• 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!

House Republicans Cave on Payroll Tax Cuts Extension

AdamT said:
I disagree. The reason the debt is so high is that we cut taxes too much and spent too much on foreign wars and defense spending in general. If we had simply left the top effective tax rate where it was in 1986, the current debt would be quite manageable. If Bush had not cut taxes and invaded Iraq, the debt would be quite manageable. Basically what it comes down to is this: we have to realize that we can't have low taxes and a strong safety net and be the world's police man. We can do one of those, or possibly two, but not all three.
Click to expand...

in 1990, 27% of our 1.2 trillion of spending was on defense, 41% of our 1.2 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 37% of revenue was from FICA.

in 2011, 25% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on defense. 59% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 40% of revenue was from FICA.

See the problem?
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
in 1990, 27% of our 1.2 trillion of spending was on defense, 41% of our 1.2 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 37% of revenue was from FICA.

in 2011, 25% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on defense. 59% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 40% of revenue was from FICA.

See the problem?
Click to expand...

Yes, there's no doubt that we need to get Medicare under control. Unfortunately that is easier said than done. It is more of a problem with the health care economy than it is a government problem, by which I mean that the cost has skyrocketed for both public and private health care. That is at the root of our fiscal woes. Health care costs have been increasing at roughly double the inflation rate for decades, and are also outpacing GDP growth. As a nation we spend over $2 trillion per year on health care. We pay roughly double what other developed countries pay per capita.

See the problem?
 
Samhain said:
in 1990, 27% of our 1.2 trillion of spending was on defense, 41% of our 1.2 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 37% of revenue was from FICA.

in 2011, 25% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on defense. 59% of our 3.6 trillion of spending is on entitlements. 40% of revenue was from FICA.

See the problem?
Click to expand...
can you see it better now?
graph federal spending percentage of GNP.jpg
notice the government's portion of GNP
 
AdamT said:
Yes, that's pretty much the point of passing stimulus measures. You pump money into the economy to combat a demand-side slowdown, then pay it back when the economy has regained strength. Otherwise it's like trying to fill up a hole, where you have one guy shoveling dirt in and another guy shoveling dirt out.
Click to expand...

The guy shoveling it out has been gaining on the guy shoveling it in for about 30 years now. When does the economy regain strength, and the debt begin to actually diminish?

I think Congress has been shoveling something besides dirt.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The guy shoveling it out has been gaining on the guy shoveling it in for about 30 years now. When does the economy regain strength, and the debt begin to actually diminish?

I think Congress has been shoveling something besides dirt.
Click to expand...

The debt was very close to diminishing at the end of Clinton's term. So imagine that Bush had not immediately lowered taxes, hadn't invaded Iraq, and hadn't signed Medicare Part D. Then imagine that, with less liquidity in the economy, the housing bubble would have been less severe (assuming nothing else was done to curb the crisis).

But I totally agree that Congress is full of ****, and it comes from both sides of the aisle.
 
AdamT said:
I think everyone is disgusted by it. The only thing worse would be actually letting a law that everyone agrees is beneficial expire rather than passing a temporary extension so they can work out their differences.
Click to expand...
And you think THAT is what is going to happen next? That now that this latest round has passed they will come together and work this all out...pass an operating budget...sustain budget cuts...work for the actual benefit of the country? WHat is the debt ceiling at now? How much in deficit spending will we add to the debt this year alone? How many times have we done this dance within the last 12 months?

Again...that people see this as a 'good' thing is amazing. Its the 'well...at least...' mentality that reassures those assclowns they can just keep doing what they do with full support of their mindless party supporters.
 
AdamT said:
The debt was very close to diminishing at the end of Clinton's term. So imagine that Bush had not immediately lowered taxes, hadn't invaded Iraq, and hadn't signed Medicare Part D. Then imagine that, with less liquidity in the economy, the housing bubble would have been less severe (assuming nothing else was done to curb the crisis).

But I totally agree that Congress is full of ****, and it comes from both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. The debt grew every year Clinton was President, and after almost running a deficit surplus in FY 2000, his deficit went up again in FY 2001. Clinton benefited from the dot-com bubble, and when it popped, we had a mild recession, and revenues dropped.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The debt was very close to diminishing at the end of Clinton's term. So imagine that Bush had not immediately lowered taxes, hadn't invaded Iraq, and hadn't signed Medicare Part D. Then imagine that, with less liquidity in the economy, the housing bubble would have been less severe (assuming nothing else was done to curb the crisis).

But I totally agree that Congress is full of ****, and it comes from both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I'm calling bull patties. Clinton slightly lowered the public debt while increasing the intra-governmental debt beyond what he lowered the public debt portion. In the end, the total debt increased by 1.7 trillion.
 
VanceMack said:
And you think THAT is what is going to happen next? That now that this latest round has passed they will come together and work this all out...pass an operating budget...sustain budget cuts...work for the actual benefit of the country? WHat is the debt ceiling at now? How much in deficit spending will we add to the debt this year alone? How many times have we done this dance within the last 12 months?

Again...that people see this as a 'good' thing is amazing. Its the 'well...at least...' mentality that reassures those assclowns they can just keep doing what they do with full support of their mindless party supporters.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that there will be, after more political grandstanding, a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut and that the debt limit will be raised through the election. And yes, these are good things, unless you're a big fan of recession.
 
Samhain said:
I'm calling bull patties. Clinton slightly lowered the public debt while increasing the intra-governmental debt beyond what he lowered the public debt portion. In the end, the total debt increased by 1.7 trillion.
Click to expand...

The public debt increased over his eight years, but by the end of his term it was close to zero growth. Recall that Bush's justification for his tax cuts was the projected surpluses that *should* have been realized over the next eight years. What ever were we going to DO with all that money rolling in?!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The debt was very close to diminishing at the end of Clinton's term. So imagine that Bush had not immediately lowered taxes, hadn't invaded Iraq, and hadn't signed Medicare Part D. Then imagine that, with less liquidity in the economy, the housing bubble would have been less severe (assuming nothing else was done to curb the crisis).

But I totally agree that Congress is full of ****, and it comes from both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I'm imagining... imagining... what a sweet dream! I'm imagining that the government monitored the mortgage industry, there was no housing 'bubble" to pop, no recession.. imagining GWB running his ranch in Texas, and I've never heard of him....

Oh, crap. I just woke up, and reality can no longer be ignored.
 
AdamT said:
The public debt increased over his eight years, but by the end of his term it was close to zero growth. Recall that Bush's justification for his tax cuts was the projected surpluses that *should* have been realized over the next eight years. What ever were we going to DO with all that money rolling in?!
Click to expand...

I wish I knew. I wish our leaders knew.
 
Samhain said:
I'm calling bull patties. Clinton slightly lowered the public debt while increasing the intra-governmental debt beyond what he lowered the public debt portion. In the end, the total debt increased by 1.7 trillion.
Click to expand...
Clinton, like Bush and Obama, did nothing. Congress has to approve the spending. Clinton was blessed with good political skills and an effective congress. And at the end of the day there was still an increase in debt spending. People are always oblivious to debt spending...provided their own interests get funded they will ignore the debt 'bottom line".
 
VanceMack said:
Clinton, like Bush and Obama, did nothing. Congress has to approve the spending. Clinton was blessed with good political skills and an effective congress. And at the end of the day there was still an increase in debt spending. People are always oblivious to debt spending...provided their own interests get funded they will ignore the debt 'bottom line".
Click to expand...

Actually, Clinton balanced the budget, but the overall debt owed still increased. The first step is balancing the budget though, which Bush immediately tossed out of the window as soon as he could.
 
AdamT said:
The public debt increased over his eight years, but by the end of his term it was close to zero growth. Recall that Bush's justification for his tax cuts was the projected surpluses that *should* have been realized over the next eight years. What ever were we going to DO with all that money rolling in?!
Click to expand...

Incorrect .... again. Deficits were increasing when Clinton left office. Dot-com had popped.

The primary cause of the current mess was the Housing Bubble. A creation of Government. Jump-started in 1997, it would have never happened had government stayed out of the mortgage-banking business.
 
Tettsuo said:
Actually, Clinton balanced the budget, but the overall debt owed still increased. The first step is balancing the budget though, which Bush immediately tossed out of the window as soon as he could.
Click to expand...
Please tell me how "Clinton Balanced the budget"...
 
VanceMack said:
Please tell me how "Clinton Balanced the budget"...
Click to expand...

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
 
Tettsuo said:
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Click to expand...

Except that the debt went up every year Clinton was President. Every year.

However, this argument also detracts from the fact that the budget deficits shrunk enormously in Clinton's second term, a product of controlled spending, and the dot-com boom.

The last true surplus in the US, where the debt decreased, was under Eisenhower, in 1957.
 
Tettsuo said:
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Click to expand...
SO...Clinton balanced the budget...not congress? Congress didnt propose the legislation that Clinton signed?
 
Tettsuo said:
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Click to expand...

If there was a surplus in those two fiscal years, how come the deficit increased in both years? That's because there wasn't a surplus.
 
VanceMack said:
SO...Clinton balanced the budget...not congress? Congress didnt propose the legislation that Clinton signed?
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing with the article? If so, what part?
 
Tettsuo said:
Are you disagreeing with the article? If so, what part?
Click to expand...
All of it that said Clinton did ANYTHING. Clinton was a good president...you will find me making that statement here MANY times, just as you will find me stating I would have him back in a heartbeat. But he was a PRESIDENT...the representative of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. The president signs legislation placed before him by congress. Congress passed a balanced budget which Clinton signed. As the leader he can surely put it on his resume...but he did nothing more than acquiesce to the legislative work of the congress.
 
VanceMack said:
All of it that said Clinton did ANYTHING. Clinton was a good president...you will find me making that statement here MANY times, just as you will find me stating I would have him back in a heartbeat. But he was a PRESIDENT...the representative of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. The president signs legislation placed before him by congress. Congress passed a balanced budget which Clinton signed. As the leader he can surely put it on his resume...but he did nothing more than acquiesce to the legislative work of the congress.
Click to expand...

So no president can be praised for much of anything that's accomplished by the government? I'm sure you're also including Reagan in your viewpoint, yes? Would you take the same stance with Obama?

If your point is to only make it known that the government isn't a dictatorship, I agree. No president can act alone without the government as a whole working together. I'm not disputing that at all.
 
Tettsuo said:
Are you disagreeing with the article? If so, what part?
Click to expand...

The article is correct, YOU are wrong.

Note what it says:

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
Click to expand...

It was during the Clinton Administration according to the article. It does NOT say that Clinton balanced the budget as you claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom