• 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!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?


  • Total voters
    28
A big enough deal to correct our deficit was never going to happen and that is assuming our politicians actually care to, which im doubtful of. As I mentioned in my poll they will apply a band aid fix to hush the public or to gain some political traction and in the end we will be worse off financially.

I find it rather humorous the recent threads mentioning those in poverty. If we allow the system to continue down our current path I have ZERO doubt that our economy will collapse or have massive inflation. When this happens the government will be unable to do crap to help them. The lower 3/4 of our country could find themselves make huge changes and going threw difficult times.
 
those are the numbers. we've seen dramatically higher rates without seeing significant upticks in revenue - to the extent that it has risen, it has risen slightly as tax rates have fallen and the incentive to engage in tax avoidance lessens.

So basically what your saying is.. You haven't the faintest clue about elementary school math??

Got it.. Glad that is cleared up..

Claiming that less people will attempt to evade taxes is retarded.. We should be going after people for evading taxes no matter what..
 
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.

What makes you think the GOP doesn't realize this? I feel they are waiting for Obama to cave. The fact they are willing to push us right to default has me thinking Brooks's statement that the GOP is unfit to lead is right on the money. They got cuts that they could only dream about 5 years ago but are flat out refusing them despite relatively tiny tax increases which actually simplify the tax code. Furthermore, when you think about it, the best solution is a mix of cuts and tax increases that hit everyone slightly. Not enough to cause real pain resulting in job cuts and consumption cut backs, but enough to get us back on track. What bothers me is that the GOP vision seems to hit some groups especially hard. That's going to likely increase unemployment, boost automatic stabilizers and likely increase the deficit.

But then there's always the idea they have no idea what they are doing. Ryan's plan was loudly supported yet it doesn't actually reduce the deficit or debt it just finances massive cuts for the rich by cutting spending on everyone else. That's not a viable plan to get back to the black.

The longer we have these idiots in charge, the more likely we'll be forced to adopt a system of Ryan cuts coupled with Sanders tax hikes. The worst of both worlds.
 
Claiming that less people will attempt to evade taxes is retarded.. We should be going after people for evading taxes no matter what..

That's actually true though. Evading taxes when the rate drops significent does go down. But what Cpwill is failing to do is adjust his argument for how today's rates are different from yesterday's. He's applying a one size fits all. When dropping effective from 70% to 35%, lots of people are going to stop evading because they are better off just paying rather then spending all this time and money evading. But going from 35% to 28%? That's not really worth it. Going from 35% to 10% probably would though.
 
those are the numbers. we've seen dramatically higher rates without seeing significant upticks in revenue - to the extent that it has risen, it has risen slightly as tax rates have fallen and the incentive to engage in tax avoidance lessens.

Those are the numbers, except for recently, when revenue is running under 15 % of GDP. Funny how your little graph does not show those years....
 
So basically what your saying is.. You haven't the faintest clue about elementary school math??

no, what i am saying is that static scoring is not and never has been an accurate predictive measure for reality.

Claiming that less people will attempt to evade taxes is retarded.. We should be going after people for evading taxes no matter what..

go look up tax avoidance and then look up tax evasion and then come back.... i'll wait....
 
no, what i am saying is that static scoring is not and never has been an accurate predictive measure for reality.



go look up tax avoidance and then look up tax evasion and then come back.... i'll wait....

While he is doing that, look up what percent of GDP revenue was last year, and what it is projected to be this year. Get back to me with those numbers and an explanation of what it does to your failed little "law".
 
hauser.gif


higher rates doesn't increase revenue. Growth in GDP does.

This has already been debunked several times. It oversimplifies a more complex issue and doesn't take into consideration different types of tax revenues. Increasing taxes, ACROSS THE BOARD increases revenue. Very simple mathematics. Revenue has been consistently higher in years after there have been tax increases.
 
This has already been debunked several times. It oversimplifies a more complex issue and doesn't take into consideration different types of tax revenues. Increasing taxes, ACROSS THE BOARD increases revenue. Very simple mathematics. Revenue has been consistently higher in years after there have been tax increases.

Some problems with this:

1) Increasing taxes increases revenue beyond what it would be, for a period of time. After a certain amount of time, it is much more questionable and almost impossible to model accurately. It is too complex a system.

2) Revenue has been consistently higher almost every year, no matter what change in tax policy. Tax cuts, tax increases, no change, almost always tax revenue increases. What you want to say is revenue increases beyond what it would have been, which is generally accepted.
 
Those are the numbers, except for recently, when revenue is running under 15 % of GDP. Funny how your little graph does not show those years....

that's correct. nobody argued that GDP was the sole determinant of revenue. But isn't it odd how now it has dropped? Tax rates haven't changed significantly. Looks like something else has. Gosh... now what has changed recently.... i mean we've been through severe and lengthy recessions, and booming recoveries before, yet always revenue hovered at around the same percent of GDP....

.... and it didn't drop until we drastically increased the size of government. Government does not tax itself like it does labor, production, and investment, and so as the percent of GDP marked to government goes up, the percent of GDP marked to revenue goes down.

you will note there is a distinct mirror effect:

heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg


1963: Spending drops slightly, revenue increases slightly
1967: Spending increases, revenue drops
1968: Spending drops, revenue increases
1970: Spending increases, revenue drops
1973: Spending drops, revenue increase
1974: Spending increases, revenue drops
1976: Spending drops, revenue increases
1979-80: Spending increases, Revenue drops
1983: Spending begins to decrease, Revenue begins to increase
2000: Spending begins to increase again, Revenue begins to decrease again
2004: Spending slightly decreases, revenue increases
2008: Spending explodes, revenues plummet

so, as the electrician might say: there's your problem, right there. yup, some inverse proportionality seems to be screwing with your static model. but don't worry ma'am. looking up close me and my boys note that tax code efficiency seems to be able to produce short term straight line shared growth.

doh. ;)
 
So what we have learned is that GDP determines revenue, except when it doesn't. That Hauser's Law works, except when it doesn't. When it doesn't work, it's because of those rascally democrats and their spending, except for when spending doesn't cause a violation of Hauser's Law. The one thing cp is desperately trying to avoid is actual big picture thinking. He throws little things out there which make his point look good, and as soon as the flaws are pointed out, changes tact completely(it's GDP, except when it isn't, then it is one and only one other factor) until he can throw out his initial premise again as if it had not already been refuted repeatedly.

Sorry cp, but Hauser's Law is something no one takes seriously. Revenue is dependent on a multitude of issues, and your attempts to claim just one, or just another is the cause is so obviously either wishful thinking or flat out dishonesty to support a partisan position.

Let me show you a nice chart cp.

Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp


Notice how as 2001 came along, we were fairly quickly headed towards exceeding Hauser's Law by bringing in more revenue than it claimed, until the top rate was cut and all of a sudden it started down and has continued down with only one small bump the other direction. Just something to make you go hrmmm.
 
Last edited:

I will give you a hint that will help you out alot: just because some one says something you wish was true, does not make it true. See your chart right there? Notice what it says: "...spending is causing the deficits". Sounds great doesn't it? Hit's your talking point just like you want it. There is a problem though. It's bull****. It is provably bull****. A deficit is caused when revenue is lower than spending. That is what a deficit is. Notice two factors there. Spending and revenue. A deficit is caused by the difference between the two. If I am spending massive amounts of money, but revenue is even more massive, there is no deficit. Likewise, if revenue is really low, but spending is even lower, no deficit. Notice how there are two variables in those equations. Are you who you are due to nature, or nurture? Two things again, and again, both are factors.

"Spending is causing the deficit" makes a great soundbite. It's a great talking point, as long as you don't want to actually be accurate. It's the kind of thing you tell the simpleminded so they will believe your propaganda.
 
Those are the numbers, except for recently, when revenue is running under 15 % of GDP. Funny how your little graph does not show those years....

:) but the last couple of years are the part most pertinent to our current discussion.

Look at the relative stability of the last 60 years. then look at revenue's swing far outside of where it has been before.

Odd, that.

Now, tax rates weren't significantly lowered between 2007 and 2010; which of course merely reinforces my points that nominal tax rates have very little direct effect on revenue.

So, what changed? what changed as dramatically as revenue.

heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg


Government Spending did.

Government does not tax itself like it taxes labor, production, and investment. So, when Government spending increases as a percentage of GDP, Revenue decreases as a percentage of GDP. conversely, when Spending decreases, Revenue increases, both relative to GDP. Government spending started rising in the early 80's, and Revenue started falling (again, as a percent of GDP). Spending went into a long decline in the 90s, and revenue had an inversely proportional rise. then spending increased, and revenue dropped. Then spending lowered slightly and revenue increased. then, starting first in 2008 under George Bush and accelerating under Barack Obama, government spending skyrocketed as a percent of GDP, higher than it has been in the post war era - and so revenue plummeted to lower than it had been in the post-war era.

If you want greater revenue as a percent of GDP; then lower government spending as a percent of GDP. If you want more raw revenue, then you have to increase GDP without increasing the size of government relative to it. Thats why everyone from Bill Clinton to the President's Bi Partisan Simpson-Bowles Commission to Paul Ryan want to reduce rates and decrease complexity - because they have all seen this exact same math.
 
Last edited:
huh. that's odd. when i posted earlier it just gave me an error message - i thought i had to rewrite my post.
 
Will.. The problem that you and other conservatives have is that your entire view point on this issue is flawed and baseless.. Our government took a $3.2 billion dollar pay cut thanks to Bush.. There is no arguement there..

So consider this.. You typically make $2000 a month.. But you took a pay cut, so now you only make $1500 a month.. Of course the economy grew a little bit.. It usually does every year.. So now, thanks to this little growth, you now make $1600 a month.. Without your other pay cut you would have been making $2100 a month.. So you are still $500 dollars off..

That is what you people don't understand.. Sure the economy grew.. But thanks to the tax cut, our government was still short.. We the tax payers essentially gave money to the rich and got nothing in return.. You would have been better off giving that money to Nasa or something..

You can never argue against this point.. As long as the tax cuts are in effect, conservatives are shorting our government money.. Bush had a budget surplus when he took office.. Where is it now?? Bush even admitted he had it so don't go saying it didn't exist.. The surplus was the basis for the entire arguement for Bush's tax cuts..

The other issue is that you all sit and blame Obama for all this spending?? How much has been spent on emergencies?? Fire, floods, oil spills, ect. ect.. Do conservatives consider this?? You complain and moan and groan about things that help the poor.. When you simply miss reality all together..

You are more concerned about the people that attempt to evade paying their taxes and not the billions spent on an oil spill that BP is doing all it can to not pay for.. Again with the help of conservatives.. I am not sure what to say here?? But that is far from the smart thing to do..

You tell me dude?? Who's reality do you want to talk about?? Your's which doesn't exist both on paper and in the real world.. Or the one that just slaps you around because the math is so simple..

We have a lot of problems in this nations.. We don't need a bunch of dipsquat morons in congress threatening to flush this nation in the crapper because of the useless tax cuts to the rich that should have gone bye bye to begin with.. Oh!!! Wait?? We had to hold up the vote on unemployment benifits to get them extended.. Wow.. So first republicans hold up the unemployed and now the entire nation for some tax cuts that do nobody but the rich any good.. Instead of giving the rich another $3.2 trillion.. Why not just give the bottom 1% a cool 10 million dollars or something.. At least you will get some economic stimulus and some job creation.. I mean crap.. May as well.. I am sure the poor are better at creating jobs than the rich.. The question is, are you smart enough to understand all this?? You will at least not have to worry about them out sourcing any labor to another country..
 
Last edited:
Will.. The problem that you and other conservatives have is that your entire view point on this issue is flawed and baseless.. Our government took a $3.2 billion dollar pay cut thanks to Bush.. There is no arguement there..

So consider this.. You typically make $2000 a month.. But you took a pay cut, so now you only make $1500 a month.. Of course the economy grew a little bit.. It usually does every year.. So now, thanks to this little growth, you now make $1600 a month.. Without your other pay cut you would have been making $2100 a month.. So you are still $500 dollars off..

That is what you people don't understand.. Sure the economy grew.. But thanks to the tax cut, our government was still short.. We the tax payers essentially gave money to the rich and got nothing in return.. You would have been better off giving that money to Nasa or something..

We gave them nothing. We took less. Now things like TARP, the Stimulus package and the devaluation of the dollar did indeed do what you are complaining about.

You can never argue against this point.. As long as the tax cuts are in effect, conservatives are shorting our government money.. Bush had a budget surplus when he took office.. Where is it now?? Bush even admitted he had it so don't go saying it didn't exist.. The surplus was the basis for the entire arguement for Bush's tax cuts..

This is what gets me. The attitude that it's the governments money.

The other issue is that you all sit and blame Obama for all this spending?? How much has been spent on emergencies?? Fire, floods, oil spills, ect. ect.. Do conservatives consider this?? You complain and moan and groan about things that help the poor.. When you simply miss reality all together..

You are more concerned about the people that attempt to evade paying their taxes and not the billions spent on an oil spill that BP is doing all it can to not pay for.. Again with the help of conservatives.. I am not sure what to say here?? But that is far from the smart thing to do..

Sorry, what exactly has anyone done to force BP pay up completely for the spill?

You tell me dude?? Who's reality do you want to talk about?? Your's which doesn't exist both on paper and in the real world.. Or the one that just slaps you around because the math is so simple..

We have a lot of problems in this nations.. We don't need a bunch of dipsquat morons in congress threatening to flush this nation in the crapper because of the useless tax cuts to the rich that should have gone bye bye to begin with.. Oh!!! Wait?? We had to hold up the vote on unemployment benifits to get them extended.. Wow.. So first republicans hold up the unemployed and now the entire nation for some tax cuts that do nobody but the rich any good.. Instead of giving the rich another $3.2 trillion.. Why not just give the bottom 1% a cool 10 million dollars or something.. At least you will get some economic stimulus and some job creation.. I mean crap.. May as well.. I am sure the poor are better at creating jobs than the rich.. The question is, are you smart enough to understand all this?? You will at least not have to worry about them out sourcing any labor to another country..

If I make $50,000 a year and I spend $60,000 I can't just go to my employer and demand a $10,000 raise to make up for my irresponsible spending.
 
If I make $50,000 a year and I spend $60,000 I can't just go to my employer and demand a $10,000 raise to make up for my irresponsible spending.

And now due to a pay cut, you make $40,000 a year.. What do you do with the $20,000 in expenses you can no longer pay for?? And who's money is it??

When we lower taxes it is cutting the pay so to speak of the government.. The point of who's money it is, is irrelevent.. It is our government.. We vote in elections and we fund it.. So it is a moot issue.. The money doens't belong to the rich.. It belongs to the rest of the country..

Tarp was Bush.. And what about it?? It may break even if not make us some money..

TARP could have cost taxpayers $700 billion. Now it looks like it might break even. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine

The stimulus for the most part worked.. It just needed to be bigger.. But of course.. When do conservatives want to do anything for the benefit of the greater good?? We will give $3.2 trillion to the rich with no strings attached.. But piss moan and groan about the $800 billion or so the stimulus was.. Go figure.. Something that helps the country equal bad.. Something that helps the rich equal good.. Look if conservatives want to bend over and lube it up for the rich, that is fine.. Can we leave the rest of the nation out of it??
 
And now due to a pay cut, you make $40,000 a year.. What do you do with the $20,000 in expenses you can no longer pay for?? And who's money is it??

I spend less. Again, I can't just ask for more. Millions have had to do this.

When we lower taxes it is cutting the pay so to speak of the government.. The point of who's money it is, is irrelevent.. It is our government.. We vote in elections and we fund it.. So it is a moot issue.. The money doens't belong to the rich.. It belongs to the rest of the country..

Again, an attitude I completely dismiss.

Tarp was Bush.. And what about it?? It may break even if not make us some money..

What does it matter who it was under? You've not read the news lately I'm guessing. We just lost 1.3 billion on Chrysler (despite earlier claims that they fully repaid this money) we are still poring billions into F&F, there is no way we come out ahead. Despite this and despite your claims, you still rush to defend a program that did exactly what you claim to despise.

The stimulus for the most part worked.. It just needed to be bigger.. But of course.. When do conservatives want to do anything for the benefit of the greater good?? We will give $3.2 trillion to the rich with no strings attached.. But piss moan and groan about the $800 billion or so the stimulus was.. Go figure.. Something that helps the country equal bad.. Something that helps the rich equal good.. Look if conservatives want to bend over and lube it up for the rich, that is fine.. Can we leave the rest of the nation out of it??

It completely failed. We were told that it would keep unemployment under 8%. It did nothing of the sort and little to nothing for the lower class. Your complaints are worthless. Just more class envy.
 
US got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That's a fact, and US should find ways to control spending. However, Bush tax cuts were irresponsible and should be reverted together with spending cuts. But Obama don't want to revert Bush tax cuts. He only want to increase taxes for the very rich. This will hardly bring any revenue, and may hurt US business.
 
Tarp was Bush.. And what about it?? It may break even if not make us some money..

I covered this elsewhere with not a reply so let me explain again what TARP did.

Goldman Sachs packaged absolutely worthless mortgage's (that they knew were worthless) and paid the rating agencies to back them. They then got F&F to buy these worthless mortgages up.

While still holding billions in bad loans, TARP bought them up also when the markets collapsed. The deal when F&F bought up loans was that those who sold them were supposed to take them back if they were misrepresented. These were grossly and fraudulently misrepresented but yet, despite making record profits nobody has held them liable for any of these loans.

Timmy Geithner is looking after his own and all of us are being asked to pay more and more in taxes while getting less back for that so that G.S. can continue making record profits.

This is TARP.
 
Last edited:
And now due to a pay cut, you make $40,000 a year.. What do you do with the $20,000 in expenses you can no longer pay for?

I stop spending it. In fact, I spend even less, in order to pay down debt.

And who's money is it??

the 40K? that's mine.

When we lower taxes it is cutting the pay so to speak of the government

that is not true. tax rates =/= revenue

. The point of who's money it is, is irrelevent.. It is our government.. We vote in elections and we fund it.. So it is a moot issue.. The money doens't belong to the rich.. It belongs to the rest of the country..

that is an absolute lie, and to claim it is to overthrow everything we claim to believe about government in this country.

The stimulus for the most part worked..

on the contrary - the stimulus has failed by it's own standards
 
:) but the last couple of years are the part most pertinent to our current discussion.

Look at the relative stability of the last 60 years. then look at revenue's swing far outside of where it has been before.

Odd, that.

Now, tax rates weren't significantly lowered between 2007 and 2010; which of course merely reinforces my points that nominal tax rates have very little direct effect on revenue.

So, what changed? what changed as dramatically as revenue.

heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg


Government Spending did.

Government does not tax itself like it taxes labor, production, and investment. So, when Government spending increases as a percentage of GDP, Revenue decreases as a percentage of GDP. conversely, when Spending decreases, Revenue increases, both relative to GDP. Government spending started rising in the early 80's, and Revenue started falling (again, as a percent of GDP). Spending went into a long decline in the 90s, and revenue had an inversely proportional rise. then spending increased, and revenue dropped. Then spending lowered slightly and revenue increased. then, starting first in 2008 under George Bush and accelerating under Barack Obama, government spending skyrocketed as a percent of GDP, higher than it has been in the post war era - and so revenue plummeted to lower than it had been in the post-war era.

If you want greater revenue as a percent of GDP; then lower government spending as a percent of GDP. If you want more raw revenue, then you have to increase GDP without increasing the size of government relative to it. Thats why everyone from Bill Clinton to the President's Bi Partisan Simpson-Bowles Commission to Paul Ryan want to reduce rates and decrease complexity - because they have all seen this exact same math.

Man, you managed to not address a single point I made, took two full posts and cut them down to one sentence, and still manage to treat the economy as even simpler than a household budget. That is some incredible fail there sir.
 
No.
Republicans appear to be giving the President enough rope to hang himself with the budget and debt ceiling.

They are banking the next election on it.
 
No.
Republicans appear to be giving the President enough rope to hang himself with the budget and debt ceiling.

They are banking the next election on it.

Yes. Kill the economy in hopes of winning an election.. The problem is.. With the polls I have seen.. They are just hanging themselves and rightfully so..
 
I've become inordinately fatalistic. I have a decent job, and it's not going anywhere. So if the markets collapse, etc? Such is life. As I've stated before, I can't give a **** if they don't. If they need to be right, they need to have the last word, they're willing to put the greed of the few ahead of the needs of the rest of us? So ****ing be it. Their portfolios will crash and burn right along with the rest of the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom