"It is pretty easy to see that federal revenue grew consistently throughout the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years "
During Reagan and Bush years, spending grew at a faster rate than revenue. And revenue didn't grow consistently, there were several times when it was almost flat during the Reagan years, for example. It was only during the Clinton years that revenue grew consistently, and that was despite the tax hike. You keep ignoring the fact that the debt exploded under Reagan and Bush I. It was around $800 billion when Reagan took office. It was over $5 trillion when he left.
"It is also worth noting the substantial increase in revenue following the Clinton tax cuts and again following the Bush tax cuts:"
Which isn't supported by your graph. The growth during the Clinton years started before the Republicans took the House and Senate. And was well under way by the time the tax cut was passed in 1997, much less it taking effect. Granted, it increased more afterwards, but it was increasing at an increasing rate going into 1997. It isn't clear that the rate of increase had changed at all.
As far as the Bush tax cuts, the only way you can make that claim is if the economy wouldn't have recovered at all. The Clinton Recession really wasn't, it was more of a stock market phenomena than an honest to goodness economic downturn. As far as things go, it was extremely minor. The revenue decrease far exceeded the drop in economic activity. So it isn't clear that the Bush tax cuts had any positive effect on the economy. It probably did, the amount of deficit spending that Bush engaged it was really high, but...
"The $1 TRILLION Obama wasted sure as hell didn't meet HIS OWN expectations (unemployment <=8%)."
No, it didn't meet that expectation. The overdependence on tax cuts in that environment meant almost a third of it was wasted. But it at least pulled us, and by extension, the rest of the world back from the brink of a global depression. Certainly that is worth something?
"It is some of the best, most absolute proof since FDR that government cannot solve economic problems through spending money. "
Not true. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable economist who would go along with this. Fringe nutcases, sure. But...
"- Early 80s tax cuts followed by revenue growth from 500B to 2T over 20 years."
Totally ignoring the large amount, at the time at least, debt that was run up during those years. As I have pointed out, deficit spending does stimulate the economy, there is your proof. $5 trillion should have some stimulus effect, and it did.
"- An even MORE HUGE surge in revenue after GWB cut taxes"
Given the amount of debt run up, it wasn't all that huge. Again, deficit spending.
"- No noticeable revenue improvement after Obama's stimulus spending"
Given that we were on the brink of another Great Depression, perhaps one that would have been even worse, avoiding that is hardly nothing. Revenue would have been incredibly worse under those conditions.
"In short, you don't have a leg to stand on. Your claim is totally disproven if one wants to consider actual empirical results."
Only because you have tried to spin the actual results. You ignored the debt run up during the time of those huge increases in revenue, which should tell you that the tax cuts weren't paying for themselves but the opposite, and you have shifted the timelines to fit your narrative instead of taking things in the sequence. In other words, you are trying to fit the facts to your ideology and are willing to distorts things to make your point.
Bottom line, you haven't made your case. In fact, using the data you have provided, it shows the opposite of your claim. I have pointed this out before, yet you still trot out these same thoroughly debunked arguments. I suppose I should admire your persistence, despite being slapped down every time, but... |
