"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill
So I'm guessing I came too late to the thread to actually discuss the topic?
Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 06-26-14 at 09:50 AM.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Egads.Show me the official Treasury numbers that support your claim. This is nothing more than liberal BS
The problem with using some official numbers in this discussion is that, yet again... Bush put the war off-budget. If you're looking at documents generated during the Bush years, you will miss a big chunk of military spending.
The Obama administration put the war spending back into the budget for its figures. In addition, other costs like health care for veterans won't be broken out clearly. So, I typically use the data released by the OMB in more recent years, as they include ALL the spending by ALL the Presidents, and 3rd parties (which do most of the hard work for you).
Here's the FY2015 figures. What you want to look at for expenses are tables 3.1 and 3.2: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/hist.pdf
And: Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post
See the above OMB chart, and History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCite your source, debt of 10.6 trillion dollars on January 21, 2001 on a 14.5 trillion dollar economy is 73% and that isn't the 100+ % it is now.
No matter how you slice it, the simple fact is that the debt did grow by a significant amount under Bush 43. That's what happens when you wage two wars, offer a new entitlement, and cut taxes at the same time. Even if you somehow believe he "only" increased it to 73%, then Bush 43 increased the debt-to-GDP ratio just as much as Obama, while Clinton actually reduced the debt-to-GDP ration by about 10%. Please, face facts.
This is not about who deserves what. It's just a simple fact that the Bush tax cuts resulted in the federal government receiving significantly lower revenues, than if the cuts had not been enacted.So what? what did the govt. do to deserve the benefits of someone else's investment success? You seem to not understand risk taking either.
Egads.Please stop posting any charts that show tax cuts having any relationship with deficits....
OK, let's go over some basic budgeting.
(Fiscal Year Revenues) - (Fiscal Year Expenditures) = Fiscal Year Deficits or Surpluses
When you put in a tax cut, it means less revenues. When you have less revenues in a year with more expenditures than revenues, that's going to increase the deficit.
It doesn't matter if you happen to cut taxes and, due to other factors, revenues go up. You are still collecting less in revenues than you would have, if you cut taxes.
'Kaysince tax cuts increased govt. revenue because they increased jobs. Show me that we would have had the same job creation without those tax cuts?
The idea that "tax cuts increase tax revenues" simply does not apply here, because we are nowhere near the Laffer Curve.
Economist's View: Yet Again, Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves
No, New Tax Cuts Will Not Pay for Themselves | Economic Policy Institute
Art Laffer Did Not Say Anything So Stupid As All Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves - Forbes
Or, to put it another way:
People don't hire employees because they got a break on estate taxes. CEO's definitely don't hire more people because of a cut in their personal tax rate; in fact, if laying people off boosts the stock price, and the CEO is compensated with stock, he is more likely to fire people because of a cut in capital gains taxes. If I own a small business, and I buy a bunch of IBM stock, and sell it 5 years later, and get a 5% break on capital gains, it's not likely to convince me to hire another employee at my business. A bank is not going to split off a high-frequency trading unit because of a 2% tax increase. A hedge fund manager is not going to close up shop because the carried interest tax rate on his personal income goes up 10%. I find it somewhat hard to believe that when you did your taxes in 2003, you saw that you'd save 5% on your personal income taxes compared to 2000, and on that basis decided to hire an additional staffer at your business.
What drove the economy during the Bush 43 years? Mostly a real estate and financial bubble, which was well under way before Congress enacted the Bush tax cuts. The economic benefits of the Bush tax cuts did not spark that bubble.
No, I understand that this is exactly how Medicare works, and it's how single-payer systems work around the world. I also recognize that you're engaging in the fallacy of composition.Oh, good Lord, you believe the govt. keeps costs down? This is the same entity that generated a 17.5 trillion dollar debt. You really don't realize how foolish you sound and have no understanding of the data you post.
egadsMost done within the Defense department budget which again you don't understand.
Again: I am talking about aggregate spending. It doesn't matter that Bush kept the war spending out of the DOD budget, it doesn't matter that some defense spending is discretionary while some is non-discretionary. None of that matters.
No, they really couldn't. The Republicans would have undoubtedly filibustered any attempt to retire the cuts early, and extending them was part of the 2010 relief package.LOL Obama had a Democrat Congress that could have eliminated those tax cuts if he really believed they caused the deficits....
And I'm waiting for you to recognize that the figures you're citing as the 2015 $3.9 trillion budget INCLUDE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.Still waiting for any justification for having Medicare and SS on budget?
I'm sorry, but statements like this make it obvious that you don't understand economics. Inflation induced by a government printing up money, and using it to pay the government's bills, will undoubtedly cause inflation regardless of other macroeconomic conditions. In fact, that type of inflationary pressure will cause other problems like unemployment. We see exactly this in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe printed up currency to pay for government expenditures.You will never see inflation with this many people unemployed, under employed, and discouraged.
Again, read my post. These types of economic analyses and predictions are not being put out by the Obama administration.Please name for me one predication made by this Administration that has been accurate
There was one winter in the 80s that was, supposedly, as bad for the US as a whole. It was the winter of 1981-1982. And the economy fell more than 6% after that winter, so maybe that's not the best example. But unlike you, I wouldn't think Reagan had anything to do with that, because Presidents are mainly sock puppets and have very little control over the country.
A working class hero is something to be