Donkey1499
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,945
- Reaction score
- 56
- Location
- Under The Northern Star, Alaska
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Iriemon said:We have been through this before. I'll demonstrate how the tax cuts caused tax revenues to plummet by showing that GDP increased 12% from 2000-2003; yet despite that growth in the economy, tax revenues fell by $242 billion annually, a 12% decrease. You'll say that explains nothing, there are a lot of other factors that affect revenues. I'll say what factors; and you'll say the stock market and employment. And I'll show those are marginal factors that affect less than 10-15% of overall tax revenues. Then you'll say the data proves nothing; but won't be able to explain why revenues fell so dramatically in 2000-2003. Do I have it about right?
I find it kind of tragic, what the Republicans/conservatives are doing to our country and our future by burndening the Govt with a huge debt. Do you think its funny because you are a Republican, Conservative, or neither?
Why do you think the Democrats (not the Republicans, the opposed it right down the line) passed a tax increase in 1993? Because they thought it would be a popular thing to do? So they could tell their constituents the great news that they have to pay more taxes? You think they thought that would make them more popular back home? The Democrats passed the tax increase in 1993 because the Reagan/Bush had left this country with a $4 trillion debt and huge deficits -- $320 billion in 1992.
The conservatives/Republicans are willing to live with deficits and debt as long as they get their tax deferrments. The liberals/Democrats believe that we should pay taxes now for what our Govt spends, not pass the buck to the next generation in the form of trillions of debt.
Donkey1499 said:From what I've seen and heard there are only deficits because of the depression in the late 20's to early 30's. Did we ever really pay that shiz off? And it's not like welfare helps to reduce that deficit either.
Republicans They lower taxes, which increases the number of jobs. But you are only making as much dough as you were under a regime of...
Democrats They raise taxes, which decreases jobs. Thus only making as much as a republican regime.
See, it's a catch 22. As much as I "dislike" Slick Willy, he actually had some control over the economy, with unemployment around 4-6% (same as Bush). Really, from what I'm seeing is that the Bush/Clinton economies are almost identical, except that Clinton had higher taxes with a lower deficit (yes, there was a deficit) while Bush has lower taxes with a higher deficit.
So it seems that it doesn't matter how the economy is run (within reason) because we will probably always have a deficit.
UNLESS we cut off all these petty little projects that don't matter. Let's spend the money on more important things, or better yet let's just stop spending some money (welfare would be a start). We could also end trade embargoes with some countries, such as Cuba. *Cuban cigars are still a hot item*
Iriemon said:We have had major deficits long after the Great Depression. You can see the deficits at CBO.gov historical data tables. The deficits really exploded in the 80s, started coming down in 93 and were eleminated by 2000, and have exploded since then. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between tax cuts being passed and deficits.
This is certainly a debatable proposition. Job growth in the 90s, a period of relatively higher tax rates, was higher than the 80s and much higher than the 00s, periods of relatively lower tax rates. Correspondingly, unemployment was around 9%, I believe, in 1992, down to 4% by '00. Jobs grew and unemployment fell in the 90s, a period of higher taxes.
I would agree that there are many things outside a president's control that affect the economy. A president has much more influence over the Govt revenues and expenditures and deficits. I basically agree with you, which is why it is so tragic that we squandered a historic opportunity to maintain the fiscal responsibility of the 90s, and pay down the debt, and leave the next gen an America that is not burdened by debt and strong for the future. Instead we are leaving our kids an America burdened by debt (the Govt already pays $200 billion a year in interest thanks to the debt that has been run up) at the same time the boomers are retiring.
I think that is overbroad. The acts of the Govt can affect the economy. I do think that a record of irresponsible fiscal policy will have a negative effect on the economy eventually.
We did not have a deficit in 1999-2000. We had a surplus, and actually paid down the debt. So it isn't necessarily true that we will always have a deficit. We will always have one as long as we have politicians who pander to the electorate instead of doing what is best for the country.
IMO, simply arguing we should cut spending is not a politically vaible alternative. You'd have to cut spending by $600 billion. It ain't going to happen. It would be political suicide, and the Conservatives/Republicans don't have the guts to do it.
Therefore the only alternative is a tax increase combined with spending restraint. Generally, I'd be in favor of holding the line on spending a couple years and putting taxes back at 90s levels. That would balance the budget in a couple years and put us on the path towards a stronger America.
Donkey1499 said:Nuh-uh! You dirty pollock! :mrgreen:
Donkey1499 said:Not that I don't believe ya, but I want some sources for the 99-00 years on the deficit. I just always thought there's been a deficit since the Great Depression.
You know what else I think? Maybe FDR should've waited on that other stuff (SS) and paid off the Depression deficit. You know, start at sqaure one, then add the stuff.
And I don't care what political affiliation they have, we don't have good spenders on capitol hill. I say just stay thecourse in Iraq, even though we should've waited until Afghanistan was done. Now we are fighting two wars: The War on Terror and the War in Iraq.
Do you believe in having too many taxes? What do you think is an agreeable average for the income tax?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?