 returns in 2007; the top 25-50% of earners representing 32,152,000 returns in 2003 and 35,268,000 returns in 2007; and finally the bottom 50% of earners representing 64,305,000 returns in 2003 and 70,535,000 returns in 2007. Table 2 shows the total income tax and percent of total Federal tax revenues paid by each income group in 2003 and in 2007. As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.) The top 1% of earners paid an increase of $58 per day, the top 25-50% of earners paid an extra $1 per day, and the bottom 50% paid an increase of 14 cents per day.


So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes? Despite the fact that politicians and the media repeatedly make this claim, the truth is they are simply wrong. What happened after the Bush tax cuts was accelerated growth of our economy (GDP) and a significant reduction in unemployment (See: Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and the GDP). Higher income earners earned more during the four years after the Bush tax cuts but also disproportionately increased their already disproportionate share of taxes paid.
More...


Bush

Tax receipts FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
Tax receipts FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.


Clinton

Tax receipts FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
Tax receipts FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion
 
jem said:
The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”
More...


Than tax receipts dropped to 2.1 trillion in 2009 and 2010
 
jem said:
The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”
.
More...


Obama ended the tax cuts for the rich in 2012.Tax receipts up a trillion dollars in 4 years

  • FY 2017 (est.) - $3.460 trillion.
  • FY 2016 - $3.268 trillion.
  • FY 2015 - $3.250 trillion.
  • FY 2013 - $2.775 trillion.
  • FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top