The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling

[Thickbeard]

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1020/24editorialgraph2.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/24editorialgraph2.gif/)

It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

[Thickbeard]

I posted this not because I give a fuck about republicans vs. democrats, but to show how we are truly fucked in the long term because politicians don't have the balls to restructure or tax in order to fund entitlement spending (or social spending if you are a sensitive old fuck, poor person or veteran).

[4a6c1]

Are you trying to parody Deathraven? :nono:

[Thickbeard]

Are you trying to parody Deathraven? :nono:

Maybe.

[4a6c1]

I dont think I like that.

[4a6c1]

http://www.photoshoppix.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10004/normal_monkey_astronaut.jpg

This feels like it belongs here.

[Valthissa]

I posted this not because I give a fuck about republicans vs. democrats, but to show how we are truly fucked in the long term because politicians don't have the balls to restructure or tax in order to fund entitlement spending (or social spending if you are a sensitive old fuck, poor person or veteran).

I take you at your word that you don't care about the politics of the U.S. debt. The chart provided appears specifically constructed to assign blame to one political party over the other. For example, all war expenditures are assigned to Bush even though the current administration increased spending in Afghanistan. The Bush tax cuts were extended under Obama but all of the costs are on the Bush side of the ledger.

More fundamentally, if we are going to reduce our spending, I think it is more helpful to look at where we are spending money in the future than to create charts like this one that assign blame about how we spent our money in the past.

C/Valth

[~Rocktar~]

Good points and much nicer said that I would have said them.

Bad chart is bad.

[Parkbandit]

So.. we are up to two idiots that took a look at that chart and blindly believed it.

[Latrinsorm]

I think the point was that the chart demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

Seriously, I'm pretty disappointed in both Rocktar and PB.

[Parkbandit]

I think the point was that the chart demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.


Incorrect and a really stupid conclusion.



Seriously, I'm pretty disappointed in both Rocktar and PB.

I'm hurt that someone like you is disappointed in me. Really.

However will I get through the day. Really.

[Kuyuk]

The bush era tax cuts did not in any way shape or form put us in (further) debt.

Really? Really.

[~Rocktar~]

I think the point was that the chart demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

Seriously, I'm pretty disappointed in both Rocktar and PB.

I am so broken up, I will try to persevere somehow.

Are you on drugs? The largest single contributer to any deficit is SPENDING TOO MUCH. Income has little to do with deficit spending, spending too much has everything to do with deficit spending. Rational people look at their income and try not to spend more than they make. Irrational people spend whatever and hope their income will go up to meet it. How is this not clear? You can't really be this incoherent and delusional can you?


The bush era tax cuts did not in any way shape or form put us in (further) debt.

Really? Really.

Really. Spending too much did.

[Kuyuk]

I am so broken up, I will try to persevere somehow.

Are you on drugs? The largest single contributer to any deficit is SPENDING TOO MUCH. Income has little to do with deficit spending, spending too much has everything to do with deficit spending. Rational people look at their income and try not to spend more than they make. Irrational people spend whatever and hope their income will go up to meet it. How is this not clear? You can't really be this incoherent and delusional can you?



Really. Spending too much did.

Too much is a vague point.


"I spent too much on this couch"

[Parkbandit]

Too much is a vague point.


"I spent too much on this couch"

You have $250 to spend on food/clothing/misc next month. You can either live within your means (spend $250 or less in the month of August) or you can do what the US Government has done in the past.. just spend whatever you want.

We need to pass a Balanced Budget amendment.

[Kuyuk]

You have $250 to spend on food/clothing/misc next month. You can either live within your means (spend $250 or less in the month of August) or you can do what the US Government has done in the past.. just spend whatever you want.

We need to pass a Balanced Budget amendment.



As retarded as the tea party is, the balanced budget idea is possibly the best thing I've heard suggested so far.

[Parkbandit]

As retarded as the tea party is, the balanced budget idea is possibly the best thing I've heard suggested so far.

How exactly are they retarded? They simply want Congress to live within their means.

[~Rocktar~]

As retarded as the tea party is, the balanced budget idea is possibly the best thing I've heard suggested so far.

People have been suggesting it for a long long time before they came into being. The only issue is that then you have to have reserves to pay for any emergency, though written properly, that can be taken care of in the amendment as well. We also need a REQUIRED budget line in there too so no more of this 2 years without a budget bullshit.

[Latrinsorm]

I am so broken up, I will try to persevere somehow.

Are you on drugs? The largest single contributer to any deficit is SPENDING TOO MUCH. Income has little to do with deficit spending, spending too much has everything to do with deficit spending. Rational people look at their income and try not to spend more than they make. Irrational people spend whatever and hope their income will go up to meet it. How is this not clear? You can't really be this incoherent and delusional can you?"SPENDING TOO MUCH" isn't a single contributor.

What people ought to do is establish the relative contribution of each single factor to the issue. Tax cuts have put the government over $2 trillion in the red over the past two administrations - that is a large contribution.

[Valthissa]

I think the point was that the chart demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

Seriously, I'm pretty disappointed in both Rocktar and PB.

The author of the article makes the assertion that "its significance is not partisan". I do not think that statement holds up under scrutiny. There is no reason to apportion the dollars to Bush and Obama unless one wants to make a partisan point. A pie chart of all the spending shown would demonstrate what the author purports to show - a non-partisan graphic of policy impact of debt accumulation from 2002 to 2017.

I think the point of the chart was to assign blame. It is reasonably effective at doing so, assuming one is preaching to the converted.

C/Valth

[~Rocktar~]

"SPENDING TOO MUCH" isn't a single contributor.

What people ought to do is establish the relative contribution of each single factor to the issue. Tax cuts have put the government over $2 trillion in the red over the past two administrations - that is a large contribution.

Bullshit. Spending 5 Trillion more than we took in put us deeper in the red and then we passed a lot of legislation that will add to that debt.

[pabstblueribbon]

Bullshit. Spending 5 Trillion more than we took in put us deeper in the red and then we passed a lot of legislation that will add to that debt.

Wouldn't taxing less contribute to this amount that you refer to as "we took in"?

[~Rocktar~]

The author of the article makes the assertion that "its significance is not partisan". I do not think that statement holds up under scrutiny. There is no reason to apportion the dollars to Bush and Obama unless one wants to make a partisan point. A pie chart of all the spending shown would demonstrate what the author purports to show - a non-partisan graphic of policy impact of debt accumulation from 2002 to 2017.

I think the point of the chart was to assign blame. It is reasonably effective at doing so, assuming one is preaching to the converted.

C/Valth

Or that one is retarded and actually believes the poor division of supposed debt.

[~Rocktar~]

Wouldn't taxing less contribute to this amount that you refer to as "we took in"?

No since the tax rate does not guarantee income. If you spent less or the same this year than you took in last year, then you don't have a debt problem. Spending based on unrealized future revenue with increasing debt service cost is what caused the housing market to collapse and thus, the rest of the economic collapse.

People bought more house with increasing costs of debt based on income they didn't have and were not guaranteed to get. The income didn't come in, so they went into the red. Taxation does not guarantee income, it DOES however, guarantee less commerce in the private sector.

[Parkbandit]

"SPENDING TOO MUCH" isn't a single contributor.

What people ought to do is establish the relative contribution of each single factor to the issue. Tax cuts have put the government over $2 trillion in the red over the past two administrations - that is a large contribution.

Spending more money than you have is the only contributor.

[Parkbandit]

Wouldn't taxing less contribute to this amount that you refer to as "we took in"?

No. If you remember, we were facing an economic downturn prior to 9-11-01.. and once 9-11 actually happened, our economy took a bigger downturn. It can be argued that the Bush tax cuts stabilized and then energized the economy to recover.

[TheEschaton]

I take you at your word that you don't care about the politics of the U.S. debt. The chart provided appears specifically constructed to assign blame to one political party over the other. For example, all war expenditures are assigned to Bush even though the current administration increased spending in Afghanistan. The Bush tax cuts were extended under Obama but all of the costs are on the Bush side of the ledger.

C/Valth

But it is on the chart. Under Obama, "defense". The problem you have is that it comes under "savings", and you failed to account for the fact that the spending in Afghanistan was offset by the massive drawdown in Iraq.

[Kuyuk]

No. If you remember, we were facing an economic downturn prior to 9-11-01.. and once 9-11 actually happened, our economy took a bigger downturn. It can be argued that the Bush tax cuts stabilized and then energized the economy to recover.

wait what?

[Seran]

The balanced budget amendment is ideal, in concept

However, how do you account for large un-budgeted expenditures such as those caused by major disasters, or military actions? We have seen in the past decade how defense appropriations on the wars have hobbled our nation with debt. $127+ billion on Katrina was nothing to sneeze at either.

To meet the needs of eliminating deficits, you will have to slash spending, or increase taxes to fund these budgetary, or emergency appropriations. As we see in current times, two parties are championing one or the other solution, and seem to be blind to compromises.

I really do believe that a balanced budget amendment will only serve to make passing a budget impossible. Representatives and Senators will still make demands based upon political agendas, and party affiliations will continue to stymie voting independence. Putting in a mechanism to make a difficult process even more difficult is counter-productive.

[Valthissa]

But it is on the chart. Under Obama, "defense". The problem you have is that it comes under "savings", and you failed to account for the fact that the spending in Afghanistan was offset by the massive drawdown in Iraq.

The charts authors stated that they assigned cost based on the changes in policy made by each administration. My understanding of the chart is that Bush bears all the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan less the buildup in Afghanistan by Obama, and Obama gets credit for the drawdown in Iraq.

I think we might as well create charts showing FDR responsible for our debt for all the good it will do in resolving the debt problems that will occur in the future.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

Key words being "My understanding". Which is not understanding at all, but more similar to a paramecium oozing its way across a glass slide.

[Valthissa]

Key words being "My understanding". Which is not understanding at all, but more similar to a paramecium oozing its way across a glass slide.

I'm not sure I get your meaning (perhaps I'm not intellectually capable of unraveling the meaning behind your comment). Are you saying that my paraphrase of what the authors wrote in response to questions raised by their readers is wrong? I invite you to read what they said and see how your understanding differs.

You could also weigh in on whether or not you think this sort of point scoring presentation about the US debt is helpful in creating a solution.

Or more snark, your choice.

C/Valth

[BriarFox]

Actually, this "point-scoring" is helpful; blame should be duly assigned to help prevent future fiascoes. The most pressing issue at the moment, however, is a workable compromise, which Congress seems pathetically incapable of producing. Let's not shove under the rug, however, the fact that the most intractable of the members of Congress are the so-called "Tea Party," who should be recalled en masse as a way to raise Congress's collective IQ and political savvy.

[Parkbandit]

The balanced budget amendment is ideal, in concept

However, how do you account for large un-budgeted expenditures such as those caused by major disasters, or military actions? We have seen in the past decade how defense appropriations on the wars have hobbled our nation with debt. $127+ billion on Katrina was nothing to sneeze at either.

To meet the needs of eliminating deficits, you will have to slash spending, or increase taxes to fund these budgetary, or emergency appropriations. As we see in current times, two parties are championing one or the other solution, and seem to be blind to compromises.

I really do believe that a balanced budget amendment will only serve to make passing a budget impossible. Representatives and Senators will still make demands based upon political agendas, and party affiliations will continue to stymie voting independence. Putting in a mechanism to make a difficult process even more difficult is counter-productive.

I would think that there are contingency parts of this amendment in case of such natural disasters... it would be stupid to pass a law that doesn't take that into account.

Many states (like Florida) already have a balanced budget as part of their state constitutions.

[Parkbandit]

Key words being "My understanding". Which is not understanding at all, but more similar to a paramecium oozing its way across a glass slide.

Maybe you should stay out of this conversation.. clearly it's upsetting you too much.

[Kuyuk]

I would think that there are contingency parts of this amendment in case of such natural disasters... it would be stupid to pass a law that doesn't take that into account.

Many states (like Florida) already have a balanced budget as part of their state constitutions.

Hows that working for you?


Florida state budget


The Florida State Legislature passed the $70.4 billion FY2011 Florida state budget on April 30, 2010, the deadline for doing so.[1][2] state analysts estimate that the state faces a budget deficit for 2011-12 of approximately $2.5 billion,[3] which is down considerably from previous forecast of a $6 to $8 billion shortfall.[4]
The state will receive $1.3 billion from the federal government under H.R. 1586, a $26 billion plan to give states money for Medicaid and education that the President signed into law on August 10, 2010.[5]

Florida has a total state debt of $31,840,545,002 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding debt, pension and OPEB UAAL’s, unemployment trust funds and the 2010 budget gap.[6]

[TheEschaton]

I'm not sure I get your meaning (perhaps I'm not intellectually capable of unraveling the meaning behind your comment). Are you saying that my paraphrase of what the authors wrote in response to questions raised by their readers is wrong? I invite you to read what they said and see how your understanding differs.

You could also weigh in on whether or not you think this sort of point scoring presentation about the US debt is helpful in creating a solution.

Or more snark, your choice.

C/Valth

I was talking about Rocktar, in the post above me. To address the point, Obama inherited a couple of wars with their already extensive expenses. Unless you want to consider his not slashing their budgets to $0 as soon as he entered the office of the Presidency as an indication of "his" expenditures as a President, I don't see how your point has merit. Point is, from the levels he inherited coming into office, he has cut back, apparently by 126 billion.

As to whether there should be point scoring: sure. Republicans have been point scoring since Ronald Reagan, when they lost their fiscal conservative roots. I frankly wish Democrats would tally up this shit more often, and point out the blatant hypocrisy of the supposedly fiscally responsible right, and the holes in the arguments they make. Keep in mind, this crisis (about the debt ceiling) has been wholly fabricated, it's been raised how many countless times before, including thrice under Ronald Reagan, the star of Republicans' wet dreams about fiduciary prowess.

ETA: Hmm. Wait a minute.
ETA further: I could have sworn the post above me was made by Rocktar. Instead, now I see the exact same post with your name on it. Damn it, I wish I quoted it to see if I'm going crazy or not. I probably just saw Rocktar's name somewhere and transposed it on the fallacious point in your post.

[Seran]

I would think that there are contingency parts of this amendment in case of such natural disasters... it would be stupid to pass a law that doesn't take that into account.

Actually no, there isn't a reservation taking into consideration natural disasters. A mechanism for suspending the article of the amendment is a part of the amendment, but only as so far as the declaration of war has been ratified by both the House and Senate.

Aid to states during disasters, aid to foreign countries, drought relief to agricultural sections; all of these can be held hostage by politically minded individuals under a balance budget amendment.

It's pretty obvious that the amendment does one thing very effectively; prevents the raising of taxes outside of a super-majority, and would make spending cuts the only way to pass a budget at all.

[Parkbandit]

It's pretty obvious that the amendment does one thing very effectively; prevents the raising of taxes outside of a super-majority, and would make spending cuts the only way to pass a budget at all.

You make it sound like raising taxes on its citizens should be an easy legislative move and not something that should require most of Congress to do.

[Valthissa]

Actually, this "point-scoring" is helpful; blame should be duly assigned to help prevent future fiascoes. The most pressing issue at the moment, however, is a workable compromise, which Congress seems pathetically incapable of producing. Let's not shove under the rug, however, the fact that the most intractable of the members of Congress are the so-called "Tea Party," who should be recalled en masse as a way to raise Congress's collective IQ and political savvy.

I think the "Tea Party" is comprised of zealots, and I don't think zealots can effectively govern. Under the right conditions, zealots can move popular opinion in their direction.

I agree that until we have an election in 2012 to determine whether we want government on the scale envisioned by the Democrats, or on a reduced scale as envisioned by the "Tea Party", we need politicians that can compromise. The obstruction on the debt ceiling seems misplaced.

I would caution you about thinking that those that disagree with your politics have, collectively, a lower IQ than those that agree with your positions. My father told me that there is always someone smarter than me with an opposing opinion. He was correct.


C/Valth (whose son should be back any minute so posting will return to my normal trickle)

[BriarFox]

I think the "Tea Party" is comprised of zealots, and I don't think zealots can effectively govern. Under the right conditions, zealots can move popular opinion in their direction.

I agree that until we have an election in 2012 to determine whether we want government on the scale envisioned by the Democrats, or on a reduced scale as envisioned by the "Tea Party", we need politicians that can compromise. The obstruction on the debt ceiling seems misplaced.

I would caution you about thinking that those that disagree with your politics have, collectively, a lower IQ than those that agree with your positions. My father told me that there is always someone smarter than me with an opposing opinion. He was correct.


C/Valth (whose son should be back any minute so posting will return to my normal trickle)

I base my judgement of the Tea Party not on an assumption that people who disagree with me are stupid, but on their public quotes. For instance:

The 32 Craziest Things GoP Presidential Contender Michele Bachman Has Said (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk%3A_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presiden tial_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said/)

[Seran]

You make it sound like raising taxes on its citizens should be an easy legislative move and not something that should require most of Congress to do.

As it stands, raising taxes on the people does require a majority of congress, but changing it to require three-fifths to vote in favor is an unnecessary roadblock. If taxation is too harsh, or new funding priorities needed the American people need only vote in a new Representative, which occurs every two years.

Just as cutting spending on critical domestic projects can be defunded and redistributed on a majority vote, I would hope that the ability to raise funding to meet the needs of the Nation not be stymied by the aspirations of a fringe group like the Tea Party.

[Thickbeard]

You have $250 to spend on food/clothing/misc next month. You can either live within your means (spend $250 or less in the month of August) or you can do what the US Government has done in the past.. just spend whatever you want.

We need to pass a Balanced Budget amendment.

I really wish this would have been done after George H.W. Bush made it part of his platform during his unsuccessful bid for reelection. While I can understand being angry at him after raising taxes when he pledged not too, I feel that it was probably necessary to do so after the expenses incurred during Operation Desert Storm.

I agree that we need to learn to live within our means, but it seems that both parties would rather serve their own interests. And with Medicare, Social Security and Department of Defense spending seemingly untouchable, unless it is to give folks more entitlements or wasteful contracts, we are truly fucked. I wonder if anybody will make a Balanced Budget amendment part of their platform come the next election?

[~Rocktar~]

I really wish this would have been done after George H.W. Bush made it part of his platform during his unsuccessful bid for reelection. While I can understand being angry at him after raising taxes when he pledged not too, I feel that it was probably necessary to do so after the expenses incurred during Operation Desert Storm.

No, it was to compromise with the Democrats in order to get a budget passed where they were being the obstructionist party of No. To a Democrat in Congress, compromise means "I win, I get more taxes and more government control" to a Republican, it means having to appear unreasonable by refusing to do so in order to prevent sliding further down the slippery slope of socialistic and onerous government. While the slippery slope argument does not meet the necessary terms to make a logical certainty, it does in fact bear out more often than not in reality and social issues.

[BriarFox]

No, it was to compromise with the Democrats in order to get a budget passed where they were being the obstructionist party of No. To a Democrat in Congress, compromise means "I win, I get more taxes and more government control" to a Republican, it means having to appear unreasonable by refusing to do so in order to prevent sliding further down the slippery slope of socialistic and onerous government. While the slippery slope argument does not meet the necessary terms to make a logical certainty, it does in fact bear out more often than not in reality and social issues.

It's cute how you try to turn reality on its head and say the exact opposite.

[~Rocktar~]

It's cute how you try to turn reality on its head and say the exact opposite.

It continues to amaze me how far up your ass you can put your head. Or perhaps up theE's ass, I don't know which, I do know it isn't getting any oxygen since it hasn't produced a coherent thought in years.

[BriarFox]

It continues to amaze me how far up your ass you can put your head. Or perhaps up theE's ass, I don't know which, I do know it isn't getting any oxygen since it hasn't produced a coherent thought in years.

Did you come up with that retort in between writing Gorean knife fights? Your thrust is deflected because you suck! Judges' score: AAAA.

[Kuyuk]

Did you come up with that retort in between writing Gorean knife fights? Your thrust is deflected because you suck! Judges' score: AAAA.

Thats his credit rating.

Soon to be downgraded to B though, by august 3rd

[Parkbandit]

I base my judgement of the Tea Party not on an assumption that people who disagree with me are stupid, but on their public quotes. For instance:

The 32 Craziest Things GoP Presidential Contender Michele Bachman Has Said (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk%3A_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presiden tial_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said/)

If we judged you by the party you keep, you would believe that islands can tip over.

It's pretty stupid to paint an entire group of people with that large of a brush... don't you agree?

[Parkbandit]

As it stands, raising taxes on the people does require a majority of congress, but changing it to require three-fifths to vote in favor is an unnecessary roadblock. If taxation is too harsh, or new funding priorities needed the American people need only vote in a new Representative, which occurs every two years.

Just as cutting spending on critical domestic projects can be defunded and redistributed on a majority vote, I would hope that the ability to raise funding to meet the needs of the Nation not be stymied by the aspirations of a fringe group like the Tea Party.

Tea Party is far more in line with the typical American than the liberal/progressive party is.

[Parkbandit]

I really wish this would have been done after George H.W. Bush made it part of his platform during his unsuccessful bid for reelection. While I can understand being angry at him after raising taxes when he pledged not too, I feel that it was probably necessary to do so after the expenses incurred during Operation Desert Storm.

Stanley?



I agree that we need to learn to live within our means, but it seems that both parties would rather serve their own interests. And with Medicare, Social Security and Department of Defense spending seemingly untouchable, unless it is to give folks more entitlements or wasteful contracts, we are truly fucked. I wonder if anybody will make a Balanced Budget amendment part of their platform come the next election?

Dept. of Defense just took a pretty big hit with the negotiated agreement according to Lieberman.

[Cephalopod]

Tea Party is far more in line with the typical American than the liberal/progressive party is.

What makes you say this?

[Kuyuk]

Obama looks fucking beat, lulz.

[Parkbandit]

What makes you say this?

Polling data asking people if they want smaller government, lower taxes.. or bigger government and higher taxes.

Also, polling data where more people consider themselves a conservative than a liberal.

[BriarFox]

Polling data asking people if they want smaller government, lower taxes.. or bigger government and higher taxes.

Also, polling data where more people consider themselves a conservative than a liberal.

Those are useless, like most polls. Ask people instead if they think Social Security is a good thing. That "obviously" means they're Democratic.

[Parkbandit]

Those are useless, like most polls. Ask people instead if they think Social Security is a good thing. That "obviously" means they're Democratic.

My point is that the ideals and principles of the Tea Party are more mainstream than the ideals and (do they even have principles?) of the Progressive/Liberal party.

[BriarFox]

My point is that the ideals and principles of the Tea Party are more mainstream than the ideals and (do they even have principles?) of the Progressive/Liberal party.

People probably agree with the Tea Party on some general principles, but then, so do moderately religious people with right-wing extremists. It's all in the specifics.

[Thickbeard]

Stanley?.


No.




Dept. of Defense just took a pretty big hit with the negotiated agreement according to Lieberman.

It is a start. The fact that we are negotiating a debt ceiling instead of how to pay back the debt means that we are still spending too much. The tax dollars spent to pay interest on our debt could be better spent on our country or not spent at all, quite fuckin' frankly. I would prefer the latter because in spite of taking a big loss of salary recently, I am still one of the fortunate 50% of wage earners who pay federal income tax. This is with many deductions, and includes educational expenses so that I can be more productive and earn a better salary in a needed field.

Maybe I should just start my own business.

[Cephalopod]

Polling data asking people if they want smaller government, lower taxes.. or bigger government and higher taxes.

Also, polling data where more people consider themselves a conservative than a liberal.

Polling from last week showed majority of Americans want to tax the rich and cut the military before making social program cuts. 66% support spending cuts AND tax increases. And hey, look at that. 84% oppose cuts to social security. 87% oppose cuts to medicare.

Are you sure you have the right read on the tea party, and them being more in-line with the typical American, i.e. a majority view?

As far as polls where people self-identify as 'liberal' or 'conservative', when I was growing up 'liberal' was a bad word (remember the 'Run, Liberal, Run!' sketch on SNL?) and few people I know anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line would refer to themselves as such, no matter what their feelings are. Besides, I think most people consider themselves conservative in non-political ways, so it's a somewhat loaded way to poll.

Either way, I don't believe that the tea party represents a majority view of the US public. If that were the case, why did only 32% of all Tea Party-backed candidates running last November win? Why did the GOP fail to retake the senate, and only partially unseat the house? (Hell, James Carville said in July 2009 that the GOP would retake the house and senate in 2010. A primary Democratic strategist ceding victory a year and a few months before the election, claiming a second Republican Revolution was upon us. Did the GOP deliver?)

[Cephalopod]

My point is that the ideals and principles of the Tea Party are more mainstream than the ideals and (do they even have principles?) of the Progressive/Liberal party.

Curious. What principles do you think the Tea Party has that progressives or liberals don't? What makes you think of liberals as being so bankrupt of principles, especially given they were the primary drivers of things like civil rights?

[Seran]

Polling data asking people if they want smaller government, lower taxes.. or bigger government and higher taxes.

Ask ANYONE regardless of their political affiliation whether they would like less rules and more money, and they'll say yes. That is because your example is vague.

When put into the context of laws which govern whether investment bankers can take advantage of gray areas to destroy an economy, laws which guarantee they receive a fair wage, or laws that protect the environment from the wholesale dumping of early last century, and they'll vote liberal.

Likewise, ask someone whether they feel that taxation based upon the proportion of wealth receive given a national median income; taking in consideration public education, social security, and medical assistance for all instead of a few, and they'll vote liberal.

[~Rocktar~]

Curious. What principles do you think the Tea Party has that progressives or liberals don't?

Personal responsibility. Self reliance. Equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome or special privileges. Self determination as opposed to government control. Individual rights.



What makes you think of liberals as being so bankrupt of principles, especially given they were the primary drivers of things like civil rights?

Modern day Liberals do not equal past Liberals. Liberals of the 50's and 60's those that drive the civil rights movement worked against many of the things that are now common place, like welfare being a widespread lifestyle and SS being the only retirement that most people have. For many years now, most politicians, particularly Liberal/Socialist politicians have not had anything near what is the best interests of the country at heart. Promising the people money wins votes because the populous is, by and large, ignorant of the realities of government and just plain stupid.

You cannot sustain a government where nearly 1/2 the populous does not pay income tax, the total tax burden approaches 50% of all personal income and government is the primary employer, health care provider and retirement planner. We are on the road to being Greece or France and nothing but the substantial reduction of entitlement spending will fix that. You could eliminate the defense budget entirely and still not be able to pay the entitlement obligations we currently have on the books. Sooner or later and sooner is much better, the public purse must be closed and personal responsibility for self, family, friends and community must return or there will be no country left to speak of.

You can deny, shift blame, apologize and do whatever else you want to in the mean time, the fact remain, spending too much is the cause and the only cure is to stop spending too much. There aren't enough rich with enough money to tax in order to balance the books. Class warfare won't solve the problem.

[TheEschaton]

Again, just because you say something Rocktard, doesn't make it true. You want to cite where liberals of the 50s and 60s were against welfare, or perhaps where it says the modern liberal movement says "welfare [should be] a widespread lifestyle"?

[Back]

It amazes me how the republicans can actually retain a party in the USA by protecting corporations and the wealthy while raiding the working man’s taxes and other buy-intos they are trying to give to Wall Street.

[~Rocktar~]

Again, just because you say something Rocktard, doesn't make it true. You want to cite where liberals of the 50s and 60s were against welfare, or perhaps where it says the modern liberal movement says "welfare [should be] a widespread lifestyle"?

Care to site any Democrat political platform in the past 30 years that included reductions in Welfare, freezes in SS and any kind of work for welfare program? Since current Democrat Socialist leadership have worked to extend welfare and government control in areas like health care, child care and others, one must, by logical conclusion, determine that modern Liberals condone and wish to spread a society of dependence on the government.


It amazes me how the republicans can actually retain a party in the USA by protecting corporations and the wealthy while raiding the working man’s taxes and other buy-intos they are trying to give to Wall Street.

It amazes me that people like you still drag out this tired old diatribe when it has clearly been shown time and again that Democrats get more corporate poitical contributions than Republicans on average. By the way, rich people are a minority, shouldn't they be a protected class? There are less rich people than their are blacks, hispanics, gays and so on? Oh, and how many people on welfare create jobs?

[Parkbandit]

Either way, I don't believe that the tea party represents a majority view of the US public. If that were the case, why did only 32% of all Tea Party-backed candidates running last November win? Why did the GOP fail to retake the senate, and only partially unseat the house? (Hell, James Carville said in July 2009 that the GOP would retake the house and senate in 2010. A primary Democratic strategist ceding victory a year and a few months before the election, claiming a second Republican Revolution was upon us. Did the GOP deliver?)

Wow.. that's quite a spin.. considering the outcome of the 2010 election. See you in 2012.. I imagine you will probably have to include words like "election theft", "against the will of the people", "We wuz robbed", etc... when the results come in.

2010 was a gigantic defeat for the Democrats... 2nd worst in the past 100 years... and you somehow made it sound like they won.

[Parkbandit]

It amazes me how the republicans can actually retain a party in the USA by protecting corporations and the wealthy while raiding the working man’s taxes and other buy-intos they are trying to give to Wall Street.

Forget Johnson.. I base my judgement of the entire Progressive Party by what their members post here.

Sorry BriarFox.. :(

[RichardCranium]

Forget Johnson.. I base my judgement of the entire Progressive Party by what their members post here.

Sorry BriarFox.. :(

Luckily for Backlash he doesn't fit any description for working or man.

[Parkbandit]

Luckily for Backlash he doesn't fit any description for working or man.

Which is a perfect trait for a Progressive Party member.

http://us.acidcow.com/pics/20110413/gif_07.gif

[crb]

I think the point was that the chart demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

Seriously, I'm pretty disappointed in both Rocktar and PB.

Federal tax receipts INCREASED after Bush tax cuts were enacted.

This uses static accounting, static accounting in a dynamic economy is a big bucket of fail.

If you enact a policy change that I like, so I am more productive and make more money for you, how much did the policy change cost you?

Also, you can assign a bunch of TARP to Obama. It passed under Bush but was largely allocated after Obama took office. Including most of the parts that have not been paid back.

But no one has ever claimed Bush wasn't a big spender. Also, the Obamacare numbers from the CBO are a joke. They have even said they're a joke. The head of the CBO said it was so full of gimmicks that their law-provided estimate was going to far far far from the true cost.

[Rinualdo]

Wow.. that's quite a spin.. considering the outcome of the 2010 election. See you in 2012.. I imagine you will probably have to include words like "election theft", "against the will of the people", "We wuz robbed", etc... when the results come in.

2010 was a gigantic defeat for the Democrats... 2nd worst in the past 100 years... and you somehow made it sound like they won.

So the 2006/8 elections were a rejection of the Republican philosophy then?

Do you really think the 2010 elections were based on political ideology and not simply jobs/employment?

Look what the 2010 class delivered.

I wonder if you'll sing the same tune if the Democrats take back the house in the next election.

[Rinualdo]

Federal tax receipts INCREASED after Bush tax cuts were enacted.


Correlation does not equal causation.

[~Rocktar~]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Keep apologizing.

[Parkbandit]

So the 2006/8 elections were a rejection of the Republican philosophy then?

It was a clear rejection of the Bush Administration.. a Republican.



Do you really think the 2010 elections were based on political ideology and not simply jobs/employment?

I think the economy was a big part of it.. and seeing that the Democrats and their big government didn't help it.



Look what the 2010 class delivered.

More than the last Congress did... hey, they could even pass a BUDGET!!



I wonder if you'll sing the same tune if the Democrats take back the house in the next election.

I only deal with reality.. not fantasy.

Care to make a wager on that though?

[crb]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Neither does it disprove it, and it isn't as if this were a random event. It isn't as if there is not a whole school of economics around this concept. It isn't as if time and again throughout history tax cuts have heralded economic growth.

In the end though, I don't need to prove that the tax cuts resulted in more federal tax dollars in a direct relationship. I only need to show that they did not add to the deficit. Which, if the federal government made more money than the tax cuts cost, they didn't.

Liberals like to pretend that after the bush tax cuts were passed the federal budget deficit increased by 400 billion a year. This is not the case. They like to pretend that if the Bush tax cuts hadn't existed we'd be making 400 billion more per year right now. This is also not the case.

I mean if you really believe the economy grew in spite of the Bush tax cuts, I guess go read more history. More money in private hands is not an economic drag.

The fact is the economy grew, this growth is still benefiting us today. Had we not had as strong of growth our baseline going into this recession would have been lower, which would put our current GDP lower, which would mean federal tax receipts could be lower than they are now, even with higher rates.

Of course, you can't prove that, we don't have two dimensions and the ability to a/b test that. You do have to make the assumption that economic growth is good, employment is good, and that a low tax environment helps both of those.

[milesalpha]

Just wondering if anyone has read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers? Do you think his models are applicable to the current situation?

[Rinualdo]

Care to make a wager on that though?

I'm not sure they'll take back the House, but with the current Presidential field and recent actions, the Democrats look a lot better on paper to the American public right now then Republicans.
So much can happen between now and the next election, who knows.


Neither does it disprove it, and it isn't as if this were a random event. It isn't as if there is not a whole school of economics around this concept. It isn't as if time and again throughout history tax cuts have heralded economic growth.

In the end though, I don't need to prove that the tax cuts resulted in more federal tax dollars in a direct relationship. I only need to show that they did not add to the deficit. Which, if the federal government made more money than the tax cuts cost, they didn't.

Liberals like to pretend that after the bush tax cuts were passed the federal budget deficit increased by 400 billion a year. This is not the case. They like to pretend that if the Bush tax cuts hadn't existed we'd be making 400 billion more per year right now. This is also not the case.

I mean if you really believe the economy grew in spite of the Bush tax cuts, I guess go read more history. More money in private hands is not an economic drag.

The fact is the economy grew, this growth is still benefiting us today. Had we not had as strong of growth our baseline going into this recession would have been lower, which would put our current GDP lower, which would mean federal tax receipts could be lower than they are now, even with higher rates.

Of course, you can't prove that, we don't have two dimensions and the ability to a/b test that. You do have to make the assumption that economic growth is good, employment is good, and that a low tax environment helps both of those.

Except the revenue stream kinda disproves your theory. Bush had some years of declining growth as well as increased. Revenue also increased under Clinton much more steadily then with Bush sans Bush tax cuts. If you want to credit tax policy for federal receipts, wouldn't there be a strong correlation between administrations that raised taxes and those that lowered them to federal receipts?




In the end though, I don't need to prove that the tax cuts resulted in more federal tax dollars in a direct relationship. I only need to show that they did not add to the deficit. Which, if the federal government made more money than the tax cuts cost, they didn't.

In order for this to be true, you'd have to assume that on at least a 1:1 ratio the tax policy generated jobs or domestic spending. Instead, what we found was corporations took the money and invested it overseas where their profits are shielded from US tax law or simply passed along the additional wealth to stock holders, neither of which generates the required US job/economic growth.

Due to our incredibly low tax burden (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/tax-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-in-the-developed-world/article2114914/), US corporations are making record profits. Its a shame they aren't reinvesting it into the economy.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure they'll take back the House, but with the current Presidential field and recent actions, the Democrats look a lot better on paper to the American public right now then Republicans.
So much can happen between now and the next election, who knows.

I'm willing to take the wager... more than a year out. If things look so great for Democrats.. I do have to wonder why you wouldn't want to cash in on that great news...



Except the revenue stream kinda disproves your theory. Bush had some years of declining growth as well as increased. Revenue also increased under Clinton much more steadily then with Bush sans Bush tax cuts. If you want to credit tax policy for federal receipts, wouldn't there be a strong correlation between administrations that raised taxes and those that lowered them to federal receipts?

Because all economic development and expansion happened on the exact day the Bush tax cuts were effective.....


In order for this to be true, you'd have to assume that on at least a 1:1 ratio the tax policy generated jobs or domestic spending. Instead, what we found was corporations took the money and invested it overseas where their profits are shielded from US tax law or simply passed along the additional wealth to stock holders, neither of which generates the required US job/economic growth.

Due to our incredibly low tax burden (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/tax-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-in-the-developed-world/article2114914/), US corporations are making record profits. Its a shame they aren't reinvesting it into the economy.

If only we could seize their excessive profits.....

[crb]

Except the revenue stream kinda disproves your theory. Bush had some years of declining growth as well as increased. Revenue also increased under Clinton much more steadily then with Bush sans Bush tax cuts. If you want to credit tax policy for federal receipts, wouldn't there be a strong correlation between administrations that raised taxes and those that lowered them to federal receipts?



You're right, absolutely. The growth during the clinton years had everything to do with his tax rates and nothing to do with the fact that it witness the birth of the Internet and the biggest business process revolution since the Industrial Revolution. Likewise, the economic growth during the Industrial Revolution was also resulting from whatever tax policy was at the time.

You're the one who pointed out correlation != causation. Did you forget it so soon that you latch onto one datapoint from a very unique time period in history?

And yes, I credit tax policy for federal tax receipts. What else would I credit it with?



In order for this to be true, you'd have to assume that on at least a 1:1 ratio the tax policy generated jobs or domestic spending. Instead, what we found was corporations took the money and invested it overseas where their profits are shielded from US tax law or simply passed along the additional wealth to stock holders, neither of which generates the required US job/economic growth.


Oh really... why? Source? Something not Moveon.org or the DNC. Show me how the Bush tax cuts (on personal income & investment taxes) resulted in corporations savings money which they then spirited away overseas to make tax sheltered profits? This will be rich. The corporate tax rate hasn't change since 1986. Dumbass.



Due to our incredibly low tax burden (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/tax-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-in-the-developed-world/article2114914/), US corporations are making record profits. Its a shame they aren't reinvesting it into the economy.

Tax burden as a percentage of GDP is at a historic low right now. The corporate tax rate is high, the rate on top earners is pretty high too. What has been cut (to 0 or below in many cases) is the cut on the lower end. The middle class has seen its taxes cut, in real terms, 55% in the last 2 decades. If you compare us to other developed countries. We tax the successful more, we tax corporations more, in fact our corporate tax is one of the highest in the world. We tax the middle class far far lower than most other countries, even Europe.

Let me see if I can follow your logic... it is going to be hard... but let me see...

Because of the Bush Tax Cuts, which did not cut corporate taxes, corporations made tons of cash they did not deserve which they then had the audacity to invest overseas. Now, with our slightly historically low tax burden (as a percentage of GDP), US based corporations, which face the second highest income tax rate in the developed world, are even more flush with cash, even some on US based balance sheets, but they're refusing to invest it in America because no one has hit them with a big enough stick yet?

You know that SNL Weekend Update bit called "Really?" Ya... thats pretty much you.

Why would a business invest in a country where they might get taxed half as much? Hmm... think on that one for awhile. Why do you shop at a store that has a lower price than a different store? Think hard, but be careful not to pull a muscle.

Why would a business with a lot of cash not invest or hire people? Why do people save money and not spend money? Do they worry, do they see uncertainty about the future. Do you not think business leaders have the same feelings?

Could business reluctance to invest in America have anything to do with the thousands of pages of new regulations, restrictions, taxes, and requirements, Obama/Pelosi/Reid crapped out prior to the people taking their congress back in 2010?

Would you hire a new employee if you have no idea how much their employment will cost you in the long term? Would you expand if you have no idea how to factor in future energy costs? Could the legal fees associated with regulatory compliance have a drag on a businesses's ability to expand and create jobs?

If I was a really good cartoonist I'd make a cartoon of a businessman being beat over the head by giant books by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. the books would be titled "Obamacare" "Dodd Frank" and "Regulations by Administrative Fiat" I would have a speech bubble coming out of Obama saying "The beatings will continue until jobs are created!"

Alas, I can't draw for shit, so you must content yourself with the textual description.

[Rinualdo]

I'm willing to take the wager... more than a year out. If things look so great for Democrats.. I do have to wonder why you wouldn't want to cash in on that great news...


I didn't say things look great for the Democrats, but they sure don't look good for the Republicans. I've said it before, without knowing who the Republican candidate will eventually be but looking at the current field, I wish there was a more viable alternative to Obama on the Democratic side.




Because all economic development and expansion happened on the exact day the Bush tax cuts were effective.....

Thanks for making my point. You can not simply look at tax revenue and compare that to determine the success or failure of a single tax policy, a la the Bush Tax cuts.
Revenue grew much more under Clinton, for example.



If only we could seize their excessive profits.....

If by seize you mean tax, absolutely. Or are you for companies like GE not paying taxes on their 14.2b profit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all), or companies like HSBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43968434/ns/business-world_business/) which just reported an 11.5b quarterly profit and plans to cut 25,000 jobs?

[Rinualdo]

You're right, absolutely. The growth during the clinton years had everything to do with his tax rates and nothing to do with the fact that it witness the birth of the Internet and the biggest business process revolution since the Industrial Revolution. Likewise, the economic growth during the Industrial Revolution was also resulting from whatever tax policy was at the time.

Stick to arguing one side instead of making my point. Was the growth during the Clinton years based on tax policy? You seem to say yes, so if that's true, how can you attribute the continued growth during the Bush years on a new policy and not the one during the Clinton administration? How can you attribute the growth during Clinton to the internet, business revolution, etc... and then ignore it again when you attribute the growth under Bush to purely tax policy?




Oh really... why? Source? Something not Moveon.org or the DNC. Show me how the Bush tax cuts (on personal income & investment taxes) resulted in corporations savings money which they then spirited away overseas to make tax sheltered profits? This will be rich. The corporate tax rate hasn't change since 1986. Dumbass.
Do you really want me to show you corporate income and then compare it to tax burden? Pick a company.
How about this one (http://arabnews.com/economy/article480702.ece) from yesterday?

You sure the corporate tax rate hasn't changed since '86? Really, really sure?

[Parkbandit]

I didn't say things look great for the Democrats, but they sure don't look good for the Republicans. I've said it before, without knowing who the Republican candidate will eventually be but looking at the current field, I wish there was a more viable alternative to Obama on the Democratic side.


I'm not talking about who will win the Presidency (I actually believe Obama will keep it.. which I'm fine with).. I'm talking about your claim that the Dems might take control over the House again. I'll take that bet.



Thanks for making my point. You can not simply look at tax revenue and compare that to determine the success or failure of a single tax policy, a la the Bush Tax cuts.
Revenue grew much more under Clinton, for example.

I don't think you understood my point...

Bush makes tax cuts on 1/1/02 (example.. not actual date probably) and for the next year the economy continued to struggle. You blame this on the tax cuts.. while I am saying tax cuts take time to stimulate the economy.

And I'm not saying that the Bush tax cuts were the only mechanism that helped pull this country out of the economic downturn of 2000/2001.. I'm saying that it created the environment for economic development.




If by seize you mean tax, absolutely. Or are you for companies like GE not paying taxes on their 14.2b profit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all), or companies like HSBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43968434/ns/business-world_business/) which just reported an 11.5b quarterly profit and plans to cut 25,000 jobs?

I am actually not for GE not paying taxes... as evidenced by the thread on this board I initiated. I've always stated that we need to simplify the tax structure that allows gigantic businesses like GE to essentially not pay their fair share of taxes.. while businesses like mine do not have that option.

As far as HSBC goes.. I believe companies can make any decisions they want... it's our government's responsibility to ensure they are paying the taxes they are required to spend and meeting the regulations that are in place. I knew the news of what HSBC was doing would send liberals like you into a frothy fit.. I thought it would be Backlash to start it out though.

[Bobmuhthol]

The corporate tax rate hasn't change since 1986. Dumbass.

Are you fucking kidding?

[crb]

Stick to arguing one side instead of making my point. Was the growth during the Clinton years based on tax policy? You seem to say yes, so if that's true, how can you attribute the continued growth during the Bush years on a new policy and not the one during the Clinton administration? How can you attribute the growth during Clinton to the internet, business revolution, etc... and then ignore it again when you attribute the growth under Bush to purely tax policy?


Suppose you turn the switch by the door and the light goes on. You turn it again and it goes off. You turn it again and it goes on. You do this many many times. You come to the conclusion that the switch controls the lights.

Later, you try it and the lights do not come on. Does the switch no longer control the lights, or has there been an anomalous event called a power outage that results in the light not functioning?

The 90s witnessed the computer & Internet revolution which was the strongest secular economic event since the Industrial revolution. It also experienced things like a liberalizing of trade globally. Clinton did not have perfect rates of taxation to enable this. This was a secular trend. It is one datapoint.

Tax cuts boosting economic growth has more than one datapoint behind it. There is such a preponderance of evidence to support it that they teach it in school, that even Obama believes it. Hence his pledge not to raise taxes in a recession, hence the Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President extending the Bush tax cuts.

Historically there is a strong inverse correlation between tax burden and economic growth among countries of similiar development. Not one datapoint, hundreds of datapoints.

You latch on to the Clinton years as proof this theory is wrong, but the Clinton years are just proof of the existence of other uncontrolled variables.





Do you really want me to show you corporate income and then compare it to tax burden? Pick a company.
How about this one (http://arabnews.com/economy/article480702.ece) from yesterday?

You sure the corporate tax rate hasn't changed since '86? Really, really sure?

As much as I read Arabnews.com, you know it is my bible, that article is relevant how?

I don't believe the corporate tax rate was last changed in 1986. This is a fact.

This article you quote mentioned how Microsoft did not pay the statutory rate this past year. Guess what? Businesses have deductions, valid business expenses. According to that article that included a 400 million overpayment from previous years.

Yes, many businesses do not pay the statutory rate, some pay more than it, some less. We do give businesses credit for foreign taxes paid, so multinationals will almost always pay less US tax, even if they pay more overall. To not give this credit would result in taxation being cumulative, and would make it very possible for a business to be taxed at a rate over 100%, which would be stupid, as everyone knows.

There are some deductions and credits that businesses get that could be done away with. I'm all for simplifying the tax code.

But what you said, if you'll recall, is that the Bush Tax Cuts gave corporations all this cash. Bush did not cut corporate taxes. So... like I said, you're a dumbass. You're getting your DNC talking points confused and combined in a weird way.

You're just a parrot repeating this "Corporations are Evil" mantra until you're blue in the face.

[Rinualdo]

I'm not talking about who will win the Presidency (I actually believe Obama will keep it.. which I'm fine with).. I'm talking about your claim that the Dems might take control over the House again. I'll take that bet.


Sorry, I should have split that sentence up. I think the Democrats have a chance at the House and a strong chance for President. I think the Republicans have a big internal issue now with the tea party that is splitting their message and ultimately votes. They're spending time infighting when they should all be attacking the Democrats. I also think the recent issues with the debt ceiling, Labor issues, etc... has and will hurt the republicans in the upcoming Congressional elections. If the economy improves any, they'll lose.




I don't think you understood my point...

Bush makes tax cuts on 1/1/02 (example.. not actual date probably) and for the next year the economy continued to struggle. You blame this on the tax cuts.. while I am saying tax cuts take time to stimulate the economy.

And I'm not saying that the Bush tax cuts were the only mechanism that helped pull this country out of the economic downturn of 2000/2001.. I'm saying that it created the environment for economic development.


I'm with you on this point of theory. Laws take time to take effect and even longer to have an impact on fiscal policy.
Now here is my point. Revenue increased under Clinton due to x, y, and z (all of which are not the Bush tax cuts, of course). So if Bush enacts policy AA, why then do you attribute revenue growth under Bush to AA and discount x, y, and z? What then do you account for the revenue loss under Bush?

What I'm saying about the bush tax cuts is that they add to the deficit as noted by several independent research organizations. For them to be a net positive fiscal policy, they have to not only increase revenue, but increase revenue greater then their increase to the deficit.

[crb]

I was slightly wrong on the 1986 date.

It did jigger a little bit in 1992. Almost unchanged since 1986.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/top-marginal-tax-rates-chart_n_849596.html

Regardless, to dumbass's "point" that the Bush tax cuts were for corporations, they weren't. Democrats hate the bush tax cuts, and democrats pretend to hate corporations (in reality, they love them, good donors those), but that doesn't mean the two were related.

And yes, thats a huffpo link, not even Cato or Heritage or something.

[Rinualdo]

Suppose you turn the switch by the door and the light goes on. You turn it again and it goes off. You turn it again and it goes on. You do this many many times. You come to the conclusion that the switch controls the lights.

Later, you try it and the lights do not come on. Does the switch no longer control the lights, or has there been an anomalous event called a power outage that results in the light not functioning?

The 90s witnessed the computer & Internet revolution which was the strongest secular economic event since the Industrial revolution. It also experienced things like a liberalizing of trade globally. Clinton did not have perfect rates of taxation to enable this. This was a secular trend. It is one datapoint.


So you account for the entire decade of the 90's to an anomaly and discount Clinton's tax policy, and somehow establish that when Bush took office, the anomaly was over, Clinton's tax policy is irrelevant, and only Bush's tax policy matters? So when Obama took office and Bush's tax policy remained in effect yet revenue declined that too was an anomaly?




As much as I read Arabnews.com, you know it is my bible, that article is relevant how?

I don't believe the corporate tax rate was last changed in 1986. This is a fact.

This article you quote mentioned how Microsoft did not pay the statutory rate this past year. Guess what? Businesses have deductions, valid business expenses. According to that article that included a 400 million overpayment from previous years.

Yes, many businesses do not pay the statutory rate, some pay more than it, some less. We do give businesses credit for foreign taxes paid, so multinationals will almost always pay less US tax, even if they pay more overall. To not give this credit would result in taxation being cumulative, and would make it very possible for a business to be taxed at a rate over 100%, which would be stupid, as everyone knows.

There are some deductions and credits that businesses get that could be done away with. I'm all for simplifying the tax code.



The article I linked was the first one google showed. Would you prefer it came from a US news agency (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/microsoft-tax-havens-profit-bill_n_911779.html)?

No, the article mentions how despite record profits and sales, microsoft is paying less taxes, which further makes the point that increasing a corporation's profits does not always translate into increased job growth or federal tax receipts. This is one example of why the bush tax cuts lead to an increase in the deficit.


giant software company's just-ended fiscal fourth quarter, which produced record sales of nearly $17.4 billion, a 30 percent increase in after-tax profit, and a 35 percent gain in earnings per share.




ut for the Internal Revenue Service and foreign tax authorities, things weren't so rosy. Microsoft reported only $445 million in taxes in the U.S. and other foreign countries, just 7 percent of its $6.32 billion in pre-tax profit.

Given the rancor in Congress and in the country about how to tackle the nation's budget deficit and debt, including how companies stash profits overseas and enjoy lucrative tax breaks, it is instructive to see how the top brass at Microsoft's Redmond, Washington, headquarters achieved this eye-popping tax result.

Partly it was because the company had a one-time refund of $461 million from the IRS for previous overpayments and because of its over-estimation of tax rates in previous quarters. There may be increased sales of products to consumers overseas, though it is not clear from company disclosures how much of a factor this might be.

But Microsoft is straightforward about the core reason for its lower tax bill: It is increasingly channeling earnings from sales to customers throughout the world through the low-tax havens of Ireland, Puerto Rico and Singapore.

Microsoft's pre-tax profits booked overseas nearly tripled over the past six years, to $19.2 billion in the fiscal year that just ended, from $6.8 billion in the year ended in June 2006, according to company filings. By contrast, its U.S. earnings have dropped, to $8.9 billion from $11.4 billion in the same period. Foreign earnings now make up 68 percent of overall income.

The change is fueling its shrinking tax bills. According to its 2010 annual report, by keeping a good chunk of foreign earnings away from the U.S., Microsoft has accumulated $29.5 billion overseas -- and that is before the impact of its last financial year.

In theory, the company has saved $9.2 billion in U.S. federal taxes on that figure, though if it brought the entire $29.5 billion back home tomorrow its tax bill would be lower because of credits for foreign taxes paid and other U.S. deductions.

Microsoft's effective worldwide tax rate fell to 17.5 percent in the last fiscal year, down from 25 percent the previous year and 31 percent in the year to June 30, 2006. The company said it expects to owe tax at an effective rate in the next year of between 19 percent and 22 percent.



But what you said, if you'll recall, is that the Bush Tax Cuts gave corporations all this cash. Bush did not cut corporate taxes. So... like I said, you're a dumbass. You're getting your DNC talking points confused and combined in a weird way.

Are you sure about that? Really, really sure?

[Rinualdo]

I was slightly wrong on the 1986 date.

It did jigger a little bit in 1992. Almost unchanged since 1986.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/top-marginal-tax-rates-chart_n_849596.html

Regardless, to dumbass's "point" that the Bush tax cuts were for corporations, they weren't. Democrats hate the bush tax cuts, and democrats pretend to hate corporations (in reality, they love them, good donors those), but that doesn't mean the two were related.

And yes, thats a huffpo link, not even Cato or Heritage or something.

I'll offer you a chance to recant this again. Both points are erroneous.

[Latrinsorm]

You can deny, shift blame, apologize and do whatever else you want to in the mean time, the fact remain, spending too much is the cause and the only cure is to stop spending too much. There aren't enough rich with enough money to tax in order to balance the books. Class warfare won't solve the problem.Will you consider the analogy of fossil fuels? Rather repeatedly in the past, it has been demonstrated very clearly that we were going to run out in very short order, and the only way to prolong our use was to drastically cut back on consumption. Although consumption drastically increased, we didn't run out: it turned out we had heretofore unknown resources.

By analogy, it's obvious that our books are way in the red, but this doesn't mean that the only solution is to drastically cut back on spending.
This uses static accounting, static accounting in a dynamic economy is a big bucket of fail.I am open to other methodologies. What does your full chart say?
It isn't as if time and again throughout history tax cuts have heralded economic growth. ... You're right, absolutely. The growth during the clinton years had everything to do with his tax rates and nothing to do with the fact that it witness the birth of the Internet and the biggest business process revolution since the Industrial Revolution. Likewise, the economic growth during the Industrial Revolution was also resulting from whatever tax policy was at the time.You seem to agree that tax policy is only a piece in a dramatically more complex environment. If so, then why couldn't a person suggest the economy grew in spite of any given tax cut, without disagreeing that in general tax cuts cause economic growth?

[Bobmuhthol]

It did jigger a little bit in 1992. Almost unchanged since 1986.

1. Your source is Huffington Post?
2. If you think "the top marginal corporate tax rate" and "the corporate tax rate" are the same thing, you really don't belong in the discussion.

[crb]

1. Your source is Huffington Post?
2. If you think "the top marginal corporate tax rate" and "the corporate tax rate" are the same thing, you really don't belong in the discussion.

Well Bob, since we're talking about billion dollar multinational corporations, the top tax rate is kinda on point, don't you think?



So you account for the entire decade of the 90's to an anomaly and discount Clinton's tax policy, and somehow establish that when Bush took office, the anomaly was over, Clinton's tax policy is irrelevant, and only Bush's tax policy matters? So when Obama took office and Bush's tax policy remained in effect yet revenue declined that too was an anomaly?


The Bush tax cuts were in 03, not 01 when he took office. You would know this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.

Bush being elected did not end the Internet revolution, anymore than Clinton's tax rates caused it. The dot com bubble bursting ended it, or at least it ended the rampant economic growth cause by IT. We got a big reset button, and a recession.

Bush inherited a recession, 9/11 made it worse. He cut taxes, we rebounded. The economy grew really well.

Obama takes office, Obama does not cut taxes. He nominally keeps taxes the same, but does sneak in a few phantom raises to pay for Obamacare, and of course creates a ton of new regulations.

The stimulating effects of a tax decrease are largely front loaded when it occurs. By renewing the Bush tax cuts, Obama did not cut taxes, he just kept current rates. While of course at the same time saying he didn't want to do this and would try to undo it in the future. Thus, he did not get the kind of bounce that an actual tax cut provides.

People don't buy new homes, cars, take vacations, or invest in their businesses because of a 1 or 2 year current tax rate extension.

[~Rocktar~]

Will you consider the analogy of fossil fuels? Rather repeatedly in the past, it has been demonstrated very clearly that we were going to run out in very short order, and the only way to prolong our use was to drastically cut back on consumption. Although consumption drastically increased, we didn't run out: it turned out we had heretofore unknown resources.

No because at the same time it was not the only way presented, it was the only way presented by the liberal sensationalist media. Your analogy of a somewhat physically limited resource to money is incorrect since fiat money is not limited by anything other than law and perception.



By analogy, it's obvious that our books are way in the red, but this doesn't mean that the only solution is to drastically cut back on spending.

By fact, not analogy. And no, reducing spending is not the only way to reduce the deficit and I have never said that it was the only way. We have tried prolific and irrational government spending and it has not worked, I have said stop what fails and start what works. Curtailing spending is the only, 100% effective way to reduce/prevent adding to the deficit. No other method has ever proven 100% reliable and therefore, I want to bet on a sure method as opposed to the bullshit we have seen for the past several years.



I am open to other methodologies.

No you are not. You want to use methods that are not assured and therefore less than 100% effective, specifically, you only want to use methods that include tax increases as part of your over all agenda to exacerbate class warfare. Tax increases are not 100% effective in increasing revenue. There are exactly 2 ways to eliminate deficit spending, either spend less or earn more. Since increasing taxes does not guarantee with 100% certainty that revenue (earnings) will go up, it is left to the other option to assure the elimination of deficit spending and that is to simply spend less. To use a trite analogy, the ship is sinking, I want to use something 100% effective in fixing the hole in it, not 89% or 97%.


You seem to agree that tax policy is only a piece in a dramatically more complex environment. If so, then why couldn't a person suggest the economy grew in spite of any given tax cut, without disagreeing that in general tax cuts cause economic growth?

Because it is flawed, inaccurate and mush headed thinking. Care to elaborate/illustrate how a specific tax cut ever hindered a market segment? Or even better, how any tax cut can hinder ANY market segment?

[crb]

.I am open to other methodologies. What does your full chart say?


The alternative to static accounting would be dynamic accounting. To calculate the cost of a tax cut you would need to calculate the additional economic activity that tax cut facilities as well as the government's taxable share on that activity.

In the end, because we cant split test the economy, you get educated guesses based on multiplier factors.

It is the same for Government spending. For instance Obama's team was using a certain set of multiplier factors when they predicted the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, obviously their assumptions were incorrect.

You end up getting partisan divides between economists in anycase. So the only thing you can really go back on is a country to country comparison, which is the closest thing you can get to an actual split test. And...well... the Soviet Union failed...



You seem to agree that tax policy is only a piece in a dramatically more complex environment. If so, then why couldn't a person suggest the economy grew in spite of any given tax cut, without disagreeing that in general tax cuts cause economic growth?

Common sense, something severely lacking here unfortunately. Tax cuts are not a drag on the economy. No one with half a brain would ever suggest that high taxes will bring you more economic growth.

[Rinualdo]

The Bush tax cuts were in 03, not 01 when he took office. You would know this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.


Are you sure about that? Are you really, really sure?

Boy, I could do this all day.

How many times do you have to be proven factually wrong in a thread before you bow out of it?

[Valthissa]

I think the statutory corporate tax rate in the US was changed under Reagan from 45%? to 33%? and then increased to it's current 35% under Clinton.

I'm not certain that the statutory corporate tax rate tells us very much.

Where's Keller when you need him?

C/Valth

[Parkbandit]

Are you sure about that? Are you really, really sure?

Boy, I could do this all day.

How many times do you have to be proven factually wrong in a thread before you bow out of it?

Actually, you are both right. The Bush Tax Cuts are 2 different pieces of legislation.. the first enacted mid-2001 and the second mid-2003.

[Rinualdo]

I kinda feel bad for beating up on CRB, so I'll help him out here.

The "Bush tax cuts" were 2 pieces of legislation, one enacted in 2001 and the other in 2003, the latter mostly accelerating the former.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Bush changed corporate taxes several times, sometimes for specifics industries (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-quietly-signs-corporate-tax-cut-bill/). So have states in which they reside. Also, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts affected taxes on short and long term capital gains, paid for by both individuals and corporations.

[Latrinsorm]

Curtailing spending is the only, 100% effective way to reduce/prevent adding to the deficit. No other method has ever proven 100% reliable and therefore, I want to bet on a sure method as opposed to the bullshit we have seen for the past several years.Have you considered crb's point regarding dynamic accounting? From the information (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=F0-xfer_F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&year=1902_2015&units=p) I have seen, palpable cuts in government spending as a percentage of GDP occurred in 1919, 1923, 1945, 1953, 1991, and 2011. In every case except for 2011, a recession followed, and it's probably too soon to tell what effect 2011 will have. Surely people pay less taxes when the economy hits the skids, so isn't it feasible that taken in toto curtailing spending can actually increase the deficit?
No you are not.Ok.
Care to elaborate/illustrate how a specific tax cut ever hindered a market segment? Or even better, how any tax cut can hinder ANY market segment?It just seems odd to me that people will agree that economies are extremely complicated and not susceptible to direct testing, but will categorically state how a certain process can only have one possible direction of effect.

[Bobmuhthol]

1919 ... 1945

World Wars ended in 1919 and 1945, and the end of the war marked decreased demand, which led to less production from the previous above-full-employment production. It's almost unfair to call the events that followed recessions because the growth during the war was completely unsustainable.


It just seems odd to me that people will agree that economies are extremely complicated and not susceptible to direct testing, but will categorically state how a certain process can only have one possible direction of effect.

All else equal.

[~Rocktar~]

Have you considered crb's point regarding dynamic accounting? From the information (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=F0-xfer_F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&year=1902_2015&units=p) I have seen, palpable cuts in government spending as a percentage of GDP occurred in 1919, 1923, 1945, 1953, 1991, and 2011. In every case except for 2011, a recession followed, and it's probably too soon to tell what effect 2011 will have. Surely people pay less taxes when the economy hits the skids, so isn't it feasible that taken in toto curtailing spending can actually increase the deficit?

The deficit only increases if you spend more than you earn. How is this so hard to understand? If you earn less, then spend less and you have no deficit.




Ok.It just seems odd to me that people will agree that economies are extremely complicated and not susceptible to direct testing, but will categorically state how a certain process can only have one possible direction of effect.

Some things are amazingly simple in both thought and practice. This is why you don't seem to understand them. You again dismiss completely anything that does not agree with your myopic view and restate your clearly vapid opinion as if that makes for a reasonable argument. At least Rinualdo tries to make an argument in his continued string of apologetic crap.

[Bobmuhthol]

Rocktar doesn't understand what myopic means, so feel free to ignore him.

[Rinualdo]

Curtailing spending is the only, 100% effective way to reduce/prevent adding to the deficit. No other method has ever proven 100% reliable and therefore, I want to bet on a sure method as opposed to the bullshit we have seen for the past several years.




No you are not. You want to use methods that are not assured and therefore less than 100% effective, specifically, you only want to use methods that include tax increases as part of your over all agenda to exacerbate class warfare. Tax increases are not 100% effective in increasing revenue. There are exactly 2 ways to eliminate deficit spending, either spend less or earn more. Since increasing taxes does not guarantee with 100% certainty that revenue (earnings) will go up, it is left to the other option to assure the elimination of deficit spending and that is to simply spend less. To use a trite analogy, the ship is sinking, I want to use something 100% effective in fixing the hole in it, not 89% or 97%.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can you say that increasing taxes isn't 100% effective way of increasing revenue? Or are you trying to say that tax increases aren't 100% efficient?

By what logic do you then say that decreasing expenses is 100% efficient?

Or to use your boat analogy, how do you know the hole in the boat won't get bigger?

[Bobmuhthol]

Tax revenues are disproportionate to tax rate increases, which is factual and I can live with that explanation.

However, spending a dollar less on government purchases does, all else equal, reduce the deficit by one dollar. This fails to take into account when all else is not equal. Also, it ignores the fact that having a deficit is not a bad thing.

[Rinualdo]

Tax revenues are disproportionate to tax rate increases, which is factual and I can live with that explanation.


Disproportionate, yes. Neither have 100% efficiency in a macro-economic model. There is always inherent cost growth and unexpected expenses.
I would argue that certain deficit cuts have a negative impact on net fiscal budget.




However, spending a dollar less on government purchases does, all else equal, reduce the deficit by one dollar. This fails to take into account when all else is not equal. Also, it ignores the fact that having a deficit is not a bad thing.

You also have to account for the potential follow-on decease in revenue.

[~Rocktar~]

Rocktar doesn't understand what myopic means, so feel free to ignore him.

It means short sighted and that is exactly what I meant. Please stop being a useless piece of shit.

[Bobmuhthol]

I fail to see how someone who was questioning a short-sighted viewpoint was being short-sighted.

[Parkbandit]

Have you considered crb's point regarding dynamic accounting? From the information (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=F0-xfer_F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&year=1902_2015&units=p) I have seen, palpable cuts in government spending as a percentage of GDP occurred in 1919, 1923, 1945, 1953, 1991, and 2011. In every case except for 2011, a recession followed, and it's probably too soon to tell what effect 2011 will have. Surely people pay less taxes when the economy hits the skids, so isn't it feasible that taken in toto curtailing spending can actually increase the deficit?

It just seems odd to me that people will agree that economies are extremely complicated and not susceptible to direct testing, but will categorically state how a certain process can only have one possible direction of effect.

You mean how you just implied that cutting government spending will create a recession within the next 10+ years?

[~Rocktar~]

I'm having trouble following your logic here. How can you say that increasing taxes isn't 100% effective way of increasing revenue? Or are you trying to say that tax increases aren't 100% efficient?

How can you be this stupid? Just because you increase the tax rate from 2% to 3% does not mean you will automatically double your revenue. In addition, there is no guarantee that a tax increase will actually produce an increase in revenue.


By what logic do you then say that decreasing expenses is 100% efficient?

Exactly as Bob put it, spend 1 dollar less and you have reduced the deficit by 1 dollar. And yes Bob, having some debt and some deficit can be good, when it is approaching 5 times your income and debt service is the single largest budget item, it is a bad thing. Mortgage companies tend to not allow you finance more than 7 times your yearly income and that is with collateral that exceeds the amount borrowed in value. There is no collateral for US bonds.


Or to use your boat analogy, how do you know the hole in the boat won't get bigger?

And that would matter why? If you continue to not spend as much as you earn then you continue to not deficit spend and thus, reduce the debt. There is a level of economic activity that will take place regardless of how much or how little the government spends, I highly doubt that we would ever reach the low of that though I am pretty sure that we have indeed passed the high.

We cannot afford the debt and entitlement obligations that we have now, why do you want to add more? Again, quit defending failed policies and apologizing for lack of leadership.

[~Rocktar~]

I fail to see how someone who was questioning a short-sighted viewpoint was being short-sighted.

I fail to understand how sound fiscal policy is a short sighted viewpoint whereas "OMG if the government doesn't spend money the world is going to end" clearly is.

[Bobmuhthol]

Just because you increase the tax rate from 2% to 3% does not mean you will automatically double your revenue.

I would certainly hope not!


I fail to understand how sound fiscal policy is a short sighted viewpoint whereas "OMG if the government doesn't spend money the world is going to end" clearly is.

1. Fiscal policy is almost never sound.
2. Latrinsorm is not a self-proclaimed economist and has presented no such sense of urgency in his posts. He is not pushing an idea, but is instead exploring one. As much as you want to rephrase his posts to make him sound like a total retard, that isn't what happened.

[Rinualdo]

How can you be this stupid? Just because you increase the tax rate from 2% to 3% does not mean you will automatically double your revenue. In addition, there is no guarantee that a tax increase will actually produce an increase in revenue.

I don't believe anyone suggested it did. Instead, I asked for clarification on your statement, which you have not provided.



Exactly as Bob put it, spend 1 dollar less and you have reduced the deficit by 1 dollar.

Except this is not true and not what Bob said.



And that would matter why? If you continue to not spend as much as you earn then you continue to not deficit spend and thus, reduce the debt. There is a level of economic activity that will take place regardless of how much or how little the government spends, I highly doubt that we would ever reach the low of that though I am pretty sure that we have indeed passed the high.

We cannot afford the debt and entitlement obligations that we have now, why do you want to add more? Again, quit defending failed policies and apologizing for lack of leadership.

I believe you are attempting to apply micro-economic principles to macro-economic situations. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

Can you clarify exactly where I said I wanted to add more debt and/or entitlement programs?

By the way, you can throw around "lack of leadership" all you want, but you've yet to provide any proof of it.

[Latrinsorm]

World Wars ended in 1919 and 1945,SOURCE???
All else equal.I think this goes back to Rinualdo's point - if a significant portion of those who received tax cuts invested that money away from America, any causal effect on America would have to be diffused. The best thing would be to compare the relative allocation of the Bush tax cuts vs. FDR or Truman's plans, I suppose, but the difference in eras makes that seem pointless. Somebody ought to figure it out, anyway.
The deficit only increases if you spend more than you earn. How is this so hard to understand? If you earn less, then spend less and you have no deficit.If spending less causes the government to earn less, this could conceivably lead to a cycle of self-destruction. That my personal spending less couldn't cause me to personally earn less only demonstrates that I am not analogous to the federal government.
You mean how you just implied that cutting government spending will create a recession within the next 10+ years?I am confident that President Obama will learn from the mistakes of the past and will keep us from entering a recession, because that is something Presidents are capable of doing by force of will.

[milesalpha]

[QUOTE=Latrinsorm;1318173]SOURCE???[QUOTE]

Oooo history, can I do this one?

Treaty of Versailles. June 28, 1919

Surrender of Japan according to Potdam declaration August 15, 1945

Do I get a cookie?

[milesalpha]

Spent the last several hours looking at American economic history over the last 25 years, powered by the discussion here. Fascinating stuff. Some general notes. Yes I have too much time on my hands.

Your corporate tax rate is very high. This does not hurt corporations much but it does screw over the average to wealthy American significantly. Corporations export and shelter a great deal of income in order to report it as profits. However the eventual tax is then borne by the investor when he sells or draws profit from the stock.

Your middle class tax rate is average. In comparing average middle class tax rates, a single American earning 40,000 annually would pay a tax rate of about 18% (includes payroll tax), putting them almost dead center of the top 30 global economies. A common trick during income tax reductions is to raise the FICA deduction cap, a signficant hit to the middle class.

Your top tax rate is among the lower rates in the world but not drastically. The average top rate runs about 40% and the top rate is 57% (Sweden). The US rate is 35%, down from 70% in 1981. However, every other nation in the top 30 has a VAT of some sort, which, as a progressive tax, takes a bigger bite out of the rich.

Iran and Afghanistan represent the first time taxes were lowered during wartime in the US (since the inception of income tax).

The US has never had a debt reduction plan (as opposed to a deficit reduction plan). Deficit reduction is essentially a bandaid.

As much as I admire Bill Clinton, his balanced budget and debt reduction was pure illusion. Is Obama becoming Clinton 2.0? Governing by poll?

You do have to look at Obama's totals with a caveat. He did include a number of things that were never included in Bush budgets, but should have been.

The last time the US was debt free was 1834 under Andrew Jackson.

A common theme in the years before major US recessions and depressions is "easy credit" in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Your idle rich have a very good situation, they pay little to nothing.

Your politicians, including your presidents, are rather fast and loose with figures.

I only found one example of any nation practising actual debt reduction (it was a result of spending cuts and tax increases)(as opposed to deficit reduction), it doesn't seem to be a priority anywhere.

Thank you gentlemen, I learned a lot.

[Parkbandit]

.I am confident that President Obama will learn from the mistakes of the past and will keep us from entering a recession, because that is something Presidents are capable of doing by force of will.

Are you now implying that the President is not a factor in a country's economy?

[milesalpha]

Force of will?

[milesalpha]

To the guy that negged me.

Which chats? About which points? I could use a little more to go on.

[~Rocktar~]

I don't believe anyone suggested it did. Instead, I asked for clarification on your statement, which you have not provided.

What is there to clarify, it's it's in plain English? Tax increases to not guarantee revenue increases.



Except this is not true and not what Bob said.

Yes it is.



I believe you are attempting to apply micro-economic principles to macro-economic situations. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

In this case, that is exactly how it works. If you are in a deficit spending situation, spending more than you earn, and you spend 1 dollar less, then you have reduced the deficit by 1 dollar. I think you are confusing deficit with debt, you do know the difference don't you?


Can you clarify exactly where I said I wanted to add more debt and/or entitlement programs?

You are vigorously arguing against the only known method that has a 100% success rate at reducing deficit spending. Therefore you, by corollary, believe that a method that is less than 100% effective is acceptable or that the current state of spending is acceptable. Since you are agreeable to a method that is not 100% effective or are fine with the current state of spending you must also be agreeable to increasing debt since there are no other possibilities.


By the way, you can throw around "lack of leadership" all you want, but you've yet to provide any proof of it.

Show me where, at any time since Bush's loss, a Democrat in the House, Senate or where the President made any attempt to address the debt ceiling before this year. Failing to act when you have foreknowledge of something and the ability to act in the situation is called a failure to be responsible. Failure to be responsible and take action is a failure to lead, thus a lack of Leadership.

[Back]

What I want to know is if tax cuts create jobs... where the fuck are all the jobs?

[Cephalopod]

What I want to know is if tax cuts create jobs... where the fuck are all the jobs?

China.

[Cephalopod]

Show me where, at any time since Bush's loss, a Democrat in the House, Senate or where the President made any attempt to address the debt ceiling before this year.

What do you mean by 'address the debt ceiling' in this context? Do you mean address raising it (which has been done 3 times since Bush left office), or do you mean address the reasons requiring a raise of the debt ceiling?

[Parkbandit]

What I want to know is if tax cuts create jobs... where the fuck are all the jobs?

Didn't we pass a 900 BILLION dollar stimulus bill that was for job creation?

[Rinualdo]

What is there to clarify, it's it's in plain English? Tax increases to not guarantee revenue increases.

Of course they do.






In this case, that is exactly how it works. If you are in a deficit spending situation, spending more than you earn, and you spend 1 dollar less, then you have reduced the deficit by 1 dollar. I think you are confusing deficit with debt, you do know the difference don't you?

No, it doesn't. Depending on where specific cuts are made, you can actually increase the deficit. This is the difference between a micro and macro theory.

What you are failing to grasp is that the dollar less you spend goes somewhere. Depending on where that dollar is allocated, it continues to follow a path that will have an impact on revenue.
Consider that dollar. Lets say the government decides to reduce payment (and by your theory, the deficit) to a person by 1$. Now that person receives 1$ less of annual income, which is reflected on his taxes. At a nominal 17% tax rate, the government loses .17$ in revenue off the top. Now in a market driven economy, we expect that person to spend a percentage of his income. With a dollar less of income, that person now spends less in the economy. The businesses, goods, and services he doesn't patron also lose income they had the previous year, they contribute less to the revenue stream, and perhaps no longer make growth decisions they otherwise would have made.
You can continue following this dollar out ad infinitium. This is a fairly simple concept and one that is behind most stimulus packages, including the two Bush implemented when he sent checks directly to most Americans.

Depending on where that original dollar was allocated will have varying impacts on how efficient the return on revenue is, and of course there are thresholds of efficiency.




You are vigorously arguing against the only known method that has a 100% success rate at reducing deficit spending. Therefore you, by corollary, believe that a method that is less than 100% effective is acceptable or that the current state of spending is acceptable. Since you are agreeable to a method that is not 100% effective or are fine with the current state of spending you must also be agreeable to increasing debt since there are no other possibilities.

I'm arguing on the sole point here that you don't know what you are talking about and misunderstand some very basic economic principles.
Your slippery slope logic in the above statement leaves a lot to be desired and shows yet another concept in basic if-then statements that you also misunderstand.

Remember, we are using human and not Gorian logic here. Perhaps the transition would help you in this case.




Show me where, at any time since Bush's loss, a Democrat in the House, Senate or where the President made any attempt to address the debt ceiling before this year. Failing to act when you have foreknowledge of something and the ability to act in the situation is called a failure to be responsible. Failure to be responsible and take action is a failure to lead, thus a lack of Leadership.

If I do so, will you promise to stay out of the politics folder for a month?

[Parkbandit]

What do you mean by 'address the debt ceiling' in this context? Do you mean address raising it (which has been done 3 times since Bush left office), or do you mean address the reasons requiring a raise of the debt ceiling?

I would guess that it means addressing the spending that cause a need for the ceiling to be raised.

[~Rocktar~]

What do you mean by 'address the debt ceiling' in this context? Do you mean address raising it (which has been done 3 times since Bush left office), or do you mean address the reasons requiring a raise of the debt ceiling?

As in bring to a vote, a measure to raise it as needed which has been projected as necessary for quite some time now.

[Rinualdo]

As in bring to a vote, a measure to raise it as needed which has been projected as necessary for quite some time now.

You mean like this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-signs-law-raising-public-debt-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html)?

[~Rocktar~]

Of course they do.

No they don't but you keep thinking that and thus further demonstrating further stupidity.



No, it doesn't. Depending on where specific cuts are made, you can actually increase the deficit. This is the difference between a micro and macro theory.

You are again, wrong. if you do not spend a dollar, then the dollar is not spent. If spending a dollar would add to the deficit, the amount of dollars spend more than the amount of dollars earned, then you have reduced the deficit by a dollar. Stop being brain dead.



What you are failing to grasp is that the dollar less you spend goes somewhere. Depending on where that dollar is allocated, it continues to follow a path that will have an impact on revenue.
Consider that dollar. Lets say the government decides to reduce payment (and by your theory, the deficit) to a person by 1$. Now that person receives 1$ less of annual income, which is reflected on his taxes. At a nominal 17% tax rate, the government loses .17$ in revenue off the top. Now in a market driven economy, we expect that person to spend a percentage of his income. With a dollar less of income, that person now spends less in the economy. The businesses, goods, and services he doesn't patron also lose income they had the previous year, they contribute less to the revenue stream, and perhaps no longer make growth decisions they otherwise would have made.
You can continue following this dollar out ad infinitium. This is a fairly simple concept and one that is behind most stimulus packages, including the two Bush implemented when he sent checks directly to most Americans.

Depending on where that original dollar was allocated will have varying impacts on how efficient the return on revenue is, and of course there are thresholds of efficiency.

No it does not. If the dollar you did not spend would have been obtained due to borrowing, and you do not spend it, thus do not borrow it, it does not go anywhere. Again, you prove over and over that you have no clue what the difference in deficit and debt is and that you have no idea what reducing deficit spending does. Your argument above is the epitome of the "spend your way out of a recession" liberal ideal and has been, many times, proven ineffective.




I'm arguing on the sole point here that you don't know what you are talking about and misunderstand some very basic economic principles.
Your slippery slope logic in the above statement leaves a lot to be desired and shows yet another concept in basic if-then statements that you also misunderstand.

And you are arguing from a flawed understanding of the difference in debt and deficit. My logic does not imply a slippery slope in your thinking, only that you accept and thereby are agreeable to continued deficit spending thus, an increase in debt accrued since that is how you can deficit spend in the first place.

Please stop being a moron.

[4a6c1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ImZTwYwCug

[Back]

What I want to know is if tax cuts create jobs... where the fuck are all the jobs?


China.

Right? And India.


Didn't we pass a 900 BILLION dollar stimulus bill that was for job creation?

Exactly. That 900 billion was tax revenue so it was already being borrowed but at least the money went back into the public’s hands.

[Rinualdo]

No they don't but you keep thinking that and thus further demonstrating further stupidity.




You are again, wrong. if you do not spend a dollar, then the dollar is not spent. If spending a dollar would add to the deficit, the amount of dollars spend more than the amount of dollars earned, then you have reduced the deficit by a dollar. Stop being brain dead.




No it does not. If the dollar you did not spend would have been obtained due to borrowing, and you do not spend it, thus do not borrow it, it does not go anywhere. Again, you prove over and over that you have no clue what the difference in deficit and debt is and that you have no idea what reducing deficit spending does. Your argument above is the epitome of the "spend your way out of a recession" liberal ideal and has been, many times, proven ineffective.





And you are arguing from a flawed understanding of the difference in debt and deficit. My logic does not imply a slippery slope in your thinking, only that you accept and thereby are agreeable to continued deficit spending thus, an increase in debt accrued since that is how you can deficit spend in the first place.

Please stop being a moron.


I just wanted to quote this for future laughter.

[~Rocktar~]

You mean like this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-signs-law-raising-public-debt-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html)?

And since then, it has been painfully obvious that even more was needed so, since that was not addressed, then the above action was not all that effective, was it?

[Cephalopod]

I would guess that it means addressing the spending that cause a need for the ceiling to be raised.

Haha. You'd like to think that, wouldn't you!? Apparently ~Rocktar~ was arguing just the debt ceiling raise, not the spending that necessitates it:


As in bring to a vote, a measure to raise it as needed which has been projected as necessary for quite some time now.

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. The debt ceiling was already raised under Obama 3 times prior to this -- and they (house, senate, white house) have been attempting to raise it for months now, signalling that failure to do so would be bad news. Typically it's a simple procedural vote and non-issue; it is the new House that decided to make it a hostage point for larger fiscal policy.

[~Rocktar~]

. . . it is the new House that decided to make it a hostage point for larger fiscal policy.

What?!?! A party decided to use something as leverage in the over all larger debate on how to guide/govern this country? Say it isn't so?

[Cephalopod]

What?!?! A party decided to use something as leverage in the over all larger debate on how to guide/govern this country? Say it isn't so?

Are you happy with the end result of using the debt ceiling as leverage, rather than passing a necessary debt ceiling increase and attempting to debate the underlying issue on it's own merits instead of under self-imposed crises?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. The debt ceiling was already raised under Obama 3 times prior to this -- and they (house, senate, white house) have been attempting to raise it for months now, signalling that failure to do so would be bad news. Typically it's a simple procedural vote and non-issue; it is the new House that decided to make it a hostage point for larger fiscal policy.

Do you believe that a larger fiscal policy wasn't needed? Just keep raising the ceiling and everything will be fine?

In the grand scope of things.. today's raising of the ceiling won't make a bit of difference. We will still be downgraded and the spending "cuts" that will take place are future cuts to increases in spending. It's a bunch of typical Washington bullshit.

But like I said before.. the big winner in all of this is Obama because he got the only real point he wanted out of this.. to kick this can past the 2012 election cycle.

[Rinualdo]

What?!?! A party decided to use something as leverage in the over all larger debate on how to guide/govern this country? Say it isn't so?

A party can certainly use leverage, but you can't then provide that as an excuse for lack of leadership. Remember when you didn't think it had been addressed at all since Bush left office? Remember when you were proven wrong?

You really should stick to what you know. If it involves Gorian hypno-lactation or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, we'll defer to your expertise. For damn near everything else, you really should attempt to educate yourself before you spout nonsense.

[Cephalopod]

Do you believe that a larger fiscal policy wasn't needed? Just keep raising the ceiling and everything will be fine?


No, where would you get that idea? Rocktar was arguing that the democrats should have raised the debt ceiling earlier so we wouldn't be in this mess. I wanted him to clarify that he meant "raise the debt ceiling" or "address the underyling issue" -- he confirmed it was the former.



In the grand scope of things.. today's raising of the ceiling won't make a bit of difference. We will still be downgraded and the spending "cuts" that will take place are future cuts to increases in spending. It's a bunch of typical Washington bullshit.

But like I said before.. the big winner in all of this is Obama because he got the only real point he wanted out of this.. to kick this can past the 2012 election cycle.

It's hard to see anyone as a winner. The Tea Party forced this issue, and they didn't get anywhere near what they wanted. The democrats tried their compromise, but they couldn't get what they wanted (increased revenue commitments, protection for social safety nets). All this accomplished was dragging our economy to the brink for a worthless pile of ham-handed cuts that will wind up being worse than useless. No net deficit reduction, no debt reduction, no major plans for it. Meh.

I think Mitch McConnell is the only winner here. He didn't have to go through with his asinine compromise just to cover his own ass. I don't see him staying in power much longer after this, though.

[~Rocktar~]

A party can certainly use leverage, but you can't then provide that as an excuse for lack of leadership. Remember when you didn't think it had been addressed at all since Bush left office? Remember when you were proven wrong?

It is one of many issues regarding lack of leadership.


You really should stick to what you know. If it involves Gorian hypno-lactation or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, we'll defer to your expertise. For damn near everything else, you really should attempt to educate yourself before you spout nonsense.

Don't work at Walmart and haven't for nearly a year. The rest, well, tired old troll is tired old troll and you continue to be a moron apologist for Obama and the democrats having lost every substantial arguing point so far with your regurgitated DNC party line bullshit. OH, and it's spelled Gorean but hey, you can't be bothered to even troll worth a shit, can you? Now shut the fuck up dumbass.

[Parkbandit]

It's hard to see anyone as a winner. The Tea Party forced this issue, and they didn't get anywhere near what they wanted. The democrats tried their compromise, but they couldn't get what they wanted (increased revenue commitments, protection for social safety nets). All this accomplished was dragging our economy to the brink for a worthless pile of ham-handed cuts that will wind up being worse than useless. No net deficit reduction, no debt reduction, no major plans for it. Meh.

I think Mitch McConnell is the only winner here. He didn't have to go through with his asinine compromise just to cover his own ass. I don't see him staying in power much longer after this, though.

What do you mean you can't see anyone as a winner? You are correct.. Tea Party lost, Democrats lost, Republicans lost... I really don't see how Mitch McConnell won anything.. but I'll give that one to you.

But Obama's ONLY demand in this "negotiation" was that this new ceiling was big enough to get through 2012.. and that was accomplished. He didn't give two shits about raising taxes (see extending Bush tax cuts less than 7 months ago) or 'protecting' anything but his re-election.

[Rinualdo]

But Obama's ONLY demand in this "negotiation" was that this new ceiling was big enough to get through 2012.. and that was accomplished. He didn't give two shits about raising taxes (see extending Bush tax cuts less than 7 months ago) or 'protecting' anything but his re-election.

Didn't his initial demands also include eliminating tax loop holes, cutting defense spending, and raising taxes on the wealthy?
7 months ago, didn't he relent on the bush tax cuts in order to prevent a government shutdown with the Republican House?

[Parkbandit]

A party can certainly use leverage, but you can't then provide that as an excuse for lack of leadership.

Even people in your own party and mainstream media have questioned Obama's leadership on this and other issues.

[Parkbandit]

Didn't his initial demands also include eliminating tax loop holes, cutting defense spending, and raising taxes on the wealthy?

His #1 goal has always been that the ceiling be big enough to get through 2012. He had his increased taxes in the Boehner bill and decided it wasn't enough because it was only 1 trillion dollars and would force more debt ceiling talk early next year. And he also got cuts to defense spending in this bill... which is why people like Lieberman are against it.



7 months ago, didn't he relent on the bush tax cuts in order to prevent a government shutdown with the Republican House?

Relent? He is quoted as saying that raising any tax rates during a weak economy is not the right thing to do. Are you calling President Obama a liar?

[Rinualdo]

Even people in your own party and mainstream media have questioned Obama's leadership on this and other issues.

Again, I don't have a party.
This was a response to Rocktar who was claiming Obama and the Democrats have done nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with the definition some pundits are using for the term leadership. Outside of this political fiasco, I've always understood leadership to include, among other qualities; compromise, reasoning, the ability to deal with people you dislike or disagree with.

Unfortunately, some people now expect the term to mean stating a position and not budging from that position, no matter what the consequences.

Its an attack term that is impossible to defend against because of the subjective nature.

From my perspective if you scored this whole debate, I think Obama and the Democrats lost more then the Republicans on the whole, but think Obama showed much more leadership then Boehner did. Not being able to control his caucus is a serious lack of leadership. If the Democratic Senate doesn't pass this bill, that would reflect the same lack of leadership on Obama and Reid's part.
McConnell lost some points for being a non-factor in the actual debate after his initial proposal.
Pelosi reluctantly gets some points for the Democratic votes in the House, but equally loses some for being a relatively non-factor as well.
Everyone lost- some more then others.

[Rinualdo]

His #1 goal has always been that the ceiling be big enough to get through 2012. He had his increased taxes in the Boehner bill and decided it wasn't enough because it was only 1 trillion dollars and would force more debt ceiling talk early next year. And he also got cuts to defense spending in this bill... which is why people like Lieberman are against it.



Relent? He is quoted as saying that raising any tax rates during a weak economy is not the right thing to do. Are you calling President Obama a liar?

Are you saying he compromised? Oh noes!

Aren't those defense cuts potential cuts if a trigger isn't met? Unless you are referring to the slight-of-hand cuts from winding down Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Parkbandit]

Again, I don't have a party.

LULZ.



This was a response to Rocktar who was claiming Obama and the Democrats have done nothing.

I don't think anyone could claim the Democrats as a party have not done anything... they've done just as much as the Republicans have.



I'm not sure I agree with the definition some pundits are using for the term leadership. Outside of this political fiasco, I've always understood leadership to include, among other qualities; compromise, reasoning, the ability to deal with people you dislike or disagree with.

Unfortunately, some people now expect the term to mean stating a position and not budging from that position, no matter what the consequences.

Its an attack term that is impossible to defend against because of the subjective nature.


I don't think anyone believes that is the definition of leadership.



From my perspective if you scored this whole debate, I think Obama and the Democrats lost more then the Republicans on the whole, but think Obama showed much more leadership then Boehner did. Not being able to control his caucus is a serious lack of leadership. If the Democratic Senate doesn't pass this bill, that would reflect the same lack of leadership on Obama and Reid's part.
McConnell lost some points for being a non-factor in the actual debate after his initial proposal.
Pelosi reluctantly gets some points for the Democratic votes in the House, but equally loses some for being a relatively non-factor as well.
Everyone lost- some more then others.

And you don't believe that Obama was the real winner here by getting this discussion pushed past the 2012 election?

That's hilarious... but hey, it's not your party at all......... really.........

[Parkbandit]

Are you saying he compromised? Oh noes!

No, he saw the polling data and decided to go with the flow.

He's in re-election mode.. and has been since January.



Aren't those defense cuts potential cuts if a trigger isn't met? Unless you are referring to the slight-of-hand cuts from winding down Iraq/Afghanistan.

Probably not... the 2.4 trillion will simply be cuts to the increase in spending they take every year... but it won't be enough for the Conservatives and they will likely trigger the nuclear option if their demands of meaningful cuts aren't met.. and "cuts" will be made across the board.

[Kithus]

And you don't believe that Obama was the real winner here by getting this discussion pushed past the 2012 election?



Quite frankly PB I think not having this discussion again until after the elections makes the American people the real winners. Perhaps when we're past the posturing and jockying for poll positions they might actually do something intelligent with this issue. What would be truely spectacular is if we could manage to get a working budget in place before the next time this comes up.

[Kuyuk]

LULZ.



I don't think anyone could claim the Democrats as a party have not done anything... they've done just as much as the Republicans have.




I dont know... when they had the super majority in all three areas, they basically did fucking nothing and let the repubs block them on anything they wanted to do instead of actually doing it.

Fucking pussies, it was pretty epic fails.

[Parkbandit]

I dont know... when they had the super majority in all three areas, they basically did fucking nothing and let the repubs block them on anything they wanted to do instead of actually doing it.

We're not talking about the history of the Democrat Party.. we're talking about their role in this debt negotiation.



Fucking pussies, it was pretty epic fails.

Not really.

[Parkbandit]

Quite frankly PB I think not having this discussion again until after the elections makes the American people the real winners.

There was nothing about this that made the American people winners.



Perhaps when we're past the posturing and jockying for poll positions they might actually do something intelligent with this issue. What would be truely spectacular is if we could manage to get a working budget in place before the next time this comes up.

The only way to solve this debt crisis is through inflation or outright bankruptcy. Politicians love to spend money.. since it gives them the power they need. They will not be willing to cut anything that gives them power.

[Tgo01]

Again, I don't have a party.


LULZ.

I just thought it needed repeating, it is pretty funny after all.