Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

AdamT said:
Exactly. He is a liar.

Another personal attack because you don't like being challenged. You have so much emotional time invested in liberalism that simple facts confuse you. The question is why? We pay debt service on the debt each year and if there was a surplus especially as big as the CBO reported why did debt go up each year? Think about it, I am sure it will come to you.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

teamosil said:
The education *I* received? You just said "here is the deficit" and posted the debt...

The difference between the debt at the start of the year and the end of the year is not really anything technically. It isn't the deficit because for example, bills can be sent in to the government late or early, people can claim expenses incurred in the next fiscal year, etc.

Do you realize that deficits are added to the debt each day? That is the link I gave you and shows how the debt goes up and down due to deficits and surpluses by day. At the end of the fiscal year the debt on that day minus the debt on the first day of the fiscal year is the deficit. Now why is this even an issue with you? Debt has gone up each year regardless of the President and I know that bothers you because liberals and the media has lied to you but that is reality. Sorry

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Another personal attack because you don't like being challenged. You have so much emotional time invested in liberalism that simple facts confuse you. The question is why? We pay debt service on the debt each year and if there was a surplus especially as big as the CBO reported why did debt go up each year? Think about it, I am sure it will come to you.

The notion you have that liberals have trouble with facts is very odd. People with post graduate degrees are twice as likely to consider themselves liberal than conservative. Generally speaking, the liberal platform tends to be far, far, more complex and nuanced, where the conservative platform tends to be easily summarized in a bumper sticker on most issues. I would say that either side is dramatically smarter than the other, and certainly both sides have both smart and dumb members, but if we were to stereotype one, it would certainly be the conservatives that were on the wrong side of that in terms of education or intelligence.

As for your question, let me guess- it are a conspiracy!!!!

Ikari · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Because the alternative is a lot worse and as long as Obama is the headliner that will be the case.

But you're both taking us to hell, your side at best is just slightly slower so we can enjoy the trip down. But it's the complete opposite of what I want. I don't want to slowly descend into hell any more than I would like to get there quickly. I would in fact like to avoid it all together. So why should I support a party going in the opposite direction? You keep wanting to trivialize third parties and saying that it's letting Obama win. But the only difference between Obama and the Republicans seems to be, at best, how quickly we will ruin the Republic. So functionally, the two sides are equivalent. Both will lead to ruination. The status quo does not change through support of the status quo. It only changes when its power is threatened. Which would occur if enough people left the main party to vote third party, thus preventing their win.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

teamosil said:
The notion you have that liberals have trouble with facts is very odd. People with post graduate degrees are twice as likely to consider themselves liberal than conservative. Generally speaking, the liberal platform tends to be far, far, more complex and nuanced, where the conservative platform tends to be easily summarized in a bumper sticker on most issues. I would say that either side is dramatically smarter than the other, and certainly both sides have both smart and dumb members, but if we were to stereotype one, it would certainly be the conservatives that were on the wrong side of that in terms of education or intelligence.

As for your question, let me guess- it are a conspiracy!!!!

I call that being book smart and street stupid. We have 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans and how do liberals plan on putting them back to work? The numbers are what they are whether you like them or not. debt service is paid on the debt which the accumulation of deficits added to the previous debt.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

Ikari said:
But you're both taking us to hell, your side at best is just slightly slower so we can enjoy the trip down. But it's the complete opposite of what I want. I don't want to slowly descend into hell any more than I would like to get there quickly. I would in fact like to avoid it all together. So why should I support a party going in the opposite direction? You keep wanting to trivialize third parties and saying that it's letting Obama win. But the only difference between Obama and the Republicans seems to be, at best, how quickly we will ruin the Republic. So functionally, the two sides are equivalent. Both will lead to ruination. The status quo does not change through support of the status quo. It only changes when its power is threatened. Which would occur if enough people left the main party to vote third party, thus preventing their win.

I would like to see a viable third party but until you start at the grass roots all a third party does is give Obama another four years. I am still waiting for a successful third party Governor?

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you realize that deficits are added to the debt each day?

No, that's not how it works. Rather than me telling you how it works, how about you look it up and report back.

AdamT · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Another personal attack because you don't like being challenged. You have so much emotional time invested in liberalism that simple facts confuse you. The question is why? We pay debt service on the debt each year and if there was a surplus especially as big as the CBO reported why did debt go up each year? Think about it, I am sure it will come to you.

It's an observation, not a personal attack. Hate to do it, but when this has been explained to you time and time again and you keep posting the same specious claim, what's a boy to do?

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

teamosil said:
No, that's not how it works. Rather than me telling you how it works, how about you look it up and report back.

I have looked it up, show me the Clinton surplus from the bank account of the U.S. Govt? You are wrong but too bullheaded to admit it. That is San Francisco liberalism.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

AdamT said:
It's an observation, not a personal attack. Hate to do it, but when this has been explained to you time and time again and you keep posting the same specious claim, what's a boy to do?

Then show me the Clinton surplus with Treasury Data, not CBO. You really don't know how CBO works therefore are looking foolish. CBO is NOT the checkbook of the U.S.

AdamT · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Then show me the Clinton surplus with Treasury Data, not CBO. You really don't know how CBO works therefore are looking foolish. CBO is NOT the checkbook of the U.S.

Treasury does not publish the appropriate data set for budget deficits. They only publish gross debt numbers. The correct numbers with respect to deficits come from the CBO, which I've already provided (in chart form).

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
I call that being book smart and street stupid. We have 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans and how do liberals plan on putting them back to work? The numbers are what they are whether you like them or not. debt service is paid on the debt which the accumulation of deficits added to the previous debt.

Before you were talking about grasp of facts, so that would be "book smart" you were questioning.

In terms of street smart I find the gap to be wider. Conservatives are more likely to be rural, less likely to have traveled extensively, less likely to have exposure to diversity, etc. So, yeah, not exactly things that scream "street smarts" at you...

And of course we have a plan... Remember, Obama just introduced a job bill, the stimulus saved between 1 and 2 million jobs, etc. Long term we want to invest in the future through education and scientific research, kick starting green energy, etc. Now the Republicans on the other hand, what's their plan? They're just saying "**** the unemployed, lets just give even more of our GDP to the super rich"

Ikari · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
I would like to see a viable third party but until you start at the grass roots all a third party does is give Obama another four years. I am still waiting for a successful third party Governor?

They are only viable if you support them. That's the rub. People here saying they'd rather descend us into hell slowly than give a third party a chance is a bit illogical. But the real power of third parties does not come in with "winning" on some national level. But rather their ability to skew elections preventing one side from winning. That side will have to change the candidates they put up in order to recapture the lost third party voters and that's how you apply pressure on the main party.

My point remains, it is illogical for me to support through my vote a status quo I do not agree with. The Republocrats are all about the expansion of government power and privlege, the Republicans are not different from the Democrats on that front. Voting for either nets you the same. Obama or whomever the Republicans put up; peas in a pod. If I'm left with undesirables regardless, there's no reason for me to waste my vote on the main party and rather throw some support towards the third parties. We do a lot of grassroots campaigning and even in Colorado on the local levels we have been successful. On the national level, there's a lot of barriers placed there by the Republocrats to stifle and destroy true political competition.

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
I have looked it up, show me the Clinton surplus from the bank account of the U.S. Govt? You are wrong but too bullheaded to admit it. That is San Francisco liberalism.

No, that just isn't how it works. We don't settle all accounts every day, we have rounds where we sell a bunch of bonds to get us through a while, then we don't need to sell any for a while, then we do again. It isn't a daily process, it's typically more like 4 times a year.

I am getting the strong impression that you are just making assumptions about all this stuff and blurting it out like your assumptions are fact...

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

AdamT said:
Treasury does not publish the appropriate data set for budget deficits. They only publish gross debt numbers. The correct numbers with respect to deficits come from the CBO, which I've already provided (in chart form).

Yes it does, you just don't understand the data that was posted nor do you understand debt service but that doesn't stop you from calling me a liar. You and Sheik are quite a pair. So, does your deficit or surplus come from another source than your bank? As stated, you don't have a clue how CBO works and that is embarrassing.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

teamosil;1059808520]No, that just isn't how it works. We don't settle all accounts every day, we have rounds where we sell a bunch of bonds to get us through a while, then we don't need to sell any for a while, then we do again. It isn't a daily process, it's typically more like 4 times a year.

I am getting the strong impression that you are just making assumptions about all this stuff and blurting it out like your assumptions are fact...

You continue to prove over and over again that liberals ahve no clue. You have never looked at the budget of the United States nor do you understand debt service and where it comes from. Keep digging that hole deeper

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
You continue to prove over and over again that liberals ahve no clue. You have never looked at the budget of the United States nor do you understand debt service and where it comes from. Keep digging that hole deeper

I'm going to go ahead and wager that you don't know what debt service is because you're using it incorrectly.

AdamT · Sep 19, 2011

Conservative said:
Yes it does, you just don't understand the data that was posted nor do you understand debt service but that doesn't stop you from calling me a liar. You and Sheik are quite a pair. So, does your deficit or surplus come from another source than your bank? As stated, you don't have a clue how CBO works and that is embarrassing.

No, it doesn't. For God's sake just admit you were wrong and move on. Everyone knows that you are wrong. You aren't fooling anyone. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.

Conservative · Sep 19, 2011

AdamT said:
No, it doesn't. For God's sake just admit you were wrong and move on. Everyone knows that you are wrong. You aren't fooling anyone. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.

Everyone? LOL, only the left here that cannot admit they are wrong. FACT debt went up every year including all those years of the supposed Clinton surpluses. Too bad liberals dont have a clue as to what makes up the national debt. Doesn't stop you from spreading misinformation.

Suggest you get the facts

What the U.S. National Debt Is:

(Updated August 10, 2011) The U.S. debt is over $14.5 trillion, and is the sum of all outstanding debt owed by the Federal Government. Nearly two-thirds is the public debt, which is owed to the people, businesses and foreign governments who bought Treasury bills, notes and bonds.

The rest is owed by the government to itself, and is held as Government Account securities. Most of this is owed to Social Security and other trust funds, which were running surpluses. These securities are a promise to repay these funds when Baby Boomers retire over the next 20 years. (Source: U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny; Debt FAQ)

stsburns · Sep 19, 2011

randel said:
wash, rinse, repeat...same ol' same ol'....

Exactly!

cpwill · Sep 20, 2011

Karl said:
You have not made the argument that cutting the size of govt is "right".

Historically, the "size" of govt, as you seem to be measuring it, has been about 20% of GDP. Is that "size" the correct one? Or do you want it smaller? (and if so, why is that "right"?)

it should be smaller. because revenue is around 19% of GDP - and we need expenditures to run underneath revenue for a while.

cpwill · Sep 20, 2011

teamosil said:
Ok, well the new one you posted shows what we need to know- revenue did in fact plummet after 2005 as we continued to lower taxes on the rich.

that is incorrect- revenue continued to climb after 2005 (in fact, it reached historic post-war high's as a % of GDP), and then plummeted as we decided to rapidly expand government in response to the crash of 2008/2009.

So raising taxes, but keeping the size of government constant would result in more revenue. Right?

no. because the highest we've ever raised in revenue was 20% of GDP - and we did that with lower taxes and higher growth. furthermore, increased government (as demonstrated) depresses revenues - so you have to cut government in order to increase revenues. the two are inversely linked.

Are you saying that cheating on taxes takes up so much time that people are less productive?

it's not cheating for one to pursue deductions, credits, shelters, and the like - after all, Obama himself seems to have taken quite a bit advantage of such things.

And you think that is a significant factor?

i think that people respond to incentives - and when you create a massive incentive to minimize tax exposure, you will get people willing to take massive action to do so.

Consumers spending all their money, or more money than they have, and not being able to save anything is definitely a byproduct of directing too much of the money away from regular people and into the pockets of the super rich instead.

wtf? people acting stupidly is the fault of those who act intelligently?

They don't have enough money to sustain their lifestyle, so they borrow.

that, at least, is correct.

the problem is their lifestyle not matching their income.

"oh don't worry honey - house prices will always go up. let's just take out all our equity in an adjustable rate second home mortgage and use the money to go on vacation to the bahama's and then buy you a new car and me a new flatscreen."

That stat is about the rate of PERSONAL savings. That isn't big investors, that's people saving up for their kids college and whatnot. That is what is getting squeezed- regular people.

if their belts are feeling squeezed, it's because they eat too much; their consumption is higher than is good for them.

Simon W. Moon · Sep 20, 2011

1Perry said:
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?

What's the difference between this and progressive tax rates?

Simon W. Moon · Sep 20, 2011

cpwill said:
perhaps you can show me where we had a reduction of revenue?

because I'm not seeing it.

If the percentage stays the same that means that the actual numbers stayed the same? If not, then what is your graph supposed to show?

It seems to me, imho, that 9/12 is the same percentage as 3/4. But in the latter, the quantity is much lower. ymmv. Couldn't it be that the revenue as a percentage of GDP could remain more or less the same while actual revenue and GDP decrease? Am I mistaken about the math?

Maybe if we looked at a different statistic we could find something more illuminating about the net change in receipts. idk. What do you think?

cpwill · Sep 20, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
If the percentage stays the same that means that the actual numbers stayed the same? If not, then what is your graph supposed to show?

the percentage doesn't stay the same - it varies within a historical range of about 1-1.5%. The graphs point out that it doesn't matter what the income tax rates on the wealthy are - given a government of about 19-20% of GDP, you're going to get about 18.5-19.5% of GDP in revenue.

It seems to me, imho, that 9/12 is the same percentage as 3/4. But in the latter, the quantity is much lower. ymmv. Couldn't it be that the revenue as a percentage of GDP could remain more or less the same while actual revenue and GDP decrease? Am I mistaken about the math?

revenue goes up at roughly the same rate that GDP goes up, yes. dependent, again, on the relative size of government.

Maybe if we looked at a different statistic we could find something more illuminating about the net change in receipts. idk. What do you think?

I would look to see a correlation between years of solid private sector growth and years of revenue increase, both in raw and whether or not it occurred as a share of GDP.

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

American Infidel