• 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!

Republican field pushes tax cuts bound to drive up debt

MTAtech said:
A. How do you know the deficit was caused by the Internet bubble? The fact that GDP was up in 2001 seems to undercut that theory.
B. If tax cuts are positive on revenue generation, why do they need to be coupled with spending cuts? If you are arguing smaller government in general is a good thing, that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, when we enter a recession the government collects less than expected in taxes. Less people working, decreased profits, you know...
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Generally speaking, when we enter a recession the government collects less than expected in taxes. Less people working, decreased profits, you know...
Click to expand...

That's because GDP drops, which didn't happen because it was such a minor recession.
 
MTAtech said:
A. How do you know the deficit was caused by the Internet bubble? The fact that GDP was up in 2001 seems to undercut that theory. What we measured was that during the time period, GDP rose by 12% and revenue dropped by 12%, which confirms tax cuts don't result in more revenues.
B. If tax cuts are positive on revenue generation, why do they need to be coupled with spending cuts? If you are arguing smaller government in general is a good thing, that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...

It is the only discussion that matters about government. Everything else is details.
 
MTAtech said:
The crux of the column that I linked was that GOP candidates propose tax-cuts that are perpetuated by the myth that those cuts will be paid by higher growth (that never materializes.)
The debt went up under Obama because revenues fell and automatic social spending increases, both because of the Great Recession. End of story. Since then, deficits have been dropping very fast. I think we have a leader that understands the budget process.
On interest rates and savings, there is only two reasons for the Fed to raise rates, inflation expectations and to cool an over-heated economy. Neither condition is present. Moreover, the lower quintile doesn't do much saving. Most of that is in the upper-income brackets.
In his interview with Martin Wolf, Ben Bernanke expresses exasperation with claims that quantitative easing is a giveaway to the rich, which contradicts the argument that QE hurts savers:
Click to expand...

In 2009 dollars, adjusting for inflation, revenues in FY2002, GWB first full year, was $2,227B and by FY2007 rose to $2,663B. Despite tax cuts, revenues grew. On the spending side, spending increased from $2,417B to $2,829. Revenues as a % of GNP went up, from 15.7% to 17.9%. Don't see anything there to dispute the idea that tax cuts increase revenues.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
I don't like tax cuts, whether done by Bush or Obama. We need to bring debt down.

Saw a chart on the savings rate by various income groups. Forget where I found it. But it showed historic savings rates for the lower quintiles at 5% most of the time prior to 1980 when it went to zero and stayed there. The saving rates for the top echelon increased from 40% to 45%. About this same time, the income inequality grew. Since I believe firmly that the way to wealth (not Clinton wealth but healthy wealth) is savings and letting investments add income. The Fed rates tend to discourage savings by the very people who should save.
 
............has anyone thought/concluded that the debt has some real benifits.............because the more we owe............. means there are more folks who are rooting for our continued success...................
 
Last edited:
Chainsaw said:
Obama RAISED taxes, is collecting more tax revenue than at any time in history, is STILL running non-war, non-recession DEFICITS of $400,000,000,000++ (an historic record by amount and percent of GDP) and just requested and was granted a new DEBT CEILING of $19,600,000,000,000. How the F is that working out?
Click to expand...

Actually, for the record, technically Obama did not raise taxes; he cut them. The existing tax cuts implemented in 2001 expired in 2011, and then were extended to 2013. Those temporary cuts expired at the end of 2013.

Obama championed legislation that made MOST (but not all) of those cuts permanent, essentially putting into place a tax cut. The 2001 tax cuts on the highest income brackets simply expired, as was designed in 2001.

Since the 2001 tax cuts had the effect of lowering personal income tax collections as a function of GDP from 8.7% to 7.4% (creating deficits), its no wonder that the tax cuts of 2014 continued much of those deficits...
 
Last edited:
Eric7216 said:
In 2009 dollars, adjusting for inflation, revenues in FY2002, GWB first full year, was $2,227B and by FY2007 rose to $2,663B. Despite tax cuts, revenues grew. On the spending side, spending increased from $2,417B to $2,829. Revenues as a % of GNP went up, from 15.7% to 17.9%. Don't see anything there to dispute the idea that tax cuts increase revenues.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
I don't like tax cuts, whether done by Bush or Obama. We need to bring debt down.

Saw a chart on the savings rate by various income groups. Forget where I found it. But it showed historic savings rates for the lower quintiles at 5% most of the time prior to 1980 when it went to zero and stayed there. The saving rates for the top echelon increased from 40% to 45%. About this same time, the income inequality grew. Since I believe firmly that the way to wealth (not Clinton wealth but healthy wealth) is savings and letting investments add income. The Fed rates tend to discourage savings by the very people who should save.
Click to expand...
See post #111. There were two tax cuts. One in 2001 and another in 2003. Revenue dropped from 2001 to 2002. When adjusting for inflation and population growth, 2007 revenue never met 2000 levels, even though GDP was much higher -- even with the housing bubble revenue.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Oh if only your little fantasy could work out. Van Gogh died broke in poverty and now his paintings are priceless. The same can not be said for Jacques-Louis David master of the Salon.
Click to expand...

The same cannot be said of almost everybody. So what?
 
upsideguy said:
Actually, for the record, technically Obama did not raise taxes; he cut them. The existing tax cuts implemented in 2001 expired in 2011, and then were extended to 2013. Those temporary cuts expired at the end of 2013.

Obama championed legislation that made MOST (but not all) of those cuts permanent, essentially putting into place a tax cut. The 2001 tax cuts on the highest income brackets simply expired, as was designed in 2001.

Since the 2001 tax cuts had the effect of lowering personal income tax collections as a function of GDP from 8.7% to 7.4% (creating deficits), its no wonder that the tax cuts of 2014 continued much of those deficits...
Click to expand...

True. He replaced taxes with debt.
 
fmw said:
True. He replaced taxes with debt.
Click to expand...

True. However, the replacing taxes with debt began with the 2001/2003 tax reductions. As I pointed out, Obama merely made permanent these tax cuts that were set to expire. So, Obama's tax cuts merely maintained the replace tax with debt architected by the Bush administration.
 
Eric7216 said:
In 2009 dollars, adjusting for inflation, revenues in FY2002, GWB first full year, was $2,227B and by FY2007 rose to $2,663B. Despite tax cuts, revenues grew. On the spending side, spending increased from $2,417B to $2,829. Revenues as a % of GNP went up, from 15.7% to 17.9%. Don't see anything there to dispute the idea that tax cuts increase revenues.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
I don't like tax cuts, whether done by Bush or Obama. We need to bring debt down.

Saw a chart on the savings rate by various income groups. Forget where I found it. But it showed historic savings rates for the lower quintiles at 5% most of the time prior to 1980 when it went to zero and stayed there. The saving rates for the top echelon increased from 40% to 45%. About this same time, the income inequality grew. Since I believe firmly that the way to wealth (not Clinton wealth but healthy wealth) is savings and letting investments add income. The Fed rates tend to discourage savings by the very people who should save.
Click to expand...



MTAtech said:
See post #111. There were two tax cuts. One in 2001 and another in 2003. Revenue dropped from 2001 to 2002. When adjusting for inflation and population growth, 2007 revenue never met 2000 levels, even though GDP was much higher -- even with the housing bubble revenue.
Click to expand...



Allow me to illustrate.

Bush Tax Cuts.jpg

Please note that the effect of the tax cut was to cut individual income tax collection to GDP from 8.7% before the election to 7.4% after, essentially forgoing $250B per year (which would substantially close today's deficit) Note also that GDP grew 40% over that time and tax collections only 10%.

The problem with Eric's numbers is that his tax collections include FICA tax, which has nothing to do with income taxes. FICA taxes did rise with GDP during the 2001 to 2012 era, MASKING the fact the the income tax cuts CUT income tax revenue.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
True. However, the replacing taxes with debt began with the 2001/2003 tax reductions. As I pointed out, Obama merely made permanent these tax cuts that were set to expire. So, Obama's tax cuts merely maintained the replace tax with debt architected by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

And the fact that he increased spending is Bush's fault as well? Do you begin to get how silly your argument is?
 
fmw said:
And the fact that he increased spending is Bush's fault as well? Do you begin to get how silly your argument is?
Click to expand...
It's not silly at all. Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency from 2002-2007 (Jan). By the theory that Republicans control spending, we should see a decrease in spending during this period -- or at least spending remaining flat. Let's look at this, shall we?

fredgraph.png
 
MTAtech said:
It's not silly at all. Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency from 2002-2007 (Jan). By the theory that Republicans control spending, we should see a decrease in spending during this period -- or at least spending remaining flat. Let's look at this, shall we?

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Your chart left off all of the Obama administration. Doubly silly. You want to blame Bush for Obama's spending and you don't even address his spending. Triply silly.
 
fmw said:
Your chart left off all of the Obama administration. Doubly silly. You want to blame Bush for Obama's spending and you don't even address his spending. Triply silly.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's see the Obama Admin. In six years, annual expenditures rose by a nominal $400-500 billion. In the eight years the Republicans ran the country (2002-2007) annual spending increased by $800 billion.

fredgraph.png
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
And the fact that he increased spending is Bush's fault as well? Do you begin to get how silly your argument is?
Click to expand...

So, tell us exactly what obama did to increase spending? (other than the stimulus, which a one time event, with the discussion of its effectiveness it own animal, though I am armed and ready on that one).

What people continue to fail to understand about the finances of the US is that revenue and expenditures are largely budget infrastructure and effected by significant legislation. Most of our expenditures (2/3) are mandatory spending from Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security (Obama has anything do with that; though the Bush Administration championed the enactment of Medicare D) and revenue is dictated by tax policy, which Bush changed and cut revenue... and Obama, when given the opportunity to let is expire, actually continued substantially all of it.

Most of the government spending increases are tied to increases in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. All of those costs are going to increase with the aging population and the sitting President will have nothing to do with those increases. People want to tell you the change in debt is sitting President's fault. While it makes for nice political fodder, and in the cases where the President actually made changes to the budget infrastructure it could be true (such as Bush), for the most part, accusing the sitting president of such things is for the disingenuous and those that have no understanding of the budget.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
So, tell us exactly what obama did to increase spending? (other than the stimulus, which a one time event, with the discussion of its effectiveness it own animal, though I am armed and ready on that one).

What people continue to fail to understand about the finances of the US is that revenue and expenditures are largely budget infrastructure and effected by significant legislation. Most of our expenditures (2/3) are mandatory spending from Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security (Obama has anything do with that; though the Bush Administration championed the enactment of Medicare D) and revenue is dictated by tax policy, which Bush changed and cut revenue... and Obama, when given the opportunity to let is expire, actually continued substantially all of it.

Most of the government spending increases are tied to increases in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. All of those costs are going to increase with the aging population and the sitting President will have nothing to do with those increases.
Click to expand...

I agree. There needs to be a reduction in those programs. And I'm a social security and medicare recipient. The federal government had no business getting into the retirement or medical business in the first place. But if you want to retain those programs as they are then I can promise you removing much of the other third would make a huge impact on government spending and freedom. Most of the stuff the federal government does could be moved to the states, the private sector or the trash can. What we need from federal government is defense, the activities surrounding dealing and negotiating with other countries, the ability to resolve inter state disputes and a currency. The rest of it has no business there at all. The tenth amendment even recommends that.
 
VanceMack said:
Its hard to not laugh out loud hearing a liberal concerned about the 'debt'.

Not surprisingly, the concern is that the government wont take more from taxpayers, not that they wont spend less. The OP must be one of those special kind of libertarians that believes the government (and the poor by proxy) have a greater right to other peoples stuff.
Click to expand...
The historical record proves your conclusion wrong. Spending as a p% of GDP remains relatively constant. What is absurd is that when asked what they will do to address deficits, the first thing conservatives say is "cut taxes." Of course, people like Fenton hold onto that view like a religion but experts have analyzed the GOP tax plans and they all balloon the deficit.
 
MTAtech said:
The historical record proves your conclusion wrong. Spending as a p% of GDP remains relatively constant. What is absurd is that when asked what they will do to address deficits, the first thing conservatives say is "cut taxes." Of course, people like Fenton hold onto that view like a religion but experts have analyzed the GOP tax plans and they all balloon the deficit.
Click to expand...

Do you get paid to spew that slanted partisan bull**** or is it just a hobby? How many different ways do you want to spin the fact that this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt? Thats why its just so ****ing ludicrous that you or any dem voter would even open their mouths on the subject. Oh...dont get me wrong...I dont think the GOP is doing a good job of managing debt and deficit spending and both parties (and especially their mindless BOT supporters) are doing their best to spend our grandchildren into oblivion...but that you would say **** about the GOP? Laughable. A joke. A sick twisted repulsive joke...but a joke.
 
VanceMack said:
Do you get paid to spew that slanted partisan bull**** or is it just a hobby? How many different ways do you want to spin the fact that this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt? Thats why its just so ****ing ludicrous that you or any dem voter would even open their mouths on the subject. Oh...dont get me wrong...I dont think the GOP is doing a good job of managing debt and deficit spending and both parties (and especially their mindless BOT supporters) are doing their best to spend our grandchildren into oblivion...but that you would say **** about the GOP? Laughable. A joke. A sick twisted repulsive joke...but a joke.
Click to expand...

Get paid for voicing my views? How much can I get and who's paying?

But I don't get it. You voice the exact opposite view as I do but somehow your are the standard of truth that all others must be judged. Why is not what you say, "slanted partisan bull?"

While you claim that "this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt," you don't address my post or the thread at all. The GOP candidates have all proposed tax policies that balloon the debt.

On whether "this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt," what big government programs has this administration enacted that doubled the debt? Before your knee-jerks and says "Obamacare." Obamacare didn't exist in 2009-2013. When you looks at actual facts instead of talk radio talking points, you might have realized that in the early years of this administration revenues dropped by $500 billion a year for several years. The stimulus was about $700 billion spread over two years and was necessary.

You might also realize that deficits have shrank dramatically, meaning that the debt is quite manageable.

So, what facts do you bring to the table to support your claim that this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt? In other words, what policies caused it?
 
MTAtech said:
Get paid for voicing my views? How much can I get and who's paying?

But I don't get it. You voice the exact opposite view as I do but somehow your are the standard of truth that all others must be judged. Why is not what you say, "slanted partisan bull?"

While you claim that "this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt," you don't address my post or the thread at all. The GOP candidates have all proposed tax policies that balloon the debt.

On whether "this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt," what big government programs has this administration enacted that doubled the debt? Before your knee-jerks and says "Obamacare." Obamacare didn't exist in 2009-2013. When you looks at actual facts instead of talk radio talking points, you might have realized that in the early years of this administration revenues dropped by $500 billion a year for several years. The stimulus was about $700 billion spread over two years and was necessary.

You might also realize that deficits have shrank dramatically, meaning that the debt is quite manageable.

So, what facts do you bring to the table to support your claim that this administration is responsible for more than doubling the nations debt? In other words, what policies caused it?
Click to expand...
No...I dont voice the opposite. I freely point out the GOP and their fiscal irresponsibility. I also point out the democrats that join hands skipping as they drag our grandkids over the cliff.

I see you love spin. It must make those **** sandwiches more tolerable. Or hell...maybe you just like em plain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom