[W:1422] Federal Deficit Soars

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

When did it happen before?

Sure, Ayn.

Kennedy, Reagan. It's already starting to happen with Trump.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

That's false. Goodness, the data are easy to find. It's amazing what you right wingers believe that's just laughably wrong.

Just for example, you can look at Table 2.3 here if you want: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

Most of the tax cutting in recent years has been on the individual side (until this last effort).

Individual income taxes as a share of GDP:

2000 - 9.9
2001 - 9.4
2004 - 6.7
2008 - 7.8

Last I looked the post tax cut shares of GDP are significantly lower than pre-tax cut! At a GDP of $15 trillion or so, the difference is $2-300B per year in tax revenue, depending on the years you choose to compare.

oh hey, look at that. 4 data points.

Versus the previous 80 years or so:

I know this is hard for a lot of Static Score fans to accept, but wild swings in tax rates simply do not produce corresponding swings in revenue.

Over the long term....

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Because it worked so well in the meat packing industry.

Government and the Mob caused the problem in Chicago. They still do.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

The point was obvious, but I'll spell it out. The revenues at the top of the biggest bubble in generations were not sustainable.

....but. But Bush cut tax rates. You literally just told me that resulted in reduced revenue.

Pre-tax cut we collected about a $trillion in individual income taxes. It took until 2006, at the top of the housing bubble, to return to those levels at the new lower rates, ignoring inflation which you know enough to realize is a bad assumption, and of course after the crash revenues cratered.

...we've raised more than $1 Trillion in individual income taxes every year since 2011. I'm not positive that arbitrary number somehow makes it "unsustainable".


Mind you - I agree that reduced tax revenues drove a lot of the deficit during the Obama years. That, however, does not mean that Obama only reduced the Bush deficits, which is what was being argued.

Is your idea that increasing spending during a boom is equivalent to increasing spending during the biggest recession since the depression?

The former is less damaging.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

There is no unemployment, only underpayment under Capitalism.

Buzzword fallacy.

Capitalism does not have such a thing as 'underpayment'. That is a socialist buzzword.

Pay is set by price discovery, just like any market price. If there is a glut of workers providing a needed skill, those workers aren't going to get paid well. If there is a shortage of workers providing a needed skill, those workers are going to get paid well.

Want to get paid better? Get off your ass and acquire a skill that people actually want to pay more for.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Phil Graham wrote the legislation removing the protections that would have protected us from the great crash.

That didn't cause the crash. The Fed did with its price controls.

Greenspan, the head of the fed, and believer in the idea that markets would alway right themselves.

WRONG. Greenspan was a Keynesian economist. He continue implementation of price controls on money. Price controls NEVER work.

He was the god worshiped by republicans.

Nobody worshiped Greenspan as a god.

And provided the cover for Alan Graham and his crew.

No 'cover' needed. Graham didn't cause either the bubble or the crash.

Politically, W provided support and senator McCain did all he could.

Which is basically, NOTHING, except try to cash in on it.

Funny thing is that today, after new regulations trying to stop a similar occurrence in the financial market, Republicans again are pushing to remove regulations and allow the financial industry to do it again.

WRONG. It is already well underway BEFORE any regulatory changes. The damage is being done NOW.

Because, of course, that is what republicans do.

Bigotry.

And because it worked out so well last time.

It had no effect that time or this time.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

oh hey, look at that. 4 data points.

Versus the previous 80 years or so:

I know this is hard for a lot of Static Score fans to accept, but wild swings in tax rates simply do not produce corresponding swings in revenue.

Over the long term....

Believes statutory rates equals effective rates.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf

Sigh.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

No, I dismissed it because a speculation of assignment of data using speculated data. Fallacy fallacy. BTW, an ad hominem is not dismissing an argument based on the source. That is a different fallacy, which also did not actually occur.

Maybe you should read the source printed on your graph. Then look up the history of this office.

That's gibberish. If you have an actual argument, let's see it. You dismissing every other argument without making one of your own is boring as hell.

 

[thenotorious]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

I am going to just let this one stand as the ridiculous argument it is.

"You'll let it stand must be code for incapable of refuting it". After all, it's common knowledge wealth can be attained through cash. More so common sense. Good for you in at least being able to understand this, not so much for not being able to admit I'm right which has essentially debunked anything you say at the start.

By providing products that people (including the poor) can benefit from, and by providing jobs for the poor so they don't have to be poor anymore.

You mean selling products they thus benefit from in exchange for their own services (generally at an inflated price) while doing everything they can to minimize expenses? AKA not provide jobs for the poor, because whether they are poor or not has no factor on their balance sheet if they have their labor resource or don't require it?

Yes.

Well there you go.

It is possible. It's happened before. It's called 'hyperinflation'. The United States is at a real risk of experiencing it.

You clearly know what I meant. If everyone was a billionaire, then nobody would be a billionaire. The idea that everyone can be rich is not feasible in the world today, and probably not ever.

Education does not have to come from a university or college. It is also not a guarantee of wealth. Some of the richest people in the world are college dropouts.

Knowledge does not have to come from a university or college, education certainly does. When a majority of well-paying jobs require an education, and this education can't be feasibly obtained, it's an obstruction on the basic principles of our constitution. So no, it is not a guarantee of wealth, but it is a requirement in most cases to have a stable life in this country.

Then why did you bring it up???

I did not bring it up.

You can't do that. You don't have the money or the means to do so. A rich person, on the other hand, can start a company and provide jobs for people. Those people can live a comfortable life.

I know I can't do that. Neither can companies clearly or any other single person. It takes a collective effort instituted by our governments whose purpose is to do these things.

Jobs go overseas. Not caused by rich people That is caused by overburdening government policies.

That's a good one. Next time I fire someone, I'll use that line. Unfortunately for them, it will be a lie. It's very conservative of you though to blame the poor people wanting decent working conditions, pay, etc. instead of rich people taking advantage of them and moving some where else they can take advantage of people again. Shows the true colors of what I'm working with here.

Better productivity, and cheaper products. More products become available to people that make less money. Cars built with automation (rather than hand built) are a lot cheaper. Computers couldn't even be built without automation. Higher automation in the computer industry has resulted in must faster and cheaper CPUs and GPUs, dirt cheap components like resistors, capacitors, inductors, LED's, etc.

Some cheaper products, many of which's quality will be sabotaged to create markets for superior products, but that's another story. We're talking about labor availability, not everyone's ability to run up a credit card for an overpriced iPhone.

They are no longer rich. They go bankrupt.

Yeah, that doesn't happen. The majority of people are left without jobs, while they ride off into the sunset like most executives that don't end up in jail.

They are rewarded for taking the lion's share of the risk.

What risk? They are literally the embodiment of low-risk. The only one's who risk anything are investors.

Noise. That's about it.

Yeah, some's up your ability to counter-argue.

We can see that. You have been doing so for quite some time now.

No, that is good. Self interest is good. It's what makes the economy produce new wealth.

Self-interest is good, because it inspires motivation, but it still has to be managed. Otherwise people get walked on, because it's in people best interest to do so. That is what you conservatives can't understand while regularly contradicting yourselves. A system built for a few isn't going to work for everyone.

They are related in any way, shape, or form either. Yet you want to relate the two anyway.

I literally just said they weren't.

Refuted at every turn. Better luck next time.

 

[thenotorious]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

That's right! Tax cuts do not have to be paid for!

SPENDING is the problem, not tax cuts.

Completely illogical and false, but I partially agree with your second statement. Let's cut some DEFENSE SPENDING, eh? :lamo

 

[RSHERMR]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

It's not about deficits. It is about the burden government places upon people. Obama took a downturn caused by the Fed and deepened it into a depression with his anti-business policies and constantly changing rules.

That was as big a lie as is possible, me boy. The fed did not cause the crash. That was caused by a number of republicans who pushed the idea of removing Glass Steagall Act that had protected the public from such a crash for 80 years.

"The Glass–Steagall legislation was enacted by the United States Congress in 1933 as part of the 1933 Banking Act, amended as part of the 1935 Banking Act, and most of it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the_Glass–Steagall_Act
The fed was headed by Alan Greenspan, who believed that nothing could get in the way of mortgage loan growth. And Greenspan was a good republican, and was favored by W and senate republicans. But it was Phil Graham, who is the first name on the new legislation. He was indeed a good republican Senator. And the prime mover in getting to the Great Republican Recession.

And, me boy, another of your lies is that Obama deepened the recession. According to the CBO, his stimulus was what turned the recession around. And what lead to about 80 straight months of unemployment rate reduction still ongoing as trump took office. So, the question is, who should I believe, the CBO, or you. I think my money is on the CBO.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

They have. It happened with Kennedy, again with Reagan, and soon to be with Trump.

Kennedy didn't sign tax cuts - he died in 1963 and the tax bill didn't pass until 1964. I guess you mean the LBJ tax cuts?

As to Reagan, you're wrong.

I am not a search engine. Use a search engine. Anyone can look this stuff up.

Since when is the burden of proof on me to back up your BS?

??? this statement doesn't even make sense. Try English, it works better.

Sorry, I assumed you could read at the 8th grade level. My fault.

Kennedy, Reagan, and soon to be Trump. In each case, inflation adjusted GDP rose significantly about two years later. After each tax hike, IAGDP fell significantly about 2 years later.

Ah, so tax rates are the only thing affecting the economy. Solid argument. In Reagan's case, my guess is that interest rates coming down from high double digits had a significant impact in "inflation adjusted GDP" and that was Volcker. And Reagan cut taxes in 1981, and raised them significantly in 1982 - took back about half the 1981 cuts. Other major tax increases in 1984 and 1987. How does that fit in your little theory?

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Asssignment of data by speculation. Argument from randU fallacy.

Do you mind not responding to posts not directed at you if all you're going to do is pollute the thread with drivel? Thanks in advance.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Bush didn't cause the bubble. The Fed did.
Both crashes were caused by the Fed, not by any President.

Why the hell are you quoting me and countering arguments I'm not making?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

That's gibberish. If you have an actual argument, let's see it. You dismissing every other argument without making one of your own is boring as hell.

The speculation of assignment of data is not gibberish. It is an argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

oh hey, look at that. 4 data points.

Versus the previous 80 years or so:

There is actual data at the link I gave you. The graph you provided is so condensed that it's impossible to track changes. Further, the revenues line is total revenues, but you can't lump in, say, payroll taxes which under Reagan saw significant tax rate INCREASES, with personal income taxes and try to show that bringing personal income tax rates down had no effect on revenue. It's the same dishonest crap we see all the time from right wing propaganda outfits.

I know this is hard for a lot of Static Score fans to accept, but wild swings in tax rates simply do not produce corresponding swings in revenue.

Over the long term....

What the hell does "Static Score fans" mean? Yes, when we have big swings in rate, there are also corresponding legislated big swings in the tax BASE, and tax revenue = tax rate X tax base. TRA 86 is a good example. Rates came down but the bill flattened/broadened the tax base, and so there was no wild swing because more income was subject to tax solely because of changes in the legislation. So you're not showing anything here except perhaps a shallow understanding of the major tax bills and their effect on both rates and the tax base (independent of growth effects).

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

....but. But Bush cut tax rates. You literally just told me that resulted in reduced revenue.

It did compared to the revenue that would have been collected at the old rates. The effect was immediate - individual income tax revenues decreased from $1T to less than $800B, long after the brief recession ended. That's "reduced revenue" according to math.

The economy has grown nearly every single year with tax rate increases, with tax rate cuts, and when tax rates didn't change. Also, every year the population grows and we have positive inflation. So, sure, over a long enough period of years the effect of all that will eventually cause revenue to grow even with tax rate cuts, but that's not showing that the tax rate cuts INCREASED revenue. The comparison is the baseline - revenues under the old rates. Simply pointing out that eventually - in Bush II case SIX YEARS LATER - that revenues exceed the old peak, is simply NOT showing that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves and had no cost in lost revenue.

...we've raised more than $1 Trillion in individual income taxes every year since 2011. I'm not positive that arbitrary number somehow makes it "unsustainable".

Mind you - I agree that reduced tax revenues drove a lot of the deficit during the Obama years. That, however, does not mean that Obama only reduced the Bush deficits, which is what was being argued.

I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't arguing that, so won't comment on someone else's point.

The former is less damaging.

Increasing spending during a boom is less damaging than during a severe recession? Surely that's a typo or you'll have to explain the economic theory behind that absurd conclusion.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Revenues minus spending = surplus (deficit). I know the right wing wants to limit discussion to only one of the two components, but they are both important and I won't play to those rules. Deficits are 'up' because taxes are lower than spending. You can solve that by raising taxes OR cutting spending. If you cut taxes, and keep spending constant or increase it, deficits go up.

Taxes ARE rising. Don't confuse rate with revenue.

I don't see anything unfair about the tax regime on the wealthy. Nothing. If they don't like living here, they can move - they have private jets. And who pays for social spending is a political question, but by all means if the GOP wants to cut taxes on the rich, and raise them on their middle class and poor white base, that's a good answer for me - they'll go into the political wilderness for a decade or so, which would be fine.

LOL, seriously? You mean other than the rich paying a huge portion of the total revenue while others pay nothing? That's "fair". Oh, and the GOP wants to cut takes for everybody - problem is it's hard to cut taxes on people not paying tax to begin with.

Right, when a Democrat is in the WH, of course they want to cut spending. It's political. Has nothing to do with concern about deficits, which they prove the next time they take power in the WH.

In all fairness there is NO politician who wants to cut spending - they all have their "pet" projects and they all know the way to saying in office is spending.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

If liberals would stop expanding them, maybe they would get off their asses and work.

They would work, and many of them do - some 2 and 3 jobs, if the Con's would quit sending the good jobs with benefits over seas.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

The speculation of assignment of data is not gibberish. It is an argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.

It's gibberish from where I sit. What language are you speaking - something from the sovereign citizen movement? It's unintelligible to the rest of us.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Taxes ARE rising. Don't confuse rate with revenue.

I didn't argue tax revenue is falling. What is it tonight with people countering arguments I'm not making?

LOL, seriously? You mean other than the rich paying a huge portion of the total revenue while others pay nothing? That's "fair". Oh, and the GOP wants to cut takes for everybody - problem is it's hard to cut taxes on people not paying tax to begin with.

Seems fair to me. They enjoy a healthy economy, social and political stability, good markets, etc. There's never been a better time to be in the top 0.1% in human history - we're creating a new American royalty, record shares of income and wealth, and those shares are growing. If they don't want to pay for that, move to Vietnam or Mexico or wherever. IDGAF what they do if they'll just quite their f'ing whining.

Just to make my point very clear - taxes are just ONE small part of the economic system in this country, and it's nonsense to look at one small part of it and conclude anything about "fairness." Fact is the economy works fabulously, unbelievably well for the top tier. Over the past few decades, the vast majority of income and wealth gains have gone to this small sliver at the top, and they enjoy just a huge amount of power to set public policy, and it's working well for them. So to enjoy that and then whine about paying taxes for a system that produces such gains for the elites is offensive to me. **** em if they don't like it.

In all fairness there is NO politician who wants to cut spending - they all have their "pet" projects and they all know the way to saying in office is spending.

True enough. But the problem is the GOP runs on fiscal conservatism, and what that means is "cut taxes for the rich donors and blow up the deficit, then blame it on the Democrats when they regain the White House."

 

[Conservative]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

typical rightie redirect. Class Envy.

when the facts are every since Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich trickle down economic theory the top 1% of Americans have seen their wealth explode while the 90% of the rest of America has stayed the same or lost ground.

just a fact. not jealousy. lots of propaganda out there about why. but the real reason is the tax code. as long as the 1% control our government it will not change. lots of complaining out there but the same old bought and paid for representatives keep getting reelected.

15% long term capital gains rate.
long term capital gains: assets held over 1 year. should be at least 5. less than 5 taxed at the regular income rate.
no social security or medicare tax paid on that money. i believe it should.
take out the writeoffs and loopholes

now i would go with a flat tax under this scenario
mandatory balanced federal budget
tax rate set by what it takes to balance the budget and pay a percentage of the federal debt off
Congress cuts spending we get a tax cut. they raise spending taxes go up.
first $35,000 not taxed
all income from whatever source taxed the same
no loopholes, writeoffs or other tax schemes
mandatory spending comes out of the general fund but remains mandatory. no payroll taxes
single payer health care modeled on Medicare.
i could.go on but that is enough for now

Yep, all those rich people keeping you from joining them and hurting you and your family. No idea how but obviously you feel differently.

Now as for your flat tax on that we agree. When you grow up you will find out just how great Medicare is and it won't work but it will force businesses to drop their plans for employees and make it impossible for 330 million Americans to get quality service but keep dreaming and believing what you are told

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

oh hey, look at that. 4 data points.

Let me add to that. Link here again, Table 2.3.

So let's see the Reagan years. This is individual tax receipts as a share of GDP following tax rate cuts on the individual side:

1981 9.1
1982 9.0
1983 8.2
1984 7.5
1985 7.8
1986 7.7
1987 8.2

Interesting. Share of GDP went down, or the opposite of what you claimed. So let's see what happened with Clinton after he raised individual rates:

1993 7.5
1994 7.5
1995 7.8
1996 8.2
1997 8.7
1998 9.3
1999 9.2
2000 9.9

Fascinating. Individual taxes as share of GDP went UP! So again, the opposite of what you suggested.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

In one ear, out the other with you. Debating is clearly pointless when you just make things up.

You can't just compare dollars, because not every dollar weighs the same. Conservatives had MUCH higher increases in debt. It's irrefutable fact, while it wasn't always the case. It has been since Reaganomics which has pushed income inequality back to pre-civilized times.

Obama also inherited a recession. With lower tax revenues, with companies collapsing, and an economy that needed to be revitalized. A majority of his debt is a result of Bush's economic policies, also irrefutable fact. It stabilizes towards the end of his presidency, just like Clinton. Unlike the conservatives.

I'd say most democrats care about debt considering they've been the party keen on balancing the budget and being fiscally responsible. Unlike Conservatives who like big wars to put money in the rich people's pocket, big tax cuts to money in the rich people's pocket, bloated healthcare and education systems to foster more inequality, and myriad of other policies to ensure the rich get richer.

Yep, treasury data doesn't really matter and the debt in the past obviously is irrelevant but keep trying to prop up failure. How in the hell did Obama lose the House in 2010-2012 and then the Congress in 2014-2016 with such incredible performance that you are claiming. It really is sad to see so many people so naïve, gullible and poorly informed. I made up nothing, it is there for all to see but you are too blinded by your ideology to actually do research. Keep believing what you are told and keep experiencing failure

Obama inherited an economy COMING out of recession but you keep buying the marketing ploy by the left. let me know when the Democrats balanced the budget and post those numbers from Treasury. You don't have a clue

 

[Conservative]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Asssignment of data by speculation. Argument from randU fallacy.

What does income taxes as a percentage of GDP prove? Why is that even relevant? I am really concerned about the radical left and their educational ignorance, not you by any standards