• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Projects: GDP Headed To 15-Year High

Reagan and Obama did not face equivalent economic turndowns...
Exactly, Reagan's inheritance was worse w/ a peak unemployment rate of 11% vs. Obama's inherited 10%. Yet, Obama left us 2.1 % growth + excuses in contrast to Reagan's 3.7 % growth + prosperity.
 
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

The difference between a successful businessman and a community organizer could not be starker. Competitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back, tax-cuts helped struggling middle class, and slashing regulations jumpstarted the economy.

All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Everyone knows deficit spending can help the economy. That's why Obama wanted to do more of it, and Republicans wouldn't let him. In Obama's first year in office when he passed the Stimulus package, he saw growth go from -2.8% handed to him by Bush to +2.5%. A net improvement of 5.3%. Unfortunately after that Republican blocked further recovery measures going forward.

The real question though is when is the right time to use deficit spending? When your economy is bleeding jobs deficit spending is a perfectly acceptable way of getting things going back in the right direction, but once the economy is fully recovered, we're at full employment, and we're humming along fine it's reckless and irresponsible to run massive deficits in order to overheat the economy. All you do is cause inflation, and run the risk of causing an economic bubble.

Face facts. President Obama handed Trump an Economy so good, that there's almost nothing he could have done to **** it up in just the span of two years.
 
Exactly, Reagan's inheritance was worse w/ a peak unemployment rate of 11%

False. Under Reagan unemployment didn't reach 11% until a full two years into his Term. Obama was able to stop unemployment from falling that far within 6 months, and already had the economy headed back in the right direction.
 
Obama was able to stop unemployment from falling...
--and not only was he unwilling to allow it to recover:
unempfg.png

but his policies prevented a rebound in family incomes:
realinc.png
 
Exactly, Reagan's inheritance was worse w/ a peak unemployment rate of 11% vs. Obama's inherited 10%. Yet, Obama left us 2.1 % growth + excuses in contrast to Reagan's 3.7 % growth + prosperity.

Supply side problems vs. demand side problems, an extra 30 years of stagnating wages, obstructionist congress... unemployment rates and GDP growths aren't the only things to compare here.
 
Exactly, Reagan's inheritance was worse w/ a peak unemployment rate of 11% vs. Obama's inherited 10%. Yet, Obama left us 2.1 % growth + excuses in contrast to Reagan's 3.7 % growth + prosperity.

I won't quote the post where you had a few cherry picked average unemployment rates because it's a mess of a graph. But what's missing is the Reagan record - the average unemployment rate for his 8 years was about 7.4%, or roughly the same as Obama.

And all Bush II had to do to generate his economic record is preside over the biggest bubble in 80 years, which unfortunately crashed and nearly brought down the world financial system, and Bush II handed off the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Good job Georgie!


https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506
 
...unemployment rates and GDP growths aren't the only things to compare here.
huh, they were all we needed in earlier posts until we actually looked at the record. OK, so lets look into how differing economic policy programs affected family incomes:
realinc.png
 
:yawn:



In an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010, Senator McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

:elephantf:usflag2:
Just for reference can you cite the last opposition party congressional leader who DIDN'T say something along those lines?
 
Giving credit for a shutout to the guy who threw only the last pitch :lamo

So how much did your paycheck go up? Twenty bucks? Is that what saved the economy?
You gonna pull the "Pelosi Crumps" defense? You guys have the patience of a hand grenade. You think you've seen the last pay raise or tax savings ever?
 
You gonna pull the "Pelosi Crumps" defense? You guys have the patience of a hand grenade. You think you've seen the last pay raise or tax savings ever?

You're really not understanding.

See, a president can really only take "credit" for economic impacts of legislation signed or regulation changes. Until the tax cut bill, nothing Trump did had a major impact on already-existing trends.
 
You're really not understanding.

See, a president can really only take "credit" for economic impacts of legislation signed or regulation changes. Until the tax cut bill, nothing Trump did had a major impact on already-existing trends.
Well, no. Not exactly true. A President can influence the economy by the attitudes his pronouncements and policies create in the economic decision makers minds. Obama came in playing all the class warfare clichés about "millionaires and billionaires" and the "rich not paying their fair share" and he openly stated some of his policies would "necessarily cause energy prices to sky rocket" and he made clear that he was more interested in tax rates to enforce his vision of "fairness" in in generating income. Results were that business sat on cash, grew slowly and marked time. Trump on the other hand has been pro-business from day one of his campaign and when he won in Nov 16 the enthusiasm across the economy world blossomed and the economy started rolling. He didn't have to pass anything to start the momentum but now he's go tax relief as added incentive and the reactions of companies demonstrate that; consumer confidence is up, people are more secure in their financial and job situations, companies are making expansion plans, etc.
 
No it wasn't.
Historically slumps were followed by rebounds that restored averages. Any feeble attempt to blame the results of bad policy on an "inherited mess" has to explain why the failure to produce a rebound lasted 8 years.

so EP, can you please post the source for your graphs. BEA and BLS are not the source for your graphs. Since you courageously didn't respond to my post, I'll explain why your post puts "Truman thru Bush" in one bar. He didn't even beat President Obama. How funny is that, Bush inherited a growing economy and a surplus and couldn't beat President Obama who inherited the Great Bush Recession and a destroyed financial and housing sector and (this is key) a minority party who tried to sabotage the economy and undermined the recovery


comparison.jpg

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/o...f-the-pack-among-recent-presidents-2017-01-05

And see how I posted the link
 
Last edited:
Just for reference can you cite the last opposition party congressional leader who DIDN'T say something along those lines?

oh Bullseye, see how you have to ask a "question". Its what conservatives (and conservative like posters) do because they cant make an honest, straightforward and factual statement but want to flail at reality. This is a debate forum. If you want to post wishful thinking as fact, you want a conservative chat room. Anyhoo, in addition to McConnel admitting it we also have the fact that republicans tried to sabotage the economy and undermine the recovery. So we got a confession from the perp and video of the attack.
 
Exactly, Reagan's inheritance was worse w/ a peak unemployment rate of 11% vs. Obama's inherited 10%. Yet, Obama left us 2.1 % growth + excuses in contrast to Reagan's 3.7 % growth + prosperity.

As I've already pointed out to you and you seem to have conveniently avoided, President Obama also inherited a minority party that tried to sabotage the economy and undermine the recovery. Reagan didn't get a minority party that would happily let Americans suffer and suffer longer for their political gain. President Obama did. And also, Reagan did not inherit a destroyed financial and housing sector.
 
Well, no. Not exactly true. A President can influence the economy by the attitudes his pronouncements and policies create in the economic decision makers minds. Obama came in playing all the class warfare clichés about "millionaires and billionaires" and the "rich not paying their fair share" and he openly stated some of his policies would "necessarily cause energy prices to sky rocket" and he made clear that he was more interested in tax rates to enforce his vision of "fairness" in in generating income. Results were that business sat on cash, grew slowly and marked time. Trump on the other hand has been pro-business from day one of his campaign and when he won in Nov 16 the enthusiasm across the economy world blossomed and the economy started rolling. He didn't have to pass anything to start the momentum but now he's go tax relief as added incentive and the reactions of companies demonstrate that; consumer confidence is up, people are more secure in their financial and job situations, companies are making expansion plans, etc.

Ahh right. I forget. You people believe the "class warfare" nonsense.

Businesses are still sitting on cash, dude.
 
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

The difference between a successful businessman and a community organizer could not be more stark. Competitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back, tax-cuts helped struggling middle class, and slashing regulations jumpstarted the economy.

All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.

:shrug: and pollsters, looking at what Congress 2019 is probably gonna look like.

We have had some good news on the regulation front, and on tax rates. Trump, however, seems to spend as bad as Obama, and is even worse on trade. We've also still got Obamacare, and the one guy in Congress who knows how to save us from our own entitlement insanity just called it quits. I'd call it a mixed bag at best.
 
:yawn:



In an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010, Senator McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

:elephantf:usflag2:


Too bad he didn't succeed. We'd be better off.
 
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

The difference between a successful businessman and a community organizer could not be more stark. Competitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back, tax-cuts helped struggling middle class, and slashing regulations jumpstarted the economy.

All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.

Even worse, the Dems promise...if they get back into power...to raise everyone's taxes again.

Now that's a really dumb thing to say to get people to vote for you.
 
:shrug: and pollsters, looking at what Congress 2019 is probably gonna look like.

Trump, however, seems to spend as bad as Obama, and is even worse on trade.

"spend as bad as Bush "don't you mean. Bush's spending shot up every year. President Obama's didn't. I'm sure it was just typo.
 
Even worse, the Dems promise...if they get back into power...to raise everyone's taxes again.

Now that's a really dumb thing to say to get people to vote for you.

You know if they said they'd raise everyone's taxes, you'd actually be right. But that's just you filtering out the facts again. for someone who says he doesn't you sure do it a lot. Anyhoo, what do you call it when a party promises to lower the deficit and/or balance the budget for 8 years and then balloons the deficit first chance they get?
 
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

The difference between a successful businessman and a community organizer could not be more stark. Competitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back, tax-cuts helped struggling middle class, and slashing regulations jumpstarted the economy.

All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.

I know its pointless to post facts to you but what the heck. Democrats don't "obstruct" things they previously supported. That's obstruction and that's what republicans did. They opposed mandates, stimulus, jobs bill, tax cuts. Things they would have happily supported if the president was republicans. But to prove your statement false, Ryan needed democrat help to pass the budget. Serious question Joe, how do you rationalize that republicans are flaming lying hypocrites on deficits and conservatives are flaming hypocrites?
 
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

The difference between a successful businessman and a community organizer could not be more stark. Competitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back, tax-cuts helped struggling middle class, and slashing regulations jumpstarted the economy.

All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.
First, it's interesting to note the hypocrisy of conservatives, who just a few months ago were panning the CBO's ability to estimate correctly when the CBO said that the Trump tax-cut will balloon the deficit and the Trump/GOP health bill would throw tens of millions off of health care. Now, when the CBO publishes something they like, they are behind the accuracy of CBO forecasts.

Second, show where "[c]ompetitive corporate tax-rate brought jobs back?" There is no indication of that in the actual numbers.

Third, since government spending is a large part of GDP, the added spending in Trump's budget is a sugar rush to this year's GDP. What is telling is that the CBO projects that while GDP will be 3.3% this year, it projects subsequent years to be about 1% point lower -- lower than GDP growth under Obama.

As Brookings wrote:

On balance, the medium-term (10-year) outlook has worsened over the past year. The 2017 tax cut, the 2018 spending deals, and higher projected interest rates raise projected deficits and debt, while expectations of a stronger economy (in large part attributable to the fiscal stimulus from policy changes) and lower health care spending work in the opposite direction. The net effect is that CBO now projects a debt-GDP ratio of 94.5 percent in 2027 under current law, compared to a similar projection of 91.2 percent last June.
...
in an odd twist, the strong projected economy makes the projections of large deficits more worrisome. CBO projects that cumulative actual and potential GDP will be equal, on average, over the 2018-2028 period. The strong economic performance is due in significant part to the implementation of the tax legislation. But it also means that the higher projected deficits and debt are essentially full-employment deficits. If (when?) the economy falls into recession, the medium-term fiscal outlook is likely to look significantly worse.
...
under a “current policy” scenario, the problem is considerably worse, as CBO acknowledges. Whereas current-law projections examine the impact of Congress essentially making no further changes over the projection period, “current policy” projections estimate the impact of what might be termed “business-as-usual” assumptions regarding tax and spending choices—in particular, that policy makers routinely extend temporary provisions.[3] Under current law, CBO projects a debt-GDP ratio of 96.2 percent by 2028. Under current policy, the authors project a debt-GDP ratio of 106.5 percent in that year, which would be the highest ratio in U.S. history.
... the situation only gets worse after 2028. The “fiscal gap” measures the tax and spending changes needed to bring the debt-GDP ratio to a specified level in a specified year. For example, under current policy, the authors find that to ensure the debt-GDP ratio 30 years from now does not exceed the current level would require a combination of immediate and permanent spending cuts and/or tax increases totaling 4.0 percent of GDP. This represents about a 21 percent cut in non-interest spending or a 24 percent increase in tax revenues relative to current levels. To put this in perspective, the 2017 tax cuts and 2018 spending deals will raise the deficit by slightly more than 2 percent of GDP in 2019. The required adjustments to keep debt at its current ratio to GDP in 2048 are about twice as big and in the opposite direction. The longer policy makers wait to institute changes, the larger those adjustments would have to be to hit a given debt target in a given year. Moreover, over a longer horizon, the required annual adjustments are much larger, because the projected fiscal trajectory under current policy continues to deteriorate.
 
Last edited:
All the while the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct at every turn. And they think Americans want them back in power? Only liberals would be dumb enough to believe that.
Please explain how a government in which the Republicans hold the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate are obstructed by the party in the minority?

...yes, based upon special election results, Americans want the Dems back in power.
 
You know if they said they'd raise everyone's taxes, you'd actually be right. But that's just you filtering out the facts again. for someone who says he doesn't you sure do it a lot. Anyhoo, what do you call it when a party promises to lower the deficit and/or balance the budget for 8 years and then balloons the deficit first chance they get?

I don't believe anyone's promises...I look for their actions. Heck, I don't even believe the Democrats when they say they'll raise taxes if they get back into power. But what I believe isn't the issue. Doesn't matter what the Dems promise...I won't vote for them. But what the Dems promise DOES affect other people's votes. That was the point I made. You didn't address it.

And I haven't filtered any facts.

This week, Congressional Democrats released a detailed tax hike plan that they promised to implement if given majority control of the House and Senate after the 2018 midterm elections. So much for the crocodile tears about the deficit--Democrats want to raise taxes not to reduce the debt, but rather to spend that tax hike money on boondoggle projects.
As you might expect, hold onto your wallets. Here are the details:

for the details, read the article at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2018/03/09/democrats-release-tax-hike-plan/#66d0112c7b9e
 
Back
Top Bottom