Cons. Isn't it propaganda to say tax revenues are at an all time high without also mentioning...?

Question

That every single president since atleast FDR could have said the same thing while he was president?

Every single president could have also said real GDP was at an all time high when he was president. Natural population growth and technological advances that lead to market growth, mean that GDP and tax revenues grow in general with time.

HOWEVER, if you take the percent increase in real GDP from the time a president takes control till the time he leaves, you would see Democrats are indeed better for the economy. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton outperformed Reagan and Bush Jr in practically every category that I know. But don't take my word for it. Google online for government historical stats and calculate these percent increases yourselves. You will see I am correct.

Let me add, JFK never cut taxes. It was LBJ who signed the tax cut into law. Plot tax revenues versus time and you will see that tax cut was practically nonexistent. Revenues did not go down AT ALL. By comparison, real tax revenues took huge drops under Reagan and Bush Jr because their tax cuts to the rich were huge.

To the person who said it wasn't true...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls

Tax revenues did in fact increase even under Bush Sr.

Unemployment went from 25% when FDR took office to 13% just prior to WWII starting. It went down practically to zero with WWII. The way I see it, FDR's New Deal programs are atleast partly responsible for the recovery.

Real GDP increased by 88% from 1932 to 1941. That is 88% growth even without war spending. Nobody has ever come close to that kind of growth.

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Answer 1

Bravo, but I bet you still have a hard time convincing those cons who believe everything Rush and Fox News tells them.

Answer 2

For those who understand economics and the economy (i.e. NOT the questioner), the increased revenues do not happen instantaneously, but increase over time. There's an inherent delay as the money that the government isn't taking gets into the economy and has effect.

That's why the last budget deficit was much smaller than anticipated - because revenues grew. They grew even ahead of the anticipated revenue increase due to the increased GDP.

But if you're saying that the economy was better in 1945, 1968 or 2000 than it is today, then you're wrong.

Answer 3

If you hold a magnifying glass just right between your eye and the sun you will go blind. Liberal ideas hurt America. The most successful economic plan was used by Ronald Reagan. The ripple of which is still being felt today. Taxing the hell out of hard working people and creating more government entities to spend this money only leaves Americans broke and confused. Then they figure out how to hide their earnings.Or they circle the wagons by cutting jobs to recoup some of the tax losses. When taxes are lower more jobs are created. More wealth is distributed .And more income is taxed. Liberal ideas harm America. They make us economically weaker. And our security is weaker. America is a young nation. We can be beaten. We need to quit being so politically correct and act like a business and not a non profit organization.

Answer 4

Bravo indeed! Every president you cite also had a little thing going called war. Which is not to say they started it but they certainly engaged in one. And the repercussions were left for the "next" guy in that same office to deal with. So what is your point? Dems are better for the economy. What about real, honest, humanity? Carter, albiet misunderstood by many, comes to mind.

You sound like a smart guy, so I'm sure you know numbers (stats) can (and are) manipulated to suit. For the conditions leading up to such mundane things as "quality of life" stats are generally not kept. Oh, my bad.. I see what you're doing.

Google it, you'll see I'm right. See? Win-win! lol!!

Answer 5

No, because that's NOT TRUE.

Bush '41 raised taxes and tax revenue in real dollars FELL.

Idiot do you even KNOW that "real" means ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION???

READ the middle columns of your chart for 1990-1992.

Plus, of total GDP in post 1932, how much was government spending? That's only so "real" - it can't last forever, it's like an athlete using steroids. And it's coming after 4 years of not reductions in the growth of money but a cut in the money supply, by 29%!!!!!!!

Answer 6

FDR couldnt get us out the depression. what are you talking about?