The Biden Economy

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Listen, I fully understand supply-side theory and wish it were true. The trouble is that it isn't. I guess you still buy into Steve Mnuchin's sophistry when he said of Trump's tax cuts, “Not only will this tax plan pay for itself but it will pay down debt.” How'd that work out?

Not too bad, actually. Revenue increased each year with the exception of the 2020 pandemic fiscal year. But by 2021, the Federal Govt set another record for corporate tax receipts, and Biden continued the Trump-era tax cuts. I think some of them are still in place.

Regarding the "it'll pay for itself" statement, that was made prior to Trump signing another massive budget bill in 2018, where he said, "I'll never do this again".

The problem really isn't revenue. Revenue for the most part goes up every year. The problem, for the most part, is that the DC crowd also outspends what it budgeted nearly every year.

2022 is just one example:

• The federal government collected $5.0 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2022 (FY 2022) — or $15,098 per person.
• The federal government spent $6.5 trillion in FY 2022 — or $19,434 per person — including funds distributed to states.
• Federal revenue increased 14.3% in FY 2022 after collecting more personal income taxes, social security taxes, and auctioning spectrum for commercial wireless and broadcast use.
• Federal spending decreased 12.4% in FY 2022 after remaining relatively flat in FY 2021.
• The federal government spent 28.7% more than it collected in FY 2022, resulting in a $1.45 trillion deficit.
• The national debt hit $30.9 trillion last fiscal year.

This happens under both Republicans and Democrats so there's plenty of blame to share. Dems love to crow about Clinton's "surplus" in the late '90's, but there was not shortage of Dems who also wanted to spend that surplus, calling it "the peace dividend" (an Orwellian reference if there ever was one). Republicans talk a good game but it's rare that Repubs show they have the nuts to take the problem on.

And on it goes...

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Not too bad, actually. Revenue increased each year with the exception of the 2020 pandemic fiscal year. But by 2021, the Federal Govt set another record for corporate tax receipts, and Biden continued the Trump-era tax cuts. I think some of them are still in place.

Regarding the "it'll pay for itself" statement, that was made prior to Trump signing another massive budget bill in 2018, where he said, "I'll never do this again".

The problem really isn't revenue. Revenue for the most part goes up every year. The problem, for the most part, is that the DC crowd also outspends what it budgeted nearly every year.

2022 is just one example:

• The federal government collected $5.0 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2022 (FY 2022) — or $15,098 per person.
• The federal government spent $6.5 trillion in FY 2022 — or $19,434 per person — including funds distributed to states.
• Federal revenue increased 14.3% in FY 2022 after collecting more personal income taxes, social security taxes, and auctioning spectrum for commercial wireless and broadcast use.
• Federal spending decreased 12.4% in FY 2022 after remaining relatively flat in FY 2021.
• The federal government spent 28.7% more than it collected in FY 2022, resulting in a $1.45 trillion deficit.
• The national debt hit $30.9 trillion last fiscal year.

This happens under both Republicans and Democrats so there's plenty of blame to share. Dems love to crow about Clinton's "surplus" in the late '90's, but there was not shortage of Dems who also wanted to spend that surplus, calling it "the peace dividend" (an Orwellian reference if there ever was one). Republicans talk a good game but it's rare that Repubs show they have the nuts to take the problem on.

And on it goes...

And this, in a nutshell, is why supply-side economics is such sophistry. The GOP has no desire to pay for the programs it supports and defends (e.g., defense, Social Security, Medicare), preferring to lie to the American by essentially saying "You can have it all pain-free because we'll pay for it with tax cuts." At least the Democrats are intellectually honest about these programs (if you want them, they need to be paid for). This is not to say that all government programs/spending are good, but that as long as they are codified in law by Congress, Congress has an obligation to pay for them.

Just several recent examples - Trump cut taxes by ~$2 trillion but insists upon making no cuts to popular "entitlement" programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare), preferring to pay for both these tax cuts and programs with significant increases in deficit spending. Similarly, the Congressional GOP opposed Biden's infrastructure spending but jumps at the chance to take credit for the resulting projects in their districts.

In short, the canard that "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" is yet another manifestation of supply-side sophistry. If you had any understanding of economic and accounting principles, one needs to match revenue with spending in order to avoid deficit spending. Supply-side economics is indeed a perfect fit with Trumpism - continue to spend at will, but refuse to pay your bills (by stiffing contractors/vendors (Trump) or refusing to increase the debt limit to pay for the very programs you already approved (House GOP)).

[finnbow]

Meanwhile:

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And this, in a nutshell, is why supply-side economics is such sophistry. The GOP has no desire to pay for the programs it supports and defends (e.g., defense, Social Security, Medicare), preferring to lie to the American by essentially saying "You can have it all pain-free because we'll pay for it with tax cuts." At least the Democrats are intellectually honest about these programs (if you want them, they need to be paid for).

This is where your logic fails you, and you do this every single time. Supply-side economics has nothing to do with "paying for programs". Paying is spending, and our friends in Washington prove year after year that revenue is not a consideration where spending is concerned. Hell, most budgets - including Biden's most recent budget - included an expectation of spending more than expected revenue.

You can lie to yourself about Democrats' intellectual honesty on the topic. I've seen no desire on the part of Dems to align spending with forecasted revenue.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

This is where your logic fails you, and you do this every single time. Supply-side economics has nothing to do with "paying for programs". Paying is spending, and our friends in Washington prove year after year that revenue is not a consideration where spending is concerned. Hell, most budgets - including Biden's most recent budget - included an expectation of spending more than expected revenue.

You can lie to yourself about Democrats' intellectual honesty on the topic. I've seen no desire on the part of Dems to align spending with forecasted revenue.

The issue is how you chose to pay for the expense of running the government our Constitution and Congress created, warts and all. Reduce (or increase) the size of government through a legitimate legislative process to your heart's desire and budget accordingly with a committal to the markets that you'll pay the bills for the government you created.

You do it either through tax revenue and/or debt. And Art Laffer basically said that you can increase (the necessary) revenue by cutting taxes whereas real world experience in the Reagan, Dubya and Trump administrations proves otherwise. And this creates the deficits you rail incessantly against. History has shown pretty clearly that our deficit/debt performs better under Democratic administrations. Have you ever considered that "voodoo economics" may be a flawed, discredited concept, indeed just a clever marketing ploy to "reduce government to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" while giving tax breaks to wealthy GOP benefactors?

George H.W. Bush was the last prominent Republican to willingly call out this sophistry by his party and it cost him dearly. It has now become GOP catechism notwithstanding its repeated failures.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The issue is how you chose to pay for the expense of running the government our Constitution and Congress created, warts and all. Reduce (or increase) the size of government through a legitimate legislative process to your heart's desire and budget accordingly with a committal to the markets that you'll pay the bills for the government you created.

Agreed, to the extent that the process you describe above is political, and the participants in the process don't limit themselves to "budgeting accordingly". In fact, the current practice is to include in the budget an acknowledgment that expenses will exceed revenue.

Originally Posted by finnbow

You do it either through tax revenue and/or debt. And Art Laffer basically said that you can increase (the necessary) revenue by cutting taxes whereas real world experience in the Reagan, Dubya and Trump administrations proves otherwise.

This ignores the numbers that I posted earlier that showed increases in year-over-year revenues, with the exception of the pandemic year. This ignores the fact that the 2018 tax cuts remained in effect under Biden, yet 2021 was a record-setting year for tax revenue.

If you're going to ignore the facts just to make your point, then there's no need to continue this discussion.

[Chicks]

Pence Adviser Tells MSNBC She Had ‘Strict Orders’ to Keep ‘Lunatic’ Peter Navarro Out of Vice President’s Office
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/pe...idents-office/

In Whell’s World, he’s an “economist”. ROFL.

[Rajoo]

As inflation falls, GOP may have to rethink attacks on Biden economy

Soaring egg prices. Gas for more than $5 per gallon. Used cars that cost 30 percent more than they had the year before.

For most of President Biden’s term, the fastest inflation in four decades provided Republicans with no shortage of ripe targets for political attacks over his economic stewardship, emerging as the central talking point of their 2022 midterm campaigns and the early 2024-presidential election campaigns.

But now that message may no longer be as powerful. Inflation has eased to 3 percent on an annual basis, down from 9 percent last year, and workers’ earnings are beginning to outpace rising costs. Economists’ fears of an imminent recession have abated as well, and Biden administration officials are eager to tout the billions of dollars in private investment unleashed from legislation on semiconductors and clean energy that they pushed through Congress.

It must absolutely suck to be a Repugnant.

No wonder Hunter is a major GOP obsession as they also mull over a President Biden impeachment. They do not know why yet, but the warriors of their movement, Six-gun BoBo, Lunatic MTG and Groomer Gaetz are beating the bushes in search of Biden's ill begotten wealth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...biden-economy/

[Chicks]

Morgan Stanley credits Bidenomics for ‘much stronger’ than expected GDP growth
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/07/21/...n-stanley.html

Morgan Stanley must be commies, eh Whell?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Morgan Stanley credits Bidenomics for ‘much stronger’ than expected GDP growth
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/07/21/...n-stanley.html

Morgan Stanley must be commies, eh Whell?

If you say so, Chickie. (roll eyes)