Government is spending too much

[Thunder]

This was proven to not at all necessarily be the case.
Why do you contine to cling to this?

No one in this thread has proven any such thing. Tax-cuts without an equal amount in spending cuts leads to a deficit.

This was proven to not at all necessarily be the case.
Why do you contine to cling to this?

No one in this thread has proven any such thing. Tax-cuts without an equal amount in spending cuts leads to a deficit.

 

[Neomalthusian]

No one in this thread has proven any such thing. Tax-cuts without an equal amount in spending cuts leads to a deficit.

No one in this thread has proven any such thing. Tax-cuts without an equal amount in spending cuts leads to a deficit.

Time for some new material. This is chicken-or-egg ad nauseam. SPENDING in excess of revenue, whatever that revenue may be, or for whatever reasons that revenue is what it is, means deficit, which means you're spending too much.

Tax cuts are a cut to the tax rates. In some cases historically, this has led to increased revenue (it is argued), which I understand is counterintuitive to you. But rest assured, other times in history I'm sure tax cuts did not increase tax revenues, and I posted a link to an article which admits this. So your claim that cutting tax rates without spending cuts = deficit is not necessarily true.

So far, you have still made no case for government NOT currently spending excessively. You're just trying to draw attention away from spending and reframe the debate as though it all boils down to the tax revenue FedGov supposedly decides to bring in.

 

[Geo Patric]

You agreed with me. I thanked you. Did you have anything meaningful to add, or...?

don't be ridiculous. i would spontaneouly implode if i were to agree with you.... zeus would strike me with a thunderbolt... the earth would open up and swallow me whole.

just saying **** doesn't make the **** not ****.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

In some cases historically, this has led to increased revenue (it is argued), which I understand is counterintuitive to you.

ah! another true believer! can you show an example of such a strange and wonderful occurrence?

yes, mythology has a powerful grip on the imagination, dunnit.... but, it IS imagination, you DO know that, don't you. if it seems counter-intuitive to some, well, that is because it is, in fact, irrational. How much you have is meaningful in terms of how much you owe. if increasing revenue also increases debt... you have not increased what you have to spend, you have not accomplished anything.

simple logic the same as applies in your own home.

[T]he evidence suggests that tax cuts do not increase revenues to the government in any meaningful way, but instead increase government deficits. Likewise, tax increases are often criticized as harmful to the economy and opponents argue that they do not actually increase government revenues. Again, the available evidence suggests that the opposite is true.

Regardless of the effect of changes in tax rates on the economy, it is important to recognize that the idea that tax cuts increase government revenues while tax increases decrease them is a myth.

The following graph, compiled by the Congressional Budget Office . . ., illustrates the relationship between government tax revenues, budget deficits and changes in tax legislation over the past quarter-century.

- Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue?, Robert Ricketts, Frank M. Burke Chair in Taxation, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech Univ.

note the Green Spike, the surplus... in the Clinton Admin after raising taxes. note the huge spike in debt accompanying Bush's 1981 cut. simple logic.

You're just trying to draw attention away from spending and reframe the debate as though it all boils down to the tax revenue FedGov supposedly decides to bring in.

no, how much it brings in and how much it spends of what it brings in.

geo.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

don't be ridiculous. i would spontaneouly implode if i were to agree with you.

-That- explains the mess on your monitor.
But, agree with me you did. Now all you want to do is hurl petulance. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

No one in this thread has proven any such thing.

Only if this post has been removed:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ment-spending-too-much-16.html#post1059594250
Oh look! It's there! Thus, proof.

No one in this thread has proven any such thing.

Only if this post has been removed:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ment-spending-too-much-16.html#post1059594250
Oh look! It's there! Thus, proof.

Tax-cuts without an equal amount in spending cuts leads to a deficit.

This was proven to not at all necessarily be the case.
Why do you contine to cling to this?

 

[Geo Patric]

-That- explains the mess on your monitor.
But, agree with me you did. Now all you want to do is hurl petulance. Disappointing, but not surprising.

no, anaxamander... you got yer scrolls all in a twist. what you said was:

you know, for instance, that a tax cut will, at least initially, drop revenue by a certain %.
Knowing this, the only way you run a deficit is to choose to spend more than you will take in.

and what i said was "and we could "plan" to spend nothing and then VOILA! no deficit", in a sarcastic extrapolation of what you said. but you never said we could or should or might reasonably stop all spending and so, no, i never agreed that we could. in fact, i ridiculed the notion, the BEGINNING of my sentence reading "hahaha".

no, petulance. just wonder at how you can worm through this mire of irrationality and not feel slimy. but then, perhaps that is an assumption on my part?

geo.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

- Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue?, Robert Ricketts, Frank M. Burke Chair in Taxation, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech Univ.

You realize, of course, that:
1- The 2001 tax cuts did not expire, and so any projections included in the graph are meaningless
2- Relating revenue to GDP in no way illustraes that revenues did not increase after the tax cuts.

If you look at the actual numbers - whioch you don't want to do because they don;t show what you want to see - is that incone tax revenues went up after the income tax cuts.
FY $, in billions
1980 244.1
1981 285.9
1982 297.7 < increase
1983 288.9 < increase
1984 298.4 < increase
1985 334.5 < increase
1986 349.0 < increase
1987 392.6 < increase
1988 401.2 < increase
1989 445.7 49.83% increase over FY1982
1990 466.9 < increase
---
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0 < increase
2005 927.2 < increase
2006 1,043.9 < increase
2007 1,163.5 < increase
2008 1,145.7
2009 915.3 6.6% increase ovr FY2002

Historical Budget Data

 

[Misterveritis]

Reagan and Bush Senior, were very accepting of the Federal graduated income-tax.

do you consider Reagan to have been a "class-warfare Marxist"?

is Bush Senior a left-wing radical?

This is rich...
It was a battle to be fought on another day.

 

[Geo Patric]

Oh look! It's there! Thus, proof.

again... hahahaha... that you say something is only proof that you can talk (or in this case, type) but not proof of the truth of what you say. you make up little fairy stories and that somehow explains that existence of the cosmos? no one accepts that anymore. zeus is myth... so is your pseudo-argument as i have shown using data from the Congressional Business Office.

geo.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

no, anaxamander... you got yer scrolls all in a twist

It's not my fault you don;t like agreeing with me.
But that's your problem, not mine.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

again... hahahaha...

Note that you are laughing because you know you cannot refute what I said or show that what I said does not constitute proof of my statement.

 

[Geo Patric]

Note that you are laughing because you know you cannot refute what I said or show that what I said does not constitute proof of my statement.

you made up a little story and - imagine my surprise! - your story came out just the way you wanted it to!

but... it IS just a little story and it IS made up to present things in a way that makes them appear to be the way you want them to be... a very creative story to be sure, but fiction.... not a story that much reflects the facts.

syllogistic logic is fine, but it does not counter evidence. reason is reason - collect less and you will have less. spend more of what you collect and you will have even less. collect MORE and you will have more to spend.

and not surprisingly, the evidence actually shows that that is actually how it actually WORKS.

geo.

 

[Thunder]

In 1991, Bush Sr. raised taxes. And yet from 1993 through 2000, Federal revenue INCREASED every year.

How about that folks???

oh, and btw, Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, thereby tripling the size of the deficit.

see that folks? The Reagan tax-cuts tripled our budget deficit.

The evidence CLEARLY speaks for itself: tax-cuts without spending cuts raises the deficit, while tax increases actually leads to higher Federal revenue.

Don't take my word for it, just read the CBO data:

Historical Budget Data

 

[Neomalthusian]

In 1991, Bush Sr. raised taxes. And yet from 1993 through 2000, Federal revenue INCREASED every year.

How about that folks???

oh, and btw, Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, thereby tripling the size of the deficit.

see that folks? The Reagan tax-cuts tripled our budget deficit.

The evidence CLEARLY speaks for itself: tax-cuts without spending cuts raises the deficit, while tax increases actually leads to higher Federal revenue.

Don't take my word for it, just read the CBO data:

Historical Budget Data

Your desperation to spin this into a partisan issue ignores the other factors that have already been presented in this thread of yours. For example, was there anything else going on in the 90s that might have had something to do with federal revenues? Anything such as the most economically prosperous decade since the 20s? We all know what followed the prosperity of the 1920s. This could be interpreted so many different ways, it bends the mind. You insist it is partisan. "Vote Democrat!" your comments imply. Democrats are no different than Republicans. They just articulate and emphasize their alleged agendas differently.

 

[TurtleDude]

Look how high our standard of living is now compared to our first 150 years. Look how little our technology grew during our first 150 years compared to the past 70 years.

I'd bet that few people today would want to exchange what they have now for what our ancestors had 150 years ago, even if that meant not having to pay taxes.

North Korea's standard of living now is better than ours in the 1920s. lets compare apples to apples

 

[PzKfW IVe]

you made up a little story and - imagine my surprise! - your story came out just the way you wanted it to!

You aren't paying attention to the discussion.
Until you do, there's no more reason to respond to you.
Given that your failure to pay attention is likely deliberate, I don't suppose I'll have anything else to say.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

In 1991, Bush Sr. raised taxes. And yet from 1993 through 2000, Federal revenue INCREASED every year.
How about that folks???
oh, and btw, Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, thereby tripling the size of the deficit.

Did you notice the increases in income tax revenue after Reagan's tax cuts?
Did you notice the increase in the debt 1991-2000?

Of course not - these things show things you do not want shown, so you ignore them.

 

[Thunder]

Did you notice the trippling of America's budget deficit during the Reagan years?

Of course not - these things show things you do not want shown, so you ignore them.

 

[cy18]

There is so much blame game politics going on from both parties. We need to balance our budget and get our spending under control.

 

[Thunder]

There is so much blame game politics going on from both parties. We need to balance our budget and get our spending under control.

we can balance the budget by cutting spending, raising taxes on the wealthy, and cutting tax-breaks for corporations that clearly don't need them.

 

[Geo Patric]

You aren't paying attention to the discussion.
Until you do, there's no more reason to respond to you.
Given that your failure to pay attention is likely deliberate, I don't suppose I'll have anything else to say.

your little story was part of the discussion... you included it as "proof"... and tried several times to insist that it was "proof" of something. as i said, the only thing it proves is that you made up a cute story.

there is a place over there behind the rhododendron where you can hide.

ge0

 

[Geo Patric]

we can balance the budget by cutting spending, raising taxes on the wealthy, and cutting tax-breaks for corporations that clearly don't need them.

it is futile. Thunder. You can show all the facts you want, these folks do not care for facts that do not support what they want to believe. of course, that is no reason to stop telling the truth.

there ARE others reading.

geo.

 

[Thunder]

it is futile. Thunder. You can show all the facts you want, these folks do not care for facts that do not support what they want to believe. of course, that is no reason to stop telling the truth.

there ARE others reading.

thank you.

 

[Dittohead not!]

we can balance the budget by cutting spending, raising taxes on the wealthy, and cutting tax-breaks for corporations that clearly don't need them.

True enough. We'll have to put everything on the table for spending cuts, no sacred cows, no cutting programs that are <1% of the budget and calling it a cut. We may have to raise taxes on middle class, too, along with the wealthy. We have a major crisis. Two crises, as a matter of fact: A fiscal crisis, and a crisis of leadership.

People would like to believe that we can balance the budget by raising taxes on the other guy and cutting spending that we disagree with anyway. Not so. It's going to take some hard decisions.