Is the term 'LIBERAL' imfammatory?

[mpg]

Revenues went up, but revenues are expected to go up with economic growth. Revenues in real terms increased 25% from 81-88, but the economy grew 30%. But so does spending -- everything cost more and big programs like SS are tied to wage increases. Spending grows unless programs are cut.
I don't recall Reagan being a really big fighter against spending -- as I recall, he pushed for (and got) major increases in defense spending.

Same with Bush2 -- in neither '00 or '04 did you hear him campaigning on the promise of slashing spending by 20% to offset the effects of the tax cuts. Instead, he created a new major program, got into two wars, and embarked upon a major defense spending increase.

You did not hear Reagan or Bush2 talk about slashing spending because that is politically unpopular. So they sold their tax cuts on the supply side theory -- their selling point is by cutting taxes, the economy would have super-growth that would raise revenues -- so that you would not have to cut spending. Sounds too good to be true; and it was. There was no super growth -- and revenues plummeted after both the '81 tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts in '01-03.

In both case you had tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts. The results were massive deficits in both cases.

You blamed the deficits during the Reagan years on Reagan. Did you forget? You weren't talking about W. My response was that the spending increases were the work of the Democrats in Congress. I'm aware that he increased defense spending, but that was a relatively small part of the budget. The Democrats always accused him of "slashing programs to the bone" and "throwing the elderly out in the streets". They were supposedly shocked and appalled by his lack of domestic spending. Some of his budgets were pronounced DOA (dead on arrival) when submitted to Congress, because of the lack of spending.

 

[alphamale]

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Balkanization of the country

Could you explain this one? Are you saying that liberals are now the defenders of states' rights and conservatives favor a large federal government? Or did I completely misinterpret that?

You misinterpreted it. You actually DID bring up another long term liberal project - the destruction of federalism. What I was talking about by balkanization, is the liberal project to destroy a culturally unified america. They have many ways to do this - for example, they've tried to argue that america is an "idea", not a nationality, not a culture, not an identity, in for example the way france is. They fight attempts to make english the official language. They push "multiculturalism". They purge "dead white males" from government school literature and history curricula, in favor of third worlders. They do their utmost to purge christianity from the public square, so that it is relegated to only the inside of churches, sort of like in the old soviet union, to minimize it as a unifying force for the majority of americans. They love illegal aliens to death. Come out here and see how many of them celebrate the forth of july. Everything that can serve as a unifying symbol of an american identity, from the flag, to the majority religion, to the language, to american history, they attack and deride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Ideology based news media

Actually it is liberals who have fought against the further concentration of media power to allow for a diversity of viewpoints. Conservatives view the media as just another business that needs no special regulation as long as monopolies don't exist.

A total, outrageous falsehood. The liberals presided for many years over the big three networks, when they were a TV media monopoly; the big city monopoly newspapers: NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution, on and on - you name - it all liberal; the mass distribution magazines - all liberal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Special rights for homosexuals

If by "special rights" you mean "the same rights as everyone else" you'd be correct.

And of course I DON'T mean that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Reduction of the military

I haven't heard many prominent liberals espouse that belief, although there are lots of differences over how and where our troops should be deployed from all over the ideological spectrum.

Learn your history. Jimmy Carter inspired soviet aggression all over the world by Brezhnev with big cuts in the military. Bubba Clinton cut the number of active army divisions in half.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Socialized transportation

I'll file this one into the "Who gives a ****?" category.

I guess anyone who pays taxes - maybe that excludes you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- Religious bigotry

Secularism does not discriminate based on religion (although bigotry certainly exists on the left in the "positive" form, such as making excuses for Islamic extremism). Trying to shove Christianity down everyone else's throat, however, DOES discriminate based on religion.

Secularism, my a.ss. The liberal anti-religious bigotry can be seen in many ways, from endless ridicule in the arts, to novel interpretations of the first amendment, to cleansing the very language of religious references ("Christmas" becomes "the holidays") to actually hunting them down as in the clinton administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
- "Race card" political games

Wow, politicians play political games to win the support of groups of voters. Imagine that.

Considering the history of the country regarding race, and how many people have died because of racial conflict, using this as "card", even by politicians, is despicable, and sick.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm aware that he increased defense spending, but that was a relatively small part of the budget. The Democrats always accused him of "slashing programs to the bone" and "throwing the elderly out in the streets".

FY 1989 Defense spending was less than FY 1982 Entitlement spending.
$304.0B v $370.8B

FY1982 defense spending was 24.9% of total spending
FY1989 defense spending was 26.5% of total spending
FY1982 entitlement spending was 49.6% of total spending
FY1989 entitlement spending was 48.1% of total spending
(Note that today, defense/entitlement spending runs 19.9%/58.4%, resepctively)

So, whatever argument you want to make about Reagan's defense spending running up the debt, a far stronger argument can be made for Democrat's entitlement spending doing the same.

But, liberals won't ever admit that -
Entiltement spending is Holy and shall never be blamed for anything.

 

[Iriemon]

FY 1989 Defense spending was less than FY 1982 Entitlement spending.
$304.0B v $370.8B

FY1982 defense spending was 24.9% of total spending
FY1989 defense spending was 26.5% of total spending
FY1982 entitlement spending was 49.6% of total spending
FY1989 entitlement spending was 48.1% of total spending
(Note that today, defense/entitlement spending runs 19.9%/58.4%, resepctively)

So, whatever argument you want to make about Reagan's defense spending running up the debt, a far stronger argument can be made for Democrat's entitlement spending doing the same.

But, liberals won't ever admit that -
Entiltement spending is Holy and shall never be blamed for anything.

Huh? Your own data shows that entitlement spending went down a point and a half, and defense spending went up. That doesn't show that growth in entitlement spending was the reason for the enormous deficits and growth in debt Reagan bequeathed us.

 

[Iriemon]

You blamed the deficits during the Reagan years on Reagan. Did you forget? You weren't talking about W. My response was that the spending increases were the work of the Democrats in Congress. I'm aware that he increased defense spending, but that was a relatively small part of the budget. The Democrats always accused him of "slashing programs to the bone" and "throwing the elderly out in the streets". They were supposedly shocked and appalled by his lack of domestic spending. Some of his budgets were pronounced DOA (dead on arrival) when submitted to Congress, because of the lack of spending.

Let's assume your characterization is correct (again you do not acknowledge the increase in defense spending that jumped from 134 billion in 1980 to 291 billion in 1981). So what? If you cannot effect spending cuts, it is irresponsible to institute tax cuts and pass the buck. Which is exactly what Reagan did and Bush2 have done.

I don't have any problem with tax cuts per se. I don't particularly like paying taxes. On the other hand, it is simply the heighth of irresponsibility and selfishness (and immoral, IMO) to slash taxes and make up the difference by borrowing and expecting future tax payers to shoulder the bill. Both Reagan and Bush have said this. It is common sense and decency and our responsibility as Americans to not leave future Americans our mess because we are too freaking selfish to pay for what our Govt spends. Cut spending. Then cut taxes.

 

[mpg]

Let's assume your characterization is correct (again you do not acknowledge the increase in defense spending that jumped from 134 billion in 1980 to 291 billion in 1981). So what? If you cannot effect spending cuts, it is irresponsible to institute tax cuts and pass the buck. Which is exactly what Reagan did and Bush2 have done.

I don't have any problem with tax cuts per se. I don't particularly like paying taxes. On the other hand, it is simply the heighth of irresponsibility and selfishness (and immoral, IMO) to slash taxes and make up the difference by borrowing and expecting future tax payers to shoulder the bill. Both Reagan and Bush have said this. It is common sense and decency and our responsibility as Americans to not leave future Americans our mess because we are too freaking selfish to pay for what our Govt spends. Cut spending. Then cut taxes.

I acknowledged the increase in defense spending. I merely said that it was outweighed by the increase in other spending. If I'm not mistaken, Reagan DID make budget cuts to go along with his 1981 tax cut.

Don't forget, reducing tax rates doesn't necessarily reduce revenues. The economy was horrible when Reagan took over. The inflation and unemployment rates were at their highest levels since The Great Depression. By the time he left, the inflation and unemployment rates were very low. Some people believe that those tax cuts are what jump started the economy. It's hard to prove them wrong.

 

[Goobieman]

I acknowledged the increase in defense spending. I merely said that it was outweighed by the increase in other spending. If I'm not mistaken, Reagan DID make budget cuts to go along with his 1981 tax cut.

You need to call him on this:

(again you do not acknowledge the increase in defense spending that jumped from 134 billion in 1980 to 291 billion in 1981)

First:
Neither FY1980 or 1981 were Reagan budgets.
Second:
FY1980 Defense spending was $134.6B; FY1981 was $158.0B

And as I laid out-
Entitlement spending greatly exceeded defense spending all thru the Reagan Administration -- any argument that defense spending caused the debts goes just that much for more entitlement spending.

By the time he left, the inflation and unemployment rates were very low. Some people believe that those tax cuts are what jump started the economy. It's hard to prove them wrong.

Liberals generally ignore the amazing ecomonic growth from 1984 on.
If they DO mention it, its always coupled with 'the debt skyrocketed'.
Then they refuse to admit that their pet entitlement programs had far more to do with that than defense.

 

[Iriemon]

You need to call him on this:

(again you do not acknowledge the increase in defense spending that jumped a
I know FY80 was not Reagan, but if we are comparing the change as a result of Reagans policies you start as the base with where it was before he assumed office in Jan 81.

And as I laid out-
Entitlement spending greatly exceeded defense spending all thru the Reagan Administration -- any argument that defense spending caused the debts goes just that much for more entitlement spending.

So what? Your own figures showed entitlement spending went down as a % of total spending and defense spending went up. If you are trying to argue that the huge deficits in the early Reagan years was a result of spending, then your data indicates it was defense spending and not entitlement spending that was rising rapidly.

Liberals generally ignore the amazing ecomonic growth from 1984 on.

Why would not you include include '81-83?

Growth 1984-1992 = 3.4% Big deal. It averaged about 3.3% in the 70s, and veraged 3.7% '93-2000.

If they DO mention it, its always coupled with 'the debt skyrocketed'.
Then they refuse to admit that their pet entitlement programs had far more to do with that than defense.

And you fail to grasp the concept of change. The taxes were in place to pay for entitlement programs the Dems passed. SS was paygo and taxes were basically sufficient to cover what the Govt spent. In 1980, the debt was as a % of GDP or income or anyway you want to measure it at its lowest point since the war.

Same thing in 2000. We had a balanced budget, under Clinton the taxes were sufficient to pay for the entitlement programs and everything else.

Reagan came in and slashed revenues and cranked up military spendings. Same with Bush. Those changes caused the budget to go out of whack and caused deficits and debt to skyrocket. Trying to argue it was because of entitlements that were already their and being paid for is disingenuous. Or if you want to look at it that way, then blame Reagan and Bush for not making sure entitlement programs were slashed before they slashed revenues.

 

[mpg]

What we really need is data that shows how much spending increased in both areas, but in $, not %. That will determine which party is more to blame for the deficits of the 80s, bcause we already established that revenues went up, not down.

 

[Goobieman]

What we really need is data that shows how much spending increased in both areas, but in $, not %. That will determine which party is more to blame for the deficits of the 80s, bcause we already established that revenues went up, not down.

Here you go:
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

 

[Iriemon]

I acknowledged the increase in defense spending. I merely said that it was outweighed by the increase in other spending. If I'm not mistaken, Reagan DID make budget cuts to go along with his 1981 tax cut.

Defense spending increased about $150 billion annually between '81-88; all other spending increased about $250 billion annually.

Don't forget, reducing tax rates doesn't necessarily reduce revenues. The economy was horrible when Reagan took over. The inflation and unemployment rates were at their highest levels since The Great Depression. By the time he left, the inflation and unemployment rates were very low. Some people believe that those tax cuts are what jump started the economy. It's hard to prove them wrong.

The argument that tax cuts increase revenues is a concept that is based upon the theory of supply side economics and the Laffer curve. It is used and repeated by conservatives to support their tax cuts over and over again until it has been accepted by conservatives as some sort of automatic fact of economic nature. But it is a myth; and even supply side theory doesn't claim this.

The argument that if taxes are cut revenues go up as an absolute statement is demonstrably wrong. If taxes were cut to 0% revenues would not go up. There would be no revenues.

A cut in the tax rate, by definition, will lower revenue, all things being equal. A tax cut will cause revenues to go up only if the marginal increase in economic activity (or more specifically, the incomes that are taxed) is great enough so that additional tax revenues exceed the loss of revenue from the lower tax rate. Whether this happens depends on the marginal tax rate being cut and how it incentivizes people.

Consider for example, 2 scenarios. Scenario A has a tax rate of 90%. Scenario B there is a tax rate of 10%. Now let say there is a tax cut of 5 points. In scenario A, the tax rate is cut from 90% to 85%. People get to keep 15% of their money instead of 10%, a 50% increase, which would probably have an incentivizing effect. The effect on govt revenue is nil, since the tax rate decreased on slightly more than 5%. The 50% greater incentive will quite possibly induce people to work harder, earn more, and make up the 5% loss of of revenue from the tax cut. Supply side economics will work.

Now consider Scenario B. People kept 90% of their money before the tax cut, now they keep 95%. A slightly more than 5% increase. Probably won't incentive them a whole lot. But from the govt revenue side, the tax revenues have dropped from 10% to 5% -- a 50% decrease in revenue. People will have to work twice as hard to make up the difference, which they probably won't do since they are only keeping about 5% more of their money.

A simplified explanation, I agree, but it shows why tax cuts as an absolute rule won't necessarily increase government revenue.

If, in the 1980s, real growth had averaged 5% there would be an argument that in that situation, taxes were high enough so that when they were cut, it incentivized extra effort so that the marginal increase in growth exceeded the decreases in the tax rate base. But that did not happen. Real economic growth from 81-88 was 3.4%, and averaged 3.0% if you include the Bush1 years. That was not significantly better than the 70s, despite the inflation and oil shocks, where real economic growth averaged 3.3%. I'll post the figures from the BEA if you want to see them. Supply side theory didn't work with the Reagan tax cuts in the sense of inducing the extra growth needed to offset the decrease in the tax rates. As a result, revenues fell sharply. They came up later in the decade, thanks in part to the '83 SS tax increase and the '86 tax increase, but still ended up growing less than the economy. And since the economy did no better in the 80s than the 70s, and spending was not cut, the Govt ended up with huge deficits.

The same thing happened in the 00s with the Bush2 tax cuts.

 

[Iriemon]

What we really need is data that shows how much spending increased in both areas, but in $, not %. That will determine which party is more to blame for the deficits of the 80s, bcause we already established that revenues went up, not down.

This data is from CBO.gov.

It shows total spending, defense spending, and the difference.

1980 590.9 134.6 456.3
1981 678.2 158.0 520.2
1982 745.7 185.9 559.8
1983 808.4 209.9 598.5
1984 851.9 228.0 623.9
1985 946.4 253.1 693.3
1986 990.4 273.8 716.6
1987 1,004.10 282.5 721.6
1988 1,064.50 290.9 773.6
1989 1,143.60 304.0 839.6
1990 1,253.20 300.1 953.1
1991 1,324.40 319.7 1004.7
1992 1,381.70 302.6 1079.1
1993 1,409.50 292.4 1117.1
1994 1,461.90 282.3 1179.6
1995 1,515.80 273.6 1242.2
1996 1,560.50 266.0 1294.5
1997 1,601.30 271.7 1329.6
1998 1,652.60 270.2 1382.4
1999 1,701.90 275.5 1426.4
2000 1,788.80 295.0 1493.8
2001 1,863.80 306.1 1557.7
2002 2,011.00 348.9 1662.1
2003 2,157.60 404.9 1752.7
2004 2,292.20 454.1 1838.1
2005 2,472.20 493.6 1978.6

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So what? Your own figures showed entitlement spending went down as a % of total spending and defense spending went up. If you are trying to argue that the huge deficits in the early Reagan years was a result of spending, then your data indicates it was defense spending and not entitlement spending that was rising rapidly.

Ummm....hello? Mcfly? Reagan inherited a dysfunctional defense system that couldn't fly four helicopters across the desert to Tehran. That Idiot Carter had slashed defense spending and consumed on the shelf spare parts without replenishing them. Defense spending had to rise in reaction when the United States finally elected a president to cover what had happened during the four years we didn't have one.

As for the spending on entitlements, the agreement between the House and the White House was that tax cuts would be matched by spending cuts - real spending cuts. The House reneged on that agreement, and thus it's the House's fault spending increased. Actually, it's the House's fault anyway, since they're the one's controlling appropriations.

And finally, since defense spending is constitutionally mandated, and entitlement spending it unconstitutional, it's only rational to claim that entitlement spending is busting the budget.

You sound like a financial counselor telling a family that since their food budget went up 25% and their cable TV bill went up 25% that they're problem is that they're spending way too much money on food and that's why they're in debt.

 

[Iriemon]

What we really need is data that shows how much spending increased in both areas, but in $, not %. That will determine which party is more to blame for the deficits of the 80s, bcause we already established that revenues went up, not down.

Revenues went down, then up.

The first column is actual total revenues; the second is inflation adjusted revenues in 2000 dollars.

1980 517.1 956.8
1981 599.3 1013.7
1982 617.8 984.9
1983 600.6 921.1
1984 666.5 985.1
1985 734.1 1053.0
1986 769.2 1079.6
1987 854.4 1167.3
1988 909.3 1201.3
1989 991.2 1261.8
1990 1032.0 1264.9
1991 1055.0 1249.4
1992 1091.3 1263.3
1993 1154.4 1306.2
1994 1258.6 1394.4
1995 1351.8 1467.7
1996 1453.1 1548.3
1997 1579.3 1655.2
1998 1721.8 1784.8
1999 1827.5 1867.3
2000 2025.2 2025.2
2001 1991.2 1944.6
2002 1853.2 1778.7
2003 1782.3 1676.6
2004 1880.1 1723.3
2005 2153.9 1920.6

Again, the issue isn't whether revenues went up, it is whether they went up as much as they would have without the tax cuts. Revenue during Reagan's term evetually went up (thanks in part to tax increases in later years) but did not keep up with economic growth (25% vs 30%) and since economic growth was not spectacular, the net effect is that revenues didn't keep up.

And again, tax cuts are fine, but if you cannot cut spending to match it, they result in deficits and debt. The debt quadrupled between 1981 and 1992.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This data is from CBO.gov.

It shows total spending, defense spending, and the difference.

1980 590.9 134.6 456.3
1981 678.2 158.0 520.2
1982 745.7 185.9 559.8
1983 808.4 209.9 598.5
1984 851.9 228.0 623.9
1985 946.4 253.1 693.3
1986 990.4 273.8 716.6
1987 1,004.10 282.5 721.6
1988 1,064.50 290.9 773.6
1989 1,143.60 304.0 839.6
1990 1,253.20 300.1 953.1
1991 1,324.40 319.7 1004.7
1992 1,381.70 302.6 1079.1
1993 1,409.50 292.4 1117.1
1994 1,461.90 282.3 1179.6
1995 1,515.80 273.6 1242.2
1996 1,560.50 266.0 1294.5
1997 1,601.30 271.7 1329.6
1998 1,652.60 270.2 1382.4
1999 1,701.90 275.5 1426.4
2000 1,788.80 295.0 1493.8
2001 1,863.80 306.1 1557.7
2002 2,011.00 348.9 1662.1
2003 2,157.60 404.9 1752.7
2004 2,292.20 454.1 1838.1
2005 2,472.20 493.6 1978.6

So, in reall terms, defense spending during the nineties was the only part of the budget that was cut, and the gravy train kept rolling on, growing as it went, so obviously it's defense spending that's causing all the deficit problems.:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

Ummm....hello? Mcfly? Reagan inherited a dysfunctional defense system that couldn't fly four helicopters across the desert to Tehran.

Ah, a classic pass the bucker chimes in. Sure, it was OK to quadruple the debt, because we needed to spend more on defense.

Sure, sppend more on defense. But then don't cut taxes. Because then you get deficits. Unless you think it's great to screw the next generation. Which maybe you do, Biff.

That Idiot Carter had slashed defense spending

Defense spending:

1976 89.9
1977 97.5
1978 104.6
1979 116.8
1980 134.6

and consumed on the shelf spare parts without replenishing them.

Carter was in charge of stocking parts? LOL!

Defense spending had to rise in reaction when the United States finally elected a president to cover what had happened during the four years we didn't have one.

Fine. Then don't cut taxes. Or cut other spending.

As for the spending on entitlements, the agreement between the House and the White House was that tax cuts would be matched by spending cuts - real spending cuts. The House reneged on that agreement, and thus it's the House's fault spending increased.

Source for this claim?

Actually, it's the House's fault anyway, since they're the one's controlling appropriations.

It was the Republicans who slashed revenues. They should not have done that until spending cuts were in place.

And finally, since defense spending is constitutionally mandated,

Not at any particular level.

and entitlement spending it unconstitutional,

LMAO! You never give up, do you?

it's only rational to claim that entitlement spending is busting the budget.

Then why haven't your conservative friends controlling government eliminated them?

You sound like a financial counselor telling a family that since their food budget went up 25% and their cable TV bill went up 25% that they're problem is that they're spending way too much money on food and that's why they're in debt.

And your consultation is to take a pay cut to deal with it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Revenues went down, then up.

The first column is actual total revenues; the second is inflation adjusted revenues in 2000 dollars.

1980 517.1 956.8
1981 599.3 1013.7
1982 617.8 984.9
1983 600.6 921.1
1984 666.5 985.1
1985 734.1 1053.0
1986 769.2 1079.6
1987 854.4 1167.3
1988 909.3 1201.3
1989 991.2 1261.8
1990 1032.0 1264.9
1991 1055.0 1249.4
1992 1091.3 1263.3
1993 1154.4 1306.2
1994 1258.6 1394.4
1995 1351.8 1467.7
1996 1453.1 1548.3
1997 1579.3 1655.2
1998 1721.8 1784.8
1999 1827.5 1867.3
2000 2025.2 2025.2
2001 1991.2 1944.6
2002 1853.2 1778.7
2003 1782.3 1676.6
2004 1880.1 1723.3
2005 2153.9 1920.6

Again, the issue isn't whether revenues went up, it is whether they went up as much as they would have without the tax cuts. Revenue during Reagan's term evetually went up (thanks in part to tax increases in later years) but did not keep up with economic growth (25% vs 30%) and since economic growth was not spectacular, the net effect is that revenues didn't keep up.

And again, tax cuts are fine, but if you cannot cut spending to match it, they result in deficits and debt. The debt quadrupled between 1981 and 1992.

Tax cuts never result in deficits. Failure to limit expenditures to revenues is the cause of deficit spending.

That's why it's called deficit spending, not deficit taxation.:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

So, in reall terms, defense spending during the nineties was the only part of the budget that was cut, and the gravy train kept rolling on, growing as it went, so obviously it's defense spending that's causing all the deficit problems.:roll:

We didn't have any deficit problems in the late 90s. That has been since '01.

 

[Iriemon]

Tax cuts never result in deficits. Failure to limit expenditures to revenues is the cause of deficit spending.

That's why it's called deficit spending, not deficit taxation.:roll:

Try to stay with us on this Biff:

Deficits are caused when revenues are not sufficient to cover expenditures. When taxes are cut, and spending is not, deficits result. See:

On budget deficit - CBO.gov

1980 -72.7
1981 -73.9 <- TAX CUT
1982 -120.0
1983 -208.0
1984 -185.6
1985 -221.7
1986 -237.9
1987 -169.3
1988 -194.0
1989 -205.2
1990 -277.8
1991 -321.5
1992 -340.5
1993 -300.4 <-TAX INCREASE
1994 -258.9
1995 -226.4
1996 -174.1
1997 -103.3
1998 -30.0
1999 1.9
2000 86.6
2001 -33.3 <-TAX CUT
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4
2005 -493.6

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ah, a classic pass the bucker chimes in. Sure, it was OK to quadruple the debt, because we needed to spend more on defense.

Moronic. Addressed. Ignored. Read other posts already correcting this misconception.

Fine. Spend more on defense. But then don't cut taxes.

Why not? The key is always to limit spending to revenues. Don't blame the taxpayer for Congresses failure to follow this simple rule. From the nature of the expenditures causing the deficit, it's clear that it's not the Americans causing deficits, but the liberals.

Defense spending:

1976 89.9
1977 97.5
1978 104.6
1979 116.8
1980 134.6

SIMPLY FARKING AMAZING! For some reason, Iriemon HASN'T converted those values into inflation adjusted constant dollars. I WONDER why that might be? Let's see, there was about a 10% inflation during those wonderful Carter years he's too young to remember...and the numbers provided show something around a 10% "growth" in DOD spending. Coincidence?

Hardly.

Carter was in charge of stocking parts? LOL!

Carter was the guy setting the military policy. What part of Commander-in-Chief do you find too complicated to comprehend?

Fine. Then don't cut taxes. Or cut other spending.

Right. Cut spending on all entitlement programs to ZERO, and cut spending on all "favorite but not constitutional" causes also to ZERO, then see what happens to the "deficit".

Source for this claim?

History. If you can't learn it, don't lecture on it. I'm not your bitch, bitch, you look it up.

It was the Republicans who slashed revenues. They should not have done that until spending cuts were in place.

Right.:roll: And the incentive to reduce spending when revenues are rising before the eyes of politicians is what? Give a man a pay cut, and he either finds a new job, or he cuts his expenditures, or he eventually goes bankrupt. Congress being the kind of "man" Congress is, our nation is going bankrupt.

Stupid of them, but what can one expect when ideological fools continue to claim that the moral thing to do is raise taxes, not cut spending?

Not at any particular level.

No. Amazingly, the guys that wrote the Constitution figured that they didn't have the magic power to see the future and left the amounts up to the future Congresses. I'm not going ot argue that defense spending is 100% for projects that are absolutely necessary. Nice non-sequitur, but you're simply dodging the truth.

LMAO! You never give up, do you?

Being right does that.

Then why haven't your conservative friends controlling government eliminated them?

I don't know of any conservative groups in control of the government. Do you mean there was a revolution this morning and the Republicans have been shot? If so, the Internet has been really quiet about it.

And your consultation is to take a pay cut to deal with it.

No, that's your prescription. You expect the taxpayer to pay more taxes to solve someone else's spending problem. MY prescription, as anyone can see, is to reduce spending on the cable TV expense.

But since this idea is so sensible, all the big government fanatics in both parties reject it out of hand. They can't buy votes and get power if they follow the law, after all.

Why allegedly intelligent private citizens would support this chicanery and actually argue in favor of it is the biggest mystery of the modern era.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

We didn't have any deficit problems in the late 90s. That has been since '01.

OF COURSE we've had deficit problems in the 1990's. The spending was made up by hijacking excess FICA payments that were supposed to have been secure from Congressional raiding. That's what Albore was talking about with his "Social Security Lock Box"....he just avoided mentioning who was doing the raiding in the previous administration.

Since you don't understand this, obviously, why are you trying to discuss national finance?

Then theres's the flip side of the coin. The budget was balanced. Where was the move to cut spending? OH. That didn't happen because that NEVER happens.

The only time spending cuts even get a hearing is when taxes are held lower than spending. Ergo, taxes must be kept low to hold spending down.

 

[Iriemon]

Moronic. Addressed. Ignored. Read other posts already correcting this misconception.

...

Why not? The key is always to limit spending to revenues. Don't blame the taxpayer for Congresses failure to follow this simple rule. From the nature of the expenditures causing the deficit, it's clear that it's not the Americans causing deficits, but the liberals.

First you say you are not a pass the bucker, and then you say the key is to limit revenues. Hello -- if you limit revenues without cutting spending, you pass the buck. Do we have to go through Econ 101 AGAIN, Biff?

"It's the liberals" -- LOL yeah because the liberals have been in control of the Government. C'mon Biff, you can do better than that!

That Idiot Carter had slashed defense spending

Defense spending:

1976 89.9
1977 97.5
1978 104.6
1979 116.8
1980 134.6

SIMPLY FARKING AMAZING! For some reason, Iriemon HASN'T converted those values into inflation adjusted constant dollars. I WONDER why that might be? Let's see, there was about a 10% inflation during those wonderful Carter years he's too young to remember...and the numbers provided show something around a 10% "growth" in DOD spending. Coincidence? Hardly.

Now you didn't say "inflation adjusted" or "real" defense spending was slashed, did you Biff? You just said Carter slashed defense spending, which is just not true. Up to your old tricks about changing the statement after the fact again?

But here are the inflation adjusted numbers in 2000 dollars.

1977 228.1
1978 228.6
1979 235.7
1980 249.1

Your statement still isn't quite true, is it, Biff? You know the rule about making inaccurate statements, Biff. I'll have to call you on it every time.

Carter was the guy setting the military policy. What part of Commander-in-Chief do you find too complicated to comprehend?

LOL C'mon Biff, now you are saying it is the CiC's duty to make sure the shelves are stocked? You know, people are never going to take you seriously if you keep saying inaccurate and silly things.

Right. Cut spending on all entitlement programs to ZERO, and cut spending on all "favorite but not constitutional" causes also to ZERO, then see what happens to the "deficit".

Hey, don't tell us liberals about your spending problems. You conservatives have the power.

History. If you can't learn it, don't lecture on it. I'm not your bitch, bitch, you look it up.

Biff, Biff, Biff, making dubious statements you can't back up again, aren't you?

Right.:roll: And the incentive to reduce spending when revenues are rising before the eyes of politicians is what? Give a man a pay cut, and he either finds a new job, or he cuts his expenditures, or he eventually goes bankrupt. Congress being the kind of "man" Congress is, our nation is going bankrupt

.

Hey! You got it! That is exactly what the Republicans are doing to our nation! Time to get them out, isn't it.

Stupid of them, but what can one expect when ideological fools continue to claim that the moral thing to do is raise taxes, not cut spending?

LOL! Is that why the poor Republicans haven't cut spending?

I don't know of any conservative groups in control of the government. Do you mean there was a revolution this morning and the Republicans have been shot? If so, the Internet has been really quiet about it.

Then lets get some real liberals in there who understand the concept of fiscal responsibility.

No, that's your prescription. You expect the taxpayer to pay more taxes to solve someone else's spending problem. MY prescription, as anyone can see, is to reduce spending on the cable TV expense.

My prescription? I don't care what they do as long as they balance the budget. I have my preferences on how I think they should to it, but what the hey, cut spending. But the conservatives in power don't do that, do that?

Why allegedly intelligent private citizens would support this chicanery and actually argue in favor of it is the biggest mystery of the modern era.

I reckon it is because we have leaders who promise and say things like their tax cuts won't cause deficits and will make revenues grow and other fibs like that that people buy into it. Also, IMO, the liberal media don't educate people about the nature and growth of the debt in this country and most people don't have a clue. I've seen several people claim that the debt was paid off when Clinton was president.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Moronic. Addressed. Ignored. Read other posts already correcting this misconception.

...



First you say you are not a pass the bucker, and then you say the key is to limit revenues. Fello -- if you limit revenues without cutting spending, you pass the buck. Do we have to go through Econ 101 AGAIN, Biff?

Trying to make up your failing grade from the last six times you took the course?

You're the one demanding spending remain untouched while revenues drop. You're the one passing the buck, bud.

You've got caught in your number juggling, just be glad they weren't knives.

"It's the liberals" -- LOL yeah because the liberals have been in control of the Government. C'mon Biff, you can do better than that!

Discussion ended. You figure out why.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
We didn't have any deficit problems in the late 90s. That has been since '01.

OF COURSE we've had deficit problems in the 1990's. The spending was made up by hijacking excess FICA payments that were supposed to have been secure from Congressional raiding. That's what Albore was talking about with his "Social Security Lock Box"....he just avoided mentioning who was doing the raiding in the previous administration.

No -- in the late 90s the deficits were declining rapidly, and by CY2000 we had a surplus and the total debt (which includes SS debt), went down over $100 billion. However briefly. I'll post the source and data again if you want.

Since you don't understand this, obviously, why are you trying to discuss national finance?

Understand what?

Then theres's the flip side of the coin. The budget was balanced. Where was the move to cut spending? OH. That didn't happen because that NEVER happens.

If you have a balanced budget with surpluses as far as the eye can see, you don't need to cut spending to balance the budget, do you?

You only need to cut spending when taxes are slashed and revenues plummet, which is what conservative Republicans do. Then they need to cut spending, which NEVER happens because they are panderers.

The only time spending cuts even get a hearing is when taxes are held lower than spending. Ergo, taxes must be kept low to hold spending down.

And when in history did that happen? In the meantime the debt skyrockets, and you are OK with that? And you say you are not a pass the bucker?

 

[Iriemon]

Trying to make up your failing grade from the last six times you took the course?

You're the one demanding spending remain untouched while revenues drop. You're the one passing the buck, bud.

Trying to make arguments by blatantly misrepresenting my statements again? I have NEVER "demanded spending remain untouched while revenues drop." I have always said if you are going to cut taxes, then cut spending, and if you won't or can't cut spending, then don't cut taxes.

You've got caught in your number juggling, just be glad they weren't knives.

LMFAO! *I* got caught! Screen wipe!

Discussion ended. You figure out why.

I understand. It can be frustrating when your frequent inaccurate statements are called and corrected.