Fact Check: Trump's State Of The Union Address

Nov 2012
5,758
3,491
Kekistan
I would like the conservatives and pro-Trumpers here to imagine what Trump would be saying if the employment and GDP numbers were mediocre--
he would be blaming Obama. No president can change the economy in less than 2 years and likely 4 is typically necessary. This is an Obama economy, not a Trump economy. Trump trumpeters should realize that presidents do not create economies in their first term-- they inherit economies...
Bullshit. There was never an Obama economy. The alleged Obama economy turned around after the GOP took control of the legislature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabcat

RNG

Apr 2013
38,646
26,634
La La Land North
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Jun 2013
5,707
1,735
Katmandu
So is that supposed to be an attribution to the antecedent role of Obama?
My question remains, who would be blamed if the first years of Trump were mediocre? I do not hear him taking credit for the stock market tanking in late 2018 as a good example and I think it is disingenuous and dishonest for Trumpists to attribute the economic improvement to Trump policies.
Trump has essentially nothing to do with the current economy. He does have a lot to do with the worsening deficit given the tax-cut for the rich.

Of related interest:
The 2019 State of the Union in 5 charts
The Trumpconomy is growing at twice the rate of the Obamaconomy. The rate of job creation has picked up. After Trump's tax reform Federal tax collections increased, it actually lowered the deficit.
 
Jun 2013
5,707
1,735
Katmandu
Unemployment going up at the same time that the rate of job creation is increasing is a good thing.

Trump claimed 600k manufacturing jobs since election day, which is 481k and of course Trump rounded that to 600k.

You will notice on the chart that we had a net loss of manufacturing jobs from the time Obama took office until he left office.

Personal twits are opinion, not facts.
 
Nov 2018
4,849
2,555
Rocky Mountains
Jun 2013
5,707
1,735
Katmandu
The first one is a blog opinion piece and it is stupid to try and make a point comparing one month to the same month last year.


The second was written before FY 2018 ended. Revenues ended up.

Did the U.S. have a record tax haul after Trump tax cuts spurred economic growth?

By Louis Jacobson on Friday, August 17th, 2018 at 11:11 a.m.


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

"The Treasury Department reported this week that individual income tax collections for FY 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion. That's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high. And that's despite the fact that individual income tax rates got a significant cut this year as part of President Donald Trump's tax reform plan. "
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
4,849
2,555
Rocky Mountains
I find it strange that only investors.com has this spin on the effect of Trump tax cuts..

Maybe we should check another source....
No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)

Federal revenues rose slightly in the 2018 fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean the $1.5 trillion tax cut is bringing in more revenue than it’s losing.

The Treasury Department released figures on Monday showing the federal budget deficit widened by 17 percent in the 2018 fiscal year, to $779 billion. That’s an unusual jump for a year in which unemployment hit a five-decade low and the economy experienced a significant economic expansion. But the increase demonstrates that the tax cuts President Trump signed into law late last year have reduced federal revenues considerably, even against the backdrop of a booming economy.

Some conservatives don’t see the rising deficit numbers that way. They note that the Treasury reported that federal revenues rose by 0.4 percent from the 2017 fiscal year to the 2018 fiscal year, and view that as a sign that the tax cuts are “paying for themselves,” as Republicans and Mr. Trump promised.

That’s not the case.

There are several ways to ask the question, “Are tax cuts paying for themselves?” Based on the data we have right now, they all arrive at the same answer: “No.”

Federal revenues are falling well short of projections — even with strong economic growth
The issue here is not whether the government spends too much money, or whether tax cuts have buttressed economic growth, or even whether it’s advisable to run such high deficits in flush economic times.

The issue instead is: Have the corporate and individual tax cuts that went into effect in January generated so much additional growth that tax revenues are as high, or higher, today than they would have been if the tax cuts never passed? That’s how all scorekeepers — be they independent congressional staff members or researchers from think tanks that lean liberal or conservative — assess the “pay for themselves” question.

One way to think about it is from the perspective of a small-business owner. Let’s say you run your own bakery. You sell bread for $4 a loaf. Today, you sold 90 loaves, for $360 in revenue. You expect that, because it’s a busier day at the bakery tomorrow, you’ll sell 100 loaves then, earning $400. But you’d like to sell even more than that, so you lower the price to $3 a loaf to encourage additional purchases.

Congratulations! You sell 125 loaves. Your revenue goes up, to $375. That’s more than you brought in the day before. Your price cut, though, has not “paid for itself” — because you ended up bringing in less revenue than you would have otherwise.

In other words, you brought in more money than the day before. But it’s less than you would have made if you hadn’t cut the price.

That’s what we saw in the 2018 fiscal year with the tax cuts. A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government would take in $3.53 trillion in revenues for the fiscal year. On Monday, the Treasury reported that revenue was actually $3.33 trillion for the year — $200 billion short, even though economic growth has outpaced the budget office’s forecasts.



That’s the equivalent of selling more loaves, but earning less money.

By several measures, post-tax-cut revenues have not grown at all
By the Treasury’s numbers, total revenues grew 0.4 percent from the 2017 fiscal year to the 2018 fiscal year. That’s weak, historically speaking, for an economy growing as fast as it is; in the 2015 fiscal year, when growth was comparable to what it is today, revenues grew 7.5 percent from the previous year.

The weak growth brought revenue as a share of gross domestic product down, something that typically happens in — or around — a recession, not deep into a robust expansion that the Fed has described as a “particularly bright” moment.

But revenue is definitely growing after the tax cuts, right?

Well, no.



The fiscal year runs from the start of October to the end of September. The tax cuts mostly took effect in January 2018. That means three months of the 2018 fiscal year included a period without the tax cuts in place. If you look only at the nine months after the cuts took effect, you’ll see that revenue is ever so slightly down, year over year: From January through September 2017, revenues were $2.57 trillion. For the same period in 2018, they were $2.56 trillion. Which is to say, they’re down by $10 billion, in a direct comparison after the tax cuts started. Personal tax receipts are up on their own, but corporate tax receipts are down by about a third from a year ago.


That overall drop looks worse when you consider inflation. A dollar today buys about 2 percent less than it did a year ago, according to the inflation index used by the Federal Reserve to set monetary policy. So the government brought in slightly less money year over year, and that money was worth less than the equivalent amount a year ago, which means it buys fewer meals for troops, materials for highway construction or any of the other goods and services that tax dollars go toward.

This is exactly what most forecasters predicted
When the tax law passed, members of Congress had all sorts of evidence suggesting it would accelerate America’s growing budget deficits. The Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center predicted that the new law would add at least $1 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years, even after accounting for additional economic growth. The Penn Wharton Budget Model predicted it would add $2 trillion. The most optimistic mainstream model that analyzed all the provisions of the new law, from the Tax Foundation, predicted it would add about $450 billion to the deficit after accounting for additional growth.

Republicans dismissed those warnings. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he expected the new law to more than pay for itself — it would help to reduce future deficits. It’s possible that optimism could turn out to be right, but only if the tax cuts unleash a sustained boom in productivity and economic growth, and with them, much higher revenues than we saw this past fiscal year. In other words, we’re going to need to make — and sell — a lot more loaves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat

Marcus Livius

Former Staff
Sep 2017
2,464
1,222
Hell
If you click on the link and then the chart within the link it DOES take you to 2018, Lee. Whatshisface's post didn't show the whole chart, but HEY! Throw him a bone. He likes chewing on all things Trumpian. Sort of like a baby's pacifier. Hear the sucking sound?
It is the same chart as the one he posted.
 
Jun 2013
5,707
1,735
Katmandu
I find it strange that only investors.com has this spin on the effect of Trump tax cuts..

Maybe we should check another source....
No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)

Federal revenues rose slightly in the 2018 fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean the $1.5 trillion tax cut is bringing in more revenue than it’s losing.

The Treasury Department released figures on Monday showing the federal budget deficit widened by 17 percent in the 2018 fiscal year, to $779 billion. That’s an unusual jump for a year in which unemployment hit a five-decade low and the economy experienced a significant economic expansion. But the increase demonstrates that the tax cuts President Trump signed into law late last year have reduced federal revenues considerably, even against the backdrop of a booming economy.

Some conservatives don’t see the rising deficit numbers that way. They note that the Treasury reported that federal revenues rose by 0.4 percent from the 2017 fiscal year to the 2018 fiscal year, and view that as a sign that the tax cuts are “paying for themselves,” as Republicans and Mr. Trump promised.

That’s not the case.

There are several ways to ask the question, “Are tax cuts paying for themselves?” Based on the data we have right now, they all arrive at the same answer: “No.”

Federal revenues are falling well short of projections — even with strong economic growth
The issue here is not whether the government spends too much money, or whether tax cuts have buttressed economic growth, or even whether it’s advisable to run such high deficits in flush economic times.

The issue instead is: Have the corporate and individual tax cuts that went into effect in January generated so much additional growth that tax revenues are as high, or higher, today than they would have been if the tax cuts never passed? That’s how all scorekeepers — be they independent congressional staff members or researchers from think tanks that lean liberal or conservative — assess the “pay for themselves” question.

One way to think about it is from the perspective of a small-business owner. Let’s say you run your own bakery. You sell bread for $4 a loaf. Today, you sold 90 loaves, for $360 in revenue. You expect that, because it’s a busier day at the bakery tomorrow, you’ll sell 100 loaves then, earning $400. But you’d like to sell even more than that, so you lower the price to $3 a loaf to encourage additional purchases.

Congratulations! You sell 125 loaves. Your revenue goes up, to $375. That’s more than you brought in the day before. Your price cut, though, has not “paid for itself” — because you ended up bringing in less revenue than you would have otherwise.

In other words, you brought in more money than the day before. But it’s less than you would have made if you hadn’t cut the price.

That’s what we saw in the 2018 fiscal year with the tax cuts. A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government would take in $3.53 trillion in revenues for the fiscal year. On Monday, the Treasury reported that revenue was actually $3.33 trillion for the year — $200 billion short, even though economic growth has outpaced the budget office’s forecasts.



That’s the equivalent of selling more loaves, but earning less money.

By several measures, post-tax-cut revenues have not grown at all
By the Treasury’s numbers, total revenues grew 0.4 percent from the 2017 fiscal year to the 2018 fiscal year. That’s weak, historically speaking, for an economy growing as fast as it is; in the 2015 fiscal year, when growth was comparable to what it is today, revenues grew 7.5 percent from the previous year.

The weak growth brought revenue as a share of gross domestic product down, something that typically happens in — or around — a recession, not deep into a robust expansion that the Fed has described as a “particularly bright” moment.

But revenue is definitely growing after the tax cuts, right?

Well, no.



The fiscal year runs from the start of October to the end of September. The tax cuts mostly took effect in January 2018. That means three months of the 2018 fiscal year included a period without the tax cuts in place. If you look only at the nine months after the cuts took effect, you’ll see that revenue is ever so slightly down, year over year: From January through September 2017, revenues were $2.57 trillion. For the same period in 2018, they were $2.56 trillion. Which is to say, they’re down by $10 billion, in a direct comparison after the tax cuts started. Personal tax receipts are up on their own, but corporate tax receipts are down by about a third from a year ago.


That overall drop looks worse when you consider inflation. A dollar today buys about 2 percent less than it did a year ago, according to the inflation index used by the Federal Reserve to set monetary policy. So the government brought in slightly less money year over year, and that money was worth less than the equivalent amount a year ago, which means it buys fewer meals for troops, materials for highway construction or any of the other goods and services that tax dollars go toward.

This is exactly what most forecasters predicted
When the tax law passed, members of Congress had all sorts of evidence suggesting it would accelerate America’s growing budget deficits. The Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center predicted that the new law would add at least $1 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years, even after accounting for additional economic growth. The Penn Wharton Budget Model predicted it would add $2 trillion. The most optimistic mainstream model that analyzed all the provisions of the new law, from the Tax Foundation, predicted it would add about $450 billion to the deficit after accounting for additional growth.

Republicans dismissed those warnings. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he expected the new law to more than pay for itself — it would help to reduce future deficits. It’s possible that optimism could turn out to be right, but only if the tax cuts unleash a sustained boom in productivity and economic growth, and with them, much higher revenues than we saw this past fiscal year. In other words, we’re going to need to make — and sell — a lot more loaves.
What a crock! It's very simple, revenues went up, but spending (outlays) went up much more, about the same amount as the increase in the deficit. See how that works? Here is the actual data from the Treasury without the personal opinion in your cites.

Had Congress held spending to the same level the deficit would have went down this year with the increase in revenue.

Mnuchin And Mulvaney Release Joint Statement On Budget Results For Fiscal Year 2018 | U.S. Department of the Treasury


1549585502347.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: guy39
Nov 2018
4,849
2,555
Rocky Mountains
What a crock! It's very simple, revenues went up, but spending (outlays) went up much more, about the same amount as the increase in the deficit. See how that works? Here is the actual data from the Treasury without the personal opinion in your cites.

Had Congress held spending to the same level the deficit would have went down this year with the increase in revenue.

Mnuchin And Mulvaney Release Joint Statement On Budget Results For Fiscal Year 2018 | U.S. Department of the Treasury


View attachment 2939