Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the natural result of extension of the Bush tax cuts. This prediction was made during the tax-cut debates.
You can't have it both ways folks. The cuts will cost us 4 trillion dollars, but it was deemed worth the "investment". Whoever supported the cuts, needs to shut up about the deficits.
Tax revenues are down, so that will only boost the deficits.
Actually, the Bush stimulative investment in the economy had a sunset provision. Had Democrats who controlled the entire federal government done nothing, it would have expired on its own. It's no longer Bush's.
The Obama tax cuts for millionaires were approved with a Democratic President and Democrats in control of both houses. There is no way Republicans could have stopped Democrats from enacting these tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. These are the Democrat's deficit exploding tax cuts for their millionaire friends.
Now, about those numbers...
Yes, in our past we've had recessions, collapsing economic bubbles and significant tax cuts, but we've never had deficits of this magnitude.
We've had natural disasters, oil embargoes and terrorist attacks, yet none of that caused budget shortfalls like those we have now. This is because when times are good and the economy is expanding, government still grows faster than the private sector. When times are bad and the economy stagnates or even contracts, government still grows. In fact, government always expands and continually spends more money than they did in years past.
Spending is why we have 2009 and 2010 revenue roughly equal to that of 2003 and 2004, but deficits in the stratosphere. Moreover, as you can see from the charts, Bush's tax cuts did not increase deficits. In fact, after these tax cuts were enacted, revenue increased while deficits decreased. If spending were at the 2003-4 level, this year's deficit would be tiny in comparison to the $1 trillion plus deficits we've had since big spending Democrats took over.
Actually, the Bush stimulative investment in the economy had a sunset provision. Had Democrats who controlled the entire federal government done nothing, it would have expired on its own. It's no longer Bush's.
Yes, I know. They are still called Bush cuts, although now they are really Obama cuts. If they work, he gets the credit, if they fail he gets the blame.
This is the natural result of extension of the Bush tax cuts. This prediction was made during the tax-cut debates.
You can't have it both ways folks. The cuts will cost us 4 trillion dollars, but it was deemed worth the "investment". Whoever supported the cuts, needs to shut up about the deficits.
Tax revenues are down, so that will only boost the deficits.
Tax revenues have INCREASED over the last 20 years. Howver, spending have INCREASED dramatically as well.
We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Answer-
Cut Spending
Where?
Everywhere
Will it happen?
No, the politicians are unwilling to make the hard decisions for fear of losing office.
So what will happen then?
Hyperinflation, increasing debt, devaluation of currency, and subsequent default.
I don't think many people believe that a decline in receipts is a non-issue. The question, and the one no one seems to have an answer for, is how to increase it. As you indicate, an increase in taxes may result in a short-term increase in revenues.
That is not what I have indicated, yet. But, you said increase in taxes may result in a short term increase in revenues. Could you detail that argument, with examples in history? What do you consider "short term"?
If you need an example of a person who doesn't think decline is receipts is an issue, look no further than the OP.
Quote:
However, by taking that money out of the hands of individuals and businesses, you are reducing money available for products and services, putting pressure on GDP and potentially resulting in a long-term reduction in revenue. Not to mention hardship on tax payers.
Now that is more about a belief, a rhetoric, an ideology. I disagree with it, quite strongly. Being a part of it, I have seen economy thrive under higher taxes (1990s) and be a disaster during lower taxes. America's prosperity as a society came during an era of exceptionally high taxation that lasted decades, before politicians got their hands on it... with the same beliefs that you maintain.
Trust me, the problem is not taxes. This country was doing just fine in the 1990s. If lowering taxes are the way to go, perhaps we should have had a flourishing economy with people pushing their savings up, not digging themselves deeper into debt.
If higher taxes hurt, the economy should not have seen recovery during the 1930s, following the Great Depression. And the Great Depression itself happened a few years after drastic cut in income taxes (in 1924, the top marginal rate was brought down from 46% to 25%). Did history (almost) repeat itself in 2000s?
Quote:
Ultimately, an increase in federal (or state and local) revenues are dependant on a growing economy. Economic growth is dependant on so many things, it's obviously difficult to predict what input will result in a positive output.
Unfortunately, a lot of people, mostly politicians, tend to "know" it rather than sticking to what is working already. What was the premise of tax cuts in 2001? What was the premise of "cut taxes" rhetoric in the 1990s? Was it lack of economic growth? Or, was it something else?
A lot of these people also brought up Laffer Curve into the discussion but presented it as a "straight line". Its a curve for a reason. At this point, and seeing how things have been, we just might have stepped too far low. Do you see that possibility? No? If not, why not, and what evidence can you provide to make it believable?
Quote:
So much of the economy is based on confidence in a stable future. Right now, both businesses and individuals have little confidence in the future, from tax load, the impact of federal mandates (regulation, health care) and the impact of our deficit.
Businesses don't care about people and what is best for them. It is pretty evident in third world countries, and in most developing nations. Personally, I don't think China makes for a pleasant place to live, but has a flourishing business based economy. What do you think the problems there are? Would you be fine living in a society where you question the quality of drinking water everytime you reach for it? What about quality of air? What about child labor laws? What about lack of safety regulations in mines? What about ensuring expiration date is stamped on food you purchase? What about ensuring that the drugs you consume is not going to harm you? What about speed limits on roads?
I could go on, but I don't see a point in how lack of regulations (or at least lack of enforcement) so prevalent in third world countries is something America should strive for.
The Obama tax cuts for millionaires were approved with a Democratic President and Democrats in control of both houses. There is no way Republicans could have stopped Democrats from enacting these tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. These are the Democrat's deficit exploding tax cuts for their millionaire friends.
Do you consider them to be deficit exploding tax cuts when they are extended under democratic majority? What did you consider when republican President and republican congress first put them in place?
Actually, the Bush stimulative investment in the economy had a sunset provision. Had Democrats who controlled the entire federal government done nothing, it would have expired on its own. It's no longer Bush's.
The Obama tax cuts for millionaires were approved with a Democratic President and Democrats in control of both houses. There is no way Republicans could have stopped Democrats from enacting these tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. These are the Democrat's deficit exploding tax cuts for their millionaire friends.
Now, about those numbers...
Yes, in our past we've had recessions, collapsing economic bubbles and significant tax cuts, but we've never had deficits of this magnitude.
We've had natural disasters, oil embargoes and terrorist attacks, yet none of that caused budget shortfalls like those we have now. This is because when times are good and the economy is expanding, government still grows faster than the private sector. When times are bad and the economy stagnates or even contracts, government still grows. In fact, government always expands and continually spends more money than they did in years past.
Spending is why we have 2009 and 2010 revenue roughly equal to that of 2003 and 2004, but deficits in the stratosphere. Moreover, as you can see from the charts, Bush's tax cuts did not increase deficits. In fact, after these tax cuts were enacted, revenue increased while deficits decreased. If spending were at the 2003-4 level, this year's deficit would be tiny in comparison to the $1 trillion plus deficits we've had since big spending Democrats took over.
Facts are silly things that liberals just ignore. This shows clearly, as has always been known, that there is nothing wrong with revenues. It is a spending problem.
Further, this demonstrates quite clearly that spending became markedly out of control with the democratic congress. Now that they are gone, perhaps some fiscal sanity can be restored, but it is probably too late.
Compounding all this is that 0bama increased the size of the federal budget by 18%.
Actually, my point was using historic figures, comparing federal receipts and had nothing to do with spending. Do you want to ignore tax revenue when talking about deficits?
As for increasing federal budget, should the government bother including ALL expenses in spending, or just the ones they prefer to show? For example, the budget and the deficit would be smaller if we took war spending out. Good idea?
Do you consider them to be deficit exploding tax cuts when they are extended under democratic majority? What did you consider when republican President and republican congress first put them in place?
It's sarcasm.
See, when they were still the Bush tax cuts, liberals referred them as new unfunded spending that blew up the deficit and only benefitted the top one percent. When Obama made a deal with the Demorcat majority in the lame duck Congress to extend them in exchange for more spending, the same tax cuts are referred to by the same liberals as relief for struggling middle-class families and an "investment" in our future. See how that works?
See, when they were still the Bush tax cuts, liberals referred them as new unfunded spending that blew up the deficit and only benefitted the top one percent. When Obama made a deal with the Demorcat majority in the lame duck Congress to extend them in exchange for more spending, the same tax cuts are referred to by the same liberals as relief for struggling middle-class families and an "investment" in our future. See how that works?
I knew it was a sarcasm. And I also know it is a way to avoid a logical debate.
And no, liberals/progressives like me strongly disagree with Obama on extension of tax cuts. It was wrong when Bush did it, and it is wrong when Obama extended it.
But, at the same time, I recognize the need for lower income people to have more money at hand during these times. I thought $200K-250K was a reasonable break point for most Americans, as others can certainly afford going back to the rate in 1990s on their incomes above $250K. If deficit is the primary concern, however, I can't see why even incomes below $250K should have been spared.
How about you? Do you think Obama did the right thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
