• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,655
Reaction score
58,021
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt

WASHINGTON - The nation's unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses for the foreseeable future. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. "In the end, the floodgates opened," said former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

Polls show a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation's budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former President George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Barack Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That's nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
 
Last edited:
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.

Nice try but it is a spending problem. You want more revenue then Obama needs to help the private sector to create more jobs. The tax rates are not the problem the economy and unemployment that Obama has done nothing about is the problem
 
Nice try but it is a spending problem. You want more revenue then Obama needs to help the private sector to create more jobs. The tax rates are not the problem the economy and unemployment that Obama has done nothing about is the problem

I am glad that you have such integrity in your beliefs that they are immune to facts. Keep it up.
 
I am glad that you have such integrity in your beliefs that they are immune to facts. Keep it up.

You article is a Washington Post liberal hack reporter I find this more partisan than fact
 
You article is a Washington Post liberal hack reporter I find this more partisan than fact

Why worry about data and maybe learn something when you can just dismiss someone who doesn't jive with your world view? Its so much easier :lol:
 
Why worry about data and maybe learn something when you can just dismiss someone who doesn't jive with your world view? Its so much easier :lol:

The fact lost revenue is due to millions unemployed and Obama does nothing except help unions.

Obama continues to spend and does little for the economy or unemployment. Those are the facts your partisan hack reporter ignores
 
Right now the US has both a revenue problem and a spending problem

Tax revenues are at a low level for the US government, and spending is at a high level (% of GDP)
 
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.


for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds

The argument in the article is flawed based on this: if you have to borrow extensive amounts of money to do anything then you didn't actually have a wrothy SURPLUS - possibly a balanced budget in which money in matched money out. But a surplus? Not likely - being *over* just a smidge is not 'surplus' that's just extra spending money.

A technical surplus is like an adequate balance in your savings account.

Our country never had that at any time - Clinton did not *have a surplus* in this sense - the overall national debt ROSE significantly while he was in office. You cannot have a mass amount of debt and have a surplus at the same time - it just doesn't work that way.

You can have money you bring in that isn't being allocated - but that doesn't mean it's a surplus, that menas that you're not applying more to your debts to pay them off.
 
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.

Yeah, cause spending is at the same level it was then too. So no problem! And we're not in an economically tepid moment, nope we're booming. Raise Taxes! Watch Govt Prosper!
 
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.

No, it's not a revenue problem, not when at least 75% of the federal budget is in violation of the Constitution.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses for the foreseeable future. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.

The budget was never balanced, unless you're a fan of the same accounting gimmicks Ken Lay employed. Social Security revenues were counted, the future social security outlays that those revenues were collected to pay for were not. Any private agency that played these gimmicks would be facing jail time.

Not to mention the following fact:

Assuming a surplus was on hand. it's the responsiblity of government to reduce the amount of money it's stealing from the people. If it increases spending to consume the "surplus" the following can be concluded:

1) The spending was unnecessary.
2) The elected representatives should be removed from office.

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. "In the end, the floodgates opened," said former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Yet, somehow, Megaprogman decides to ignore this paragraph and insist the problem is still one of not stealing enough money, even though the article he himself posted states, in this very paragraph, that the problem was a spending problem.

That's the ONLY possible interpretation of the phrase "the floodgates opened".

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year.

Again, this is just stupid.

The national debt in 2001 was approximately $10,000,000,000,000, and not coincidentally, approximately that same as the sum of the monies unconstitutinally spent the social programs the federal government doesn't have the auhority to finance.

The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

And it's entirely due to the spending addictions you socialists have.
 
Last edited:
why doesn't harry simply write up a budget that includes this return to clinton rates?

it's been 700 days since the us senate itemized a budget

why?

what is obama's plan, where is obama's plan?

fine and excellent speeches, particularly in troublous times like these, are no solution

and even at that, how many weeks has it been since obama called out those tax hikes?

why has he dropped the push from his stump?

when do you expect him next to pound on it?

and how hard?

in other words, when will he write it up and force it thru?

upper parliament is all his

americans demand action, they rightly perceive that unless something is done imminently to reform our budget our big 3 federal social programs (as well as state pensions) will not survive

americans worry that borrowing 60 billion additional every two weeks is fiscal suicide

americans naturally look to their white house for answers

and all they perceive when they peek at their president are speeches, fine and excellent speeches

americans are coming to see fine and excellent speeches as precisely the problem

it's harry's move, the floor is clear

tax away

leadership, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Right now the US has both a revenue problem and a spending problem

Tax revenues are at a low level for the US government, and spending is at a high level (% of GDP)

Revenues are low because the taxes are too high, and the ecnomy is stifled.
 
And it's entirely due to the spending addictions you socialists have.

No, blame the Progressives, in BOTH parties that believe Gov't really is the answer to life's problems (in exchange of course, for votes.)
 
The argument in the article is flawed based on this: if you have to borrow extensive amounts of money to do anything then you didn't actually have a wrothy SURPLUS - possibly a balanced budget in which money in matched money out. But a surplus? Not likely - being *over* just a smidge is not 'surplus' that's just extra spending money.

A technical surplus is like an adequate balance in your savings account.

Our country never had that at any time - Clinton did not *have a surplus* in this sense - the overall national debt ROSE significantly while he was in office. You cannot have a mass amount of debt and have a surplus at the same time - it just doesn't work that way.

You can have money you bring in that isn't being allocated - but that doesn't mean it's a surplus, that menas that you're not applying more to your debts to pay them off.

Do you need the help of a time line?
 
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.

Will raising taxes right now really be in the best interest of the country when we still have unemployment and families living on less than they had been prior to the recession? I know right now I'm breaking even. I have a bit in savings, but if I lose my job or if an emergency arises that money will be gone quickly. I'm betting alot of people are in similar positions based on polls and available statistics.

Sure, raise revenus eventually, but do it by changing the entire tax code. Don't just keep the same complicated system and raise the obligation. In the meantime, let's consider cutting expenses, attacking fraud and waste and redundancy, and force efficiency, which is sorely missing across all departments and divisions of government: federal, state, and local.
 
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt



So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.

The problem is that those things don't exist in a vacuum.

Our global competitors are engineering much more favorable tax rates towards businesses and individuals who are involved in job creation.

Many businesses have already moved chunks of their operations overseas to save on taxes.
Simply raising taxes does not confront this problem.
 
How about dumping/eliminating the idea of penalizing people for making money and get rid of any and all income tax.

Taxes should be derived from tariffs and consumption tax, with maybe food to be exempt to satisfy the progressives.
 
In 2010, the company reported global profits of $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of which came from the U.S. But using a combination of offshore accounts and aggressive lobbying for tax breaks, GE managed to not only pay no taxes, but get a benefit of $3.2 billion. GE spent $200 million on lobbying in the last decade. At one point, when a generous tax break was about to expire, the head of GE's tax team met with Representative Charles Rangel, then chairman of the ways and means committee, and begged for an extension on one knee. Supposedly it was a joke, but GE got its extension, and Rangel got a $30 million gift for New York City schools.

GE Pays No Taxes - The Daily Beast

where would YOU go to find a JOBS CZAR?

when will enough be enough?

leadership, anyone?
 
The problem is that those things don't exist in a vacuum.

Our global competitors are engineering much more favorable tax rates towards businesses and individuals who are involved in job creation.

Many businesses have already moved chunks of their operations overseas to save on taxes.
Simply raising taxes does not confront this problem.

This is true, a civilized society is at a disadvantage in this respect.
 
This is true, a civilized society is at a disadvantage in this respect.

Civilized? :confused:

Was watching a 60 minutes vid about how one city in Switzerland is booming during the Global recession because all of the international reallocation of businesses to it, to save on taxes.

Companies like Cisco, etc do strategic moves, particularly their most profitable branches, to avoid the American tax structure.
That's how a lot of businesses have low marginal tax rates.
 
Civilized? :confused:

Was watching a 60 minutes vid about how one city in Switzerland is booming during the Global recession because all of the international reallocation of businesses to it, to save on taxes.

Companies like Cisco, etc do strategic moves, particularly their most profitable branches, to avoid the American tax structure.
That's how a lot of businesses have low marginal tax rates.

Oh, I figured you were talking about the third world countries that are now starting the long climb to a first world level. Yeah, I think corporate tax rates should be low as well.
 
Oh, I figured you were talking about the third world countries that are now starting the long climb to a first world level. Yeah, I think corporate tax rates should be low as well.

You'd be surprised to know that people in third world nations still earn an efficiency wage.
That it isn't bad for them.
 
You'd be surprised to know that people in third world nations still earn an efficiency wage.
That it isn't bad for them.

Without modern institutions such as societal safety nets, it is impossible to be civilized (and I can say this since civilized is a value judgement :mrgreen:)
 
Without modern institutions such as societal safety nets, it is impossible to be civilized (and I can say this since civilized is a value judgement :mrgreen:)

Ahh come on, you can't fairly level those kind of value judgment against emerging nations.

Efficiency wages are those wages above subsistence level.
Basically the idea is that employers want to pay their employees more than subsistence level to ensure their health, so they don't have large amounts of turnover and loss of efficiency in production.
 
Back
Top Bottom