• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

JasperL said:
That, and inflation, and population growth, and normal economic growth. Inflation is the big one that's ignored. Second is the assumption that all economic growth is as a result of tax cuts, so if the economy grew by 3%, even though it's grown by 2-3% for decades, and grew by those rates when tax rates topped out at 92%, the "conservative" analysis assumes it's all a result of the tax cuts. It's the kind of economic analysis that wouldn't get a passing grade in Econ 201. I'm sure I'm telling you nothing you don't know, but just wanted to get it on the record.
Click to expand...


Wrong, when taxes were cut what inflation number gave us a 60% increase in INCOME TAX Revenue??
 
Conservative said:
Again, the Treasury date disagrees with you but then again you don't want to use actual dollars only inflation adjusted dollars and that isn't how our country operates. Rather sad that you don't seem to understand exactly what happened during the Reagan term or even the Clinton term. 1994 was a rejection of Clinton economic policies and the tax cut act of 1997 refutes your claims of tax hikes
Click to expand...

If the Treasury data disagrees, cite the data. I'm supposed to take your word for that?

And of course I'm using inflation adjusted dollars. It's how one compares any financial information from different periods. If you don't adjust for inflation, you can't make apples to apples comparisons. This is the most basic of steps, step ONE in serious analysis. If you're not willing to accept that, you're just saying you prefer meaningless data to something that might actually tell us something.

Just the most basic of examples - if GDP growth is 3% nominal, but inflation is 100%, the country is going BACKWARDS, fast, collapsing in fact, since real GDP, and therefore living standards have been cut nearly in HALF. You're saying you want to ignore that and treat an economy that grows 3% nominal with 1% inflation as doing equally well? OK, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Look, if you want to send more money into the govt. just do it and stop complaining about others wanting to keep more of their or the benefits generated by that revenue
Click to expand...

I'll say one more time - I support tax cuts. I just prefer they be paid for with spending cuts that are VERY difficult politically, instead of the easy and cowardly path of increased deficits. If you want to run deficits to offset tax cuts, fine, just say so, like Cheney did. But don't pretend that you're picking some other option - the "MAGIC!!" option - where tax cuts are self financing and require no tough spending decisions.

Obama ran deficits of more than a $Trillion per year during the heart of the Great Recession. I'm not delusional, so never suggested the way to reduce those deficits was more tax CUTS.
 
JasperL;1063919305]If the Treasury data disagrees, cite the data. I'm supposed to take your word for that?

And of course I'm using inflation adjusted dollars. It's how one compares any financial information from different periods. If you don't adjust for inflation, you can't make apples to apples comparisons. This is the most basic of steps, step ONE in serious analysis. If you're not willing to accept that, you're just saying you prefer meaningless data to something that might actually tell us something.
Click to expand...

What you are supposed to do is research Government websites including the Treasury which is the bank for the U.S. govt. that is what you fail to do and you never use inflation adjusted dollars to fund current expense items or debt service. What is it about people like you who cannot understand the benefit of keeping more of what you earn? You want the data go to

Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=86

Just the most basic of examples - if GDP growth is 3% nominal, but inflation is 100%, the country is going BACKWARDS, fast, collapsing in fact, since real GDP, and therefore living standards have been cut nearly in HALF. You're saying you want to ignore that and treat an economy that grows 3% nominal with 1% inflation as doing equally well? OK, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I know this is hard for you to understand but what you are paying in expenses today are paid for in today's dollars. What that dollar is worth in 10 years is irrelevant. Reagan cut taxes and no amount of inflation and population growth would generate a 60% FIT increase



I'll say one more time - I support tax cuts. I just prefer they be paid for with spending cuts that are VERY difficult politically, instead of the easy and cowardly path of increased deficits. If you want to run deficits to offset tax cuts, fine, just say so, like Cheney did. But don't pretend that you're picking some other option - the "MAGIC!!" option - where tax cuts are self financing and require no tough spending decisions.
Click to expand...

Please stop with the stupidity, you don't have to pay for tax cuts, it is your money and the govt. isn't getting less by cutting taxes because personal behavior takes over. Show me tax cuts on an income statement??

Obama ran deficits of more than a $Trillion per year during the heart of the Great Recession. I'm not delusional, so never suggested the way to reduce those deficits was more tax CUTS.
Click to expand...

The recession ended in June 2009, he had trillion dollar deficits for four straight years and it was the sequester that brought those deficits down but still above anything Bush generated
 
Grant said:
Yeah, spending versus income is complicated for Democrats, which is why we see so many of them on welfare and food stamps.
Click to expand...

...what is truly amazing is the fact that Cons can't seem to get their heads around the basics of finance.... cutting revenues has the same bottom line effect as increasing expenses, unless you believe voodoo.
 
upsideguy said:
...what is truly amazing is the fact that Cons can't seem to get their heads around the basics of finance.... cutting revenues has the same bottom line effect as increasing expenses, unless you believe voodoo.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the FIT revenue increases after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Also please let me know when either Reagan or Bush had trillion dollar deficits?? And please don't point to 2009 unless you can post a Bush approved and signed budget?
 
Conservative said:
Accounting and math ignore human behavior which is what liberals like you always do.
Click to expand...

I've said many times, tax cuts increase economic growth. But that growth isn't fast enough over growth without the tax cuts to "pay" for the tax cuts, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as perhaps the LBJ cuts coming off 92%. That's the Laffer Curve. I beat that to death on another thread - but I'm not ignoring human behavior and that it responds to changes in economic conditions, including tax rates, interest rates, population growth, demand and much, much more.

Bottom line is people with models that do a good job of predicting behavioral changes to, among other things, tax cuts, estimate that $1 of nominal tax cut costs about 80-99 cents, depending.... Capital gains tax rates might only cost 50 cents per dollar in the short run. To pay for themselves, the cost would have to be NEGATIVE. That doesn't happen, not in reality.

You want more money to go to the govt. then send it in. Put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...

If right wingers want lower tax rates, cut spending. Put your money where your mouth is.

What serious people understand is that just because you cut taxes there is nothing that says you have to increase spending. Politicians do it to get votes and keep their jobs. The two aren't synonymous
Click to expand...

OK, but Reagan cut taxes and increased spending. W cut taxes and increased spending. They didn't have to but they DID. And both Reagan and Bush INCREASED DEFICITS. You call that "fiscally responsible" apparently.
 
Conservative said:
How do you explain the FIT revenue increases after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?
Click to expand...

You're a broken record. Not any more convincing now than it was the first half dozen times.

How do you explain that FIT revenues increase two and a half times faster under Clinton?
 
Conservative said:
What you are supposed to do is research Government websites including the Treasury which is the bank for the U.S. govt. that is what you fail to do and you never use inflation adjusted dollars to fund current expense items or debt service. What is it about people like you who cannot understand the benefit of keeping more of what you earn? You want the data go to

Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=86
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, but I'm not going to do your work for you. What numbers do you want to highlight? Put them here as I did.

And I'm glad you want to ignore inflation, so 3% growth is just as good when inflation is running 100% as when inflation is 1%. As I said, no one will take you seriously.

I know this is hard for you to understand but what you are paying in expenses today are paid for in today's dollars. What that dollar is worth in 10 years is irrelevant. Reagan cut taxes and no amount of inflation and population growth would generate a 60% FIT increase
Click to expand...

You're comparing receipts in 1989 to receipts in 1982. It matters what inflation was between those two dates. I'd go into it but if you can't accept that, there is no point in trying.

Please stop with the stupidity, you don't have to pay for tax cuts, it is your money and the govt. isn't getting less by cutting taxes because personal behavior takes over. Show me tax cuts on an income statement??
Click to expand...

You're right, you don't have to make any hard choices after a tax cut, you can gutlessly do nothing and watch deficits explode, as you can see here (Reagan and Bush eras) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals Table 1.1.

1981 -78,968 (Last Carter budget)
1982 -127,977
1983 -207,802
1984 -185,367
1985 -212,308
1986 -221,227
1987 -149,730
1988 -155,178

2001 128,236 (Last Clinton Budget)
2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701 (Top of the biggest debt bubble in 80 years, and largest housing bubble in U.S. history - still didn't have a balanced budget)
2008 -458,553 (This is a reflection of the Great Recession)

Notice something? After the Reagan tax cuts, deficits were never less than TWICE the highest deficits of the Carter era. Cut taxes and don't reduce spending, that's what happens.... Bush came in and did two major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Deficits increased by over $500 billion. Math says so. Behavior doesn't change enough to affect basic math.

Let's see basic results in the Clinton era:

1992 -290,321
1993 -255,051
1994 -203,186
1995 -163,952
1996 -107,431
1997 -21,884
1998 69,270
1999 125,610
2000 236,241
2001 128,236

Huh, lookee there. Clinton raise tax rates and deficits went DOWN! Just like math says they should, and the OPPOSITE of what happened following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Imagine that....
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
I've said many times, tax cuts increase economic growth. But that growth isn't fast enough over growth without the tax cuts to "pay" for the tax cuts, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as perhaps the LBJ cuts coming off 92%. That's the Laffer Curve. I beat that to death on another thread - but I'm not ignoring human behavior and that it responds to changes in economic conditions, including tax rates, interest rates, population growth, demand and much, much more.

Bottom line is people with models that do a good job of predicting behavioral changes to, among other things, tax cuts, estimate that $1 of nominal tax cut costs about 80-99 cents, depending.... Capital gains tax rates might only cost 50 cents per dollar in the short run. To pay for themselves, the cost would have to be NEGATIVE. That doesn't happen, not in reality.



If right wingers want lower tax rates, cut spending. Put your money where your mouth is.



OK, but Reagan cut taxes and increased spending. W cut taxes and increased spending. They didn't have to but they DID. And both Reagan and Bush INCREASED DEFICITS. You call that "fiscally responsible" apparently.
Click to expand...

This is absurd, you don't pay for tax cuts, never have and never will. And you claim to have accounting experience? Further you don't seem to understand the budget of the United States, it is yearly, unfortunately it is a baseline budget and unfortunately people like you have been convinced that the govt. needs the money more than you do

As for spending, when you have debt to GDP of less than 70% it is manageable, you don't seem to comprehend that neither Reagan or Bush had debt to GDP exceeding 70%, Obama's is over 100%. Please don't talk to me about fiscal responsibility since obviously you have no understanding of the term
 
JasperL said:
Thanks for the link, but I'm not going to do your work for you. What numbers do you want to highlight? Put them here as I did.

And I'm glad you want to ignore inflation, so 3% growth is just as good when inflation is running 100% as when inflation is 1%. As I said, no one will take you seriously.



You're comparing receipts in 1989 to receipts in 1982. It matters what inflation was between those two dates. I'd go into it but if you can't accept that, there is no point in trying.



You're right, you don't have to make any hard choices after a tax cut, you can gutlessly do nothing and watch deficits explode, as you can see here (Reagan and Bush eras)

1981 -78,968 (Last Carter budget)
1982 -127,977
1983 -207,802
1984 -185,367
1985 -212,308
1986 -221,227
1987 -149,730
1988 -155,178

2001 128,236 (Last Clinton Budget)
2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701 (Top of the biggest debt bubble in 80 years, and largest housing bubble in U.S. history - still didn't have a balanced budget)
2008 -458,553 (This is a reflection of the Great Recession)

Notice something? After the Reagan tax cuts, deficits were never less than TWICE the highest deficits of the Carter era. Cut taxes and don't reduce spending, that's what happens.... Bush came in and did two major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Deficits increased by over $500 billion. Math says so. Behavior doesn't change enough to affect basic math.
Click to expand...

You put in the years you want and compare personal tax revenue the first year vs the last year and then calculate the percentage. I am not doing any work for you either, the percentage is over 60%

Reagan's deficits led to 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP. How does that compare to Carter?

Math has nothing to do with it, you cut taxes and you create more economic activity. Congress spends the money, not the President
 
Conservative said:
You put in the years you want and compare personal tax revenue the first year vs the last year and then calculate the percentage. I am not doing any work for you either, the percentage is over 60%

Reagan's deficits led to 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP. How does that compare to Carter?

Math has nothing to do with it, you cut taxes and you create more economic activity. Congress spends the money, not the President
Click to expand...

You do realize that Reagan myths float around by the hundreds.

The reality is that the toe bone is connected to the foot bone, the foot bone is connected to the leg bone...on and on and on and on. What does this mean? Can you not grasp that every president after Washington has in some way inherited some element of all of their predecessors screw ups as well as achievements? It's impossible not to.

Now you frequently use Reagan as your poster boy president who did miracles. I voted for Reagan twice. I really did. If I had it to do over, I'd rather cut off my left testicle. Some people talk about Reagan like he was Jesus. That's just not reality.

For every godly act that you claim Reagan did...I can find some source that will refute it.

Spinning is a great game for people in politics are somebody trying to sell somebody something. BUYER BEWARE!
 
Conservative said:
You put in the years you want and compare personal tax revenue the first year vs the last year and then calculate the percentage. I am not doing any work for you either, the percentage is over 60%

Reagan's deficits led to 17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP. How does that compare to Carter?

Math has nothing to do with it, you cut taxes and you create more economic activity. Congress spends the money, not the President
Click to expand...

I think I'll quit this conversation. Obviously you don't want to see the point, because it would require you to change your worldview and recognize there is no tax free lunch, and believing in a tax free lunch is necessary to not laugh out loud at GOPer leaders who tell you there is a free lunch. I understand - took me years to admit as well.

Bottom line is tax cuts by GOPers increased the deficit, as math says they will. Tax increases by Clinton reduced deficits, as math says they will. Behavior affects those results, but very little in the big picture.
 
Removable Mind said:
You do realize that Reagan myths float around by the hundreds.

The reality is that the toe bone is connected to the foot bone, the foot bone is connected to the leg bone...on and on and on and on. What does this mean? Can you not grasp that every president after Washington has in some way inherited some element of all of their predecessors screw ups as well as achievements? It's impossible not to.

Now you frequently use Reagan as your poster boy president who did miracles. I voted for Reagan twice. I really did. If I had it to do over, I'd rather cut off my left testicle. Some people talk about Reagan like he was Jesus. That's just not reality.

For every godly act that you claim Reagan did...I can find some source that will refute it.

Spinning is a great game for people in politics are somebody trying to sell somebody something. BUYER BEWARE!
Click to expand...

In the real world, not the liberal world, results matter as does leadership, apparently you know neither
 
JasperL said:
I think I'll quit this conversation. Obviously you don't want to see the point, because it would require you to change your worldview and recognize there is no tax free lunch, and believing in a tax free lunch is necessary to not laugh out loud at GOPer leaders who tell you there is a free lunch. I understand - took me years to admit as well.

Bottom line is tax cuts by GOPers increased the deficit, as math says they will. Tax increases by Clinton reduced deficits, as math says they will. Behavior affects those results, but very little in the big picture.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, tax cuts that actually cut revenue would have increased the deficit but not with a 60% increase in that revenue. Clinton raised taxes and gave us a GOP Congress that cut taxes, thanks Bill
 
Conservative said:
That is a lie, tax cuts that actually cut revenue would have increased the deficit but not with a 60% increase in that revenue. Clinton raised taxes and gave us a GOP Congress that cut taxes, thanks Bill
Click to expand...

Oh brother. :roll: More Kool-Aid, sir?
 
Conservative said:
That is a lie, tax cuts that actually cut revenue would have increased the deficit but not with a 60% increase in that revenue. Clinton raised taxes and gave us a GOP Congress that cut taxes, thanks Bill
Click to expand...

First of all, it's a beautiful thing to see the GOP mind at work. Reagan tax cuts (passed by democratic House). Clinton tax increases. But it's the GOP tax cuts in 1997, with Clinton as POTUS. Can't see a better example of "GOP gets credit for all that's good, democrats blamed for all that's bad."

Second - review the data. By 1997 when cap gains were cut, Clinton had already reduced deficits by $200 billion. In a similar time period, after two big tax cuts, Bush had increased deficits by over $500 billion. That's a $700 billion difference in fiscal results, and it's the difference between tax increases and tax cuts. One predictably reduced deficits, two big ones under Bush predictably exploded them.
 
upsideguy said:
...what is truly amazing is the fact that Cons can't seem to get their heads around the basics of finance.... cutting revenues has the same bottom line effect as increasing expenses, unless you believe voodoo.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the government could cut their expenses accordingly? Others have to do it. When is the last time the White House actually had a budget and was passed into law?

Remember this guy and the low infos who voted for him? Obama Promised to Cut Deficit In Half By 2012! - YouTube
Another cut from El Stupido. Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube
 
Grant said:
Or perhaps the government could cut their expenses accordingly? Others have to do it. When is the last time the White House actually had a budget and was passed into law?
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree. High deficits require painful choices to solve - spending cuts OR tax increases OR both.

What we're debating is whether to cut the deficit whether Obama should have just passed more tax CUTS, since tax cuts allegedly, per GOPers, pay for themselves.... Or not. Those of us in the reality based world choose the option that does NOT rely on magic, revenue increasing tax cuts, as a foundation of fiscal policy.

FWIW, the deficit was reduced by half by 2013, not 2012.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Uh...and what on the site would like me to examine?
Click to expand...

Section 3 Expenses and Revenue but I posted the data for you. How does income tax revenue increase like that with three straight years of tax cuts?
 
Removable Mind said:
And? What does that suggest to YOU?
Click to expand...

It shows that income tax revenue went from 250 billion to 451 billion and that included three years of tax cuts. So please tell me how tax revenue grew 190 billion dollars with those tax cuts? Inflation? What was the inflation rate during the second term of Reagan? Population growth? LOL, how much did the population grow and do you always get income tax revenue from simple population growth? Ask your liberal professor at UT to give you the liberal answer for those results?
 
Conservative said:
Section 3 Expenses and Revenue but I posted the data for you. How does income tax revenue increase like that with three straight years of tax cuts?
Click to expand...

Okay...you want to spin the numbers game. Let me do my own picking and spinning and see what happened during Little Jesus' reign over the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom