Of course that would be as absurd as trying to give Obama credit for the current economic growth, but when adjusted for inflation total Fed revenues dropped in '16 .5% and another .4% in '17 (under old tax code). '18 (under the new code) dropped another 1.8%. '19 is projected to be up 1.3%, and '20 up 3.9% (of course those two are projected). And the only way you can claim they went up 5.5%/yr under Obama is if you ignore the initial drop and start from the nadir after 2009. You certainly can't act as if that 5.5% could be expected to continue if only the tax code had been left unchanged, when the last 2 yrs under the old code saw a drop in revenues. Compared to FY08 which ended right before his election, Obama took until '13 to get back to the '08 level, and '16 was up 15.2% vs '08, or roughly 1.9% per year. (that's not to say Obama was to blame for that drop, he obviously wasn't, but it does shed light on the belief that Obama's policies installed headwinds that prolonged the recovery)

But let me try and tidy up my point for you and 00Hoo, and the point to my original post. First, we were told, and it's constantly repeated as if "fact", that the tax cuts will add $1.5T to the debt. That was a projection, and thus would be theoretical debt added if projections held true. But now we're starting to see the actual debt added by those revenue losses. It is nowhere near $150B for the first year (actually up in real dollars, down slightly when adjust for inflation), and revenue projections for '19 are already above '17, and projected to rise even more from there. So maybe we can stop using that BS figure of $1.5T about theoretical debt, and start looking at what is actually happening.

Second, of course there will be an initial revenue drop after any tax cut, as that is to be expected, with the theory that it will spur growth to get back to pre-cut levels and then grow at faster rates than pre-cut years. After Reagan's cuts, we saw revenues drop sharply for 2+ yrs. It wasn't until '84 that he got back to '80 level of revenue, and then took off from there. Despite that initial 2+ yr drop, '88 was 25.9% above the '80 level. (vs Obama's 15.2%, and yes I realize there is much more at play there than just the tax cut itself) W's tax cuts dropped revenues sharply for 3 yrs. It was '06 before he was back to '00 level. And he hit a then record high level of revenues in '07, which wasn't seen again until '14, before the shit started hitting the fan in '08 (again not W's fault, and certainly not Obama's). Even JFK's relatively less meaningful cuts led to flat revenues before taking off in '65 on a steady climb.

So yes, the fact that '18 is already near '16 and '17 levels (above both in actual $), and we're projecting '20 levels nicely above what they were the last yr under the old code (so a smaller drop and faster recovery than prior cuts), to me is indeed a "win". And that despite Trump's dangerous tariff games, and the constant negative coverage impacting optimism and uncertainty. Imagine what it can be when we get the tariff nonsense behind us. I won't hold my breath on the negative coverage changing, but maybe some honesty about what is actually happening can at least lead to it settling down a bit.