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 not a "non-issue" it's the greatest threat to American prosperity and American security we face today. You can roll your eyes at 222,000,000,000,000 but that is simply unsustainable. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can continue on this path in perpetuity. We have to get serious about our debt, which is driven largely by the unholy trinity of Entitlements, the ultimate sacred cow in American politics. We're lying to our seniors if we tell them that we can continue on this path and pay them every penny they "deserve." Paul Ryan's pussyfooting around the issue notwithstanding no one running for President at the moment has any serious plan to tackle entitlements, defense spending, or the fundamental idea of how a market economy should work.
No, it's a distraction from the real issue, economic recovery. Sure, there is a long-term debt problem that needs to be addressed, just not when the economy is down. Cutting back when the economy is depressed is like eating the seed corn. Austerity is self-defeating in fiscal terms. Cutting back spending reduces GDP, which slows growth and increases unemployment, which then shrinks government revenues. So, you neither reduce unemployment nor meet your deficit reduction target.
Brad DeLong covers some of the math involved in this here.
Christy Romer and other economists have been arguing for a while that contrary to cutting back spending, expansionary fiscal policy under these conditions doesn’t just aid the economy in the short run, it may well even improve the long-run fiscal prospect.
But as I also said previously, look at the people who are fanning the flames that we have a dire debt crisis. They are the conservatives who didn't voice a single objection when Bush was adding debt but now complain we should cut back spending (but not defense) while also telling us that we should lower taxes on the wealthy even more. So, according to them, the debt crisis is so dire that we should slash entitlements but not so dire that we can't afford to give billionaires more tax-cuts.
Anyone should be able to see through the smoke screen that it's just another deception to slash social programs the right-wing never wanted in the first place.
Considering that Dubya entered office with a surplus from Clinton and left Obama with a recession, two Wars & a unfunded Medicare prescription drug bill & tax cuts for the wealthy for over a decade now to the tune over $11 trillion dollars , Obama has added about $5 trillion to that $16 trillion dollare figure in 4 years.
Where were you Yahoos complaining about the "national debt" when Dubya spent like a drunked sailor and his GOP rubber stamped all of his budgets just like Ryan did?
When will YOU get your facts right?
First. There was NO surplus.
Second, receipts to the gov't INCREASED after the tax cuts went into affect.
Third, the deficit was REDUCING until 2008
Fourth, the tax cuts included ALL taxpayers, not just the wealthy as you claim.
Considering that the #1 cause of the debt is the Bush-Era tax-cuts, that the GOP wants not only to make permanent but wants to double-down on and make them bigger, they've got no cause to complain about debts.
Not only that, but the notion that we are suffering from high inflation is just false too.
If the tax cuts are the No. 1 cause of the debt, explain tax revenues increasing after the tax cuts went into affect.
Second, receipts to the gov't INCREASED after the tax cuts went into affect.
Third, the deficit was REDUCING until 2008
Fourth, the tax cuts included ALL taxpayers, not just the wealthy as you claim.
Back up your claims with REAL data.
Gladly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
If the tax cuts are the No. 1 cause of the debt, explain tax revenues increasing after the tax cuts went into affect.
Because it didn't.
If you are making the argument that lowering taxes increases economic activity enough to increase revenue we have both Reagan's and Bush's experiments to show that doesn't work.
When Reagan cut taxes, revenue dropped. It wasn't until he raised them, did revenue rebound.
To test the "lowering taxes brings in more revenue," theory, we have to account for both inflation and population growth, both of which inflate revenue over time. So, if you want to test the policy alone, you need to hold the effects of inflation and population growth constant. That's why I use real per capita numbers.
Under Reagan, real GDP per capita grew dramatically from 1982 to 1984 but we see no corresponding revenue increases.
ccccc
See how government revenue per capita increased under Bush? Neither do I, even though GDP rose.
ccccc
Revenue never attained the level of 2000, even though GDP was up. Thus, cutting taxes does not increase revenue and any supposed gains in revenue during Bush was entirely attributed to inflation and population growth.
Would have been MUCH less if Bush hadn't started TWO WARS and cut taxes at the same time.
Bush's mistakes have HURT our economy for generations to come.
Another one who ignores that Bush didn't do it alone. Tom Dashele (D) Senate majority Leader co -sponsored the bill giving Bush the authority for the 2 wars and the dem controlled senate that voted FOR the funding.
Revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts took affect.
But, I DO know Obama has sent proposed budgets to Congress and has not gotten 1 single one passed. The dem's won't even vote in favor of them.
Pleas post the Eexact" Obama proposal to lower the deficit.
So you don't know what Romney's plan is, what makes you think he is going to do any better? What if he does worse, are you going to be calling for him to be kicked out of office in four years and replaced with a Democrat?
If you are making the argument that lowering taxes increases economic activity enough to increase revenue we have both Reagan's and Bush's experiments to show that doesn't work.
When Reagan cut taxes, revenue dropped. It wasn't until he raised them, did revenue rebound.
To test the "lowering taxes brings in more revenue," theory, we have to account for both inflation and population growth, both of which inflate revenue over time. So, if you want to test the policy alone, you need to hold the effects of inflation and population growth constant. That's why I use real per capita numbers.
ccccc
See how government revenue per capita increased under Bush? Neither do I, even though GDP rose.
ccccc
Revenue never attained the level of 2000, even though GDP was up. Thus, cutting taxes does not increase revenue and any supposed gains in revenue during Bush was entirely attributed to inflation and population growth.
Your charts have been debunked before. They are NOT official gov't sites.
Your opinion as to why tax revenues is not worth anything. The fact is bush lowered taxes and revenues increased.
Do you really expect Obama advisors to have an un-biased opinions ?
Last edited by Quick Enough; 09-02-2012 at 11:14 AM..
What if he does worse, are you going to be calling for him to be kicked out of office in four years and replaced with a Democrat?
This is about the 3rd time dems have asked this question...
Yes....why would we not?
And dem or not next time, does it matter? Don't you want what is best no matter if there is a (D) or (R) next to their name?
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.
