Let's Sacrifice For Fiscal Responsibility

[Ishm]

Do you have a link you would like to post?

Sorry, but it is a bunch of links and some calculator work. Simple to research though if you spend 10 minutes googling the data. A site called "The Balance" has most of the data easily available, but there are plenty of places to find the data. To adjust for inflation you can simply search for "US inflation calculator". As I said, 10 minutes and you can check the numbers for yourself.

To be fair to DT, msintaining growth at the back end of a recovery can be harder than at the front end, but suggesting that the tax cuts didn't hurt federal income is incorrect based on the actual results.

 

[Ishm]

Clinton managed, under strict Republican guidance, to attain two minuscule surpluses, Without the surplus FICA income his surpluses amounted to $86 billion and $1billion.

Agree that Republicans in congress played a big part, but the moment they got a Republican president the focus on balancing the books seems to have gone out the window. GOP focus on spending seems to be more about preventing any Dem presidential initiatives than about the actual debt created. Sad when the best way to control deficits is to have a Dem president and a Republican controlled congress. Republican president and Republican controlled congress is no better on debt than a Dem president and Dem controlled congress.

Thanks, I will have a nice day, chuckling over this mumbo-jumbo. I've seen this pre-planned verbal regurgitation so often it's like an old joke. But, then I remember how the actual budget process works AND how money is actually appropriated and authorized, and shake my head at the state of our education system.

 

[jonny5]

I already knew that you don't really support fiscal responsibility, just austerity.

How could you know that when it isnt true? I support both. One is a means to get to the other. I get the feeling you dont want to discuss the topic. Just your usual sarcastic derailing.

 

[jonny5]

Agree that Republicans in congress played a big part, but the moment they got a Republican president the focus on balancing the books seems to have gone out the window. GOP focus on spending seems to be more about preventing any Dem presidential initiatives than about the actual debt created. Sad when the best way to control deficits is to have a Dem president and a Republican controlled congress. Republican president and Republican controlled congress is no better on debt than a Dem president and Dem controlled congress.

Its a little better, but yes, they are both the problem.

 

[Helix]

How could you know that when it isnt true? I support both. One is a means to get to the other. I get the feeling you dont want to discuss the topic. Just your usual sarcastic derailing.

Did you start a lot of threads protesting tax cuts for the rich? I might have missed them.

 

[jonny5]

Did you start a lot of threads protesting tax cuts for the rich? I might have missed them.

Go harrass someone elses thread.

 

[Bullseye]

Agree that Republicans in congress played a big part, but the moment they got a Republican president the focus on balancing the books seems to have gone out the window.

And yet GWB attained a deficit of 162 $billion in 2007, dropping from over $500 billion.

GOP focus on spending seems to be more about preventing any Dem presidential initiatives than about the actual debt created. Sad when the best way to control deficits is to have a Dem president and a Republican controlled congress. Republican president and Republican controlled congress is no better on debt than a Dem president and Dem controlled congress.

What "GOP focus on spending"? Compared with recent Democrats, GOP is a skinflint

 

[jonny5]

And yet GWB attained a deficit of 162 $billion in 2007, dropping from over $500 billion.


What "GOP focus on spending"? Compared with recent Democrats, GOP is a skinflint

GWB didnt attain it, no more than he created the 500bn deficit. Mandatory spending was primarily to blame again, increasing from 1 to 1.8 trillion, with about half of that being healthcare. No matter the party, the problem is always the same. And Dems voted for most of the Defense spending increases too. 91-9 in the Senate in 2001, for example.

 

[Helix]

Go harrass someone elses thread.

You quoted me. I responded.

 

[Ishm]

And yet GWB attained a deficit of 162 $billion in 2007, dropping from over $500 billion.


What "GOP focus on spending"? Compared with recent Democrats, GOP is a skinflint

What real world numbers are you using to define your 'skinflint' comparison? All we saw under Trump vs Obamas 2nd term was massively increased spending. The current govt, like Trump in 2020 is still dealing with the impact of covid. What is great though is investing in infrastructure to help the economy instead of stroking presidential checks for 'free money'.

 

[Bullseye]

What real world numbers are you using to define your 'skinflint' comparison? All we saw under Trump vs Obamas 2nd term was massively increased spending. The current govt, like Trump in 2020 is still dealing with the impact of covid. What is great though is investing in infrastructure to help the economy instead of stroking presidential checks for 'free money'.

How many trillion-dollar bills have GOP passed? obama's first term never had a deficit of less than a trillion - totaling almost 5.5 trillion. And he had no pandemic to deal with. Problem is there are dozens of land mines in the "infrastructure" bill. Giving millionaire back they SALT deductions, for instance, or adding 80,000 IRS agents AND giving them access to private accounts; just a sample; This explains it well but you'll ignore it because of the source

 

[Ishm]

How many trillion-dollar bills have GOP passed? obama's first term never had a deficit of less than a trillion - totaling almost 5.5 trillion. And he had no pandemic to deal with. Problem is there are dozens of land mines in the "infrastructure" bill. Giving millionaire back they SALT deductions, for instance, or adding 80,000 IRS agents AND giving them access to private accounts; just a sample; This explains it well but you'll ignore it because of the source

How many multi generational "Great Recessions", massive job losses etc have GOP presidents inherited from their Dem predecessors? Obama's deficits dropped year over year until 2016 where there was a typical election year uptick. Corrected for inflation, that last year deficit was only a little higher than Bush's 2008 deficit before Obama took over. The 2015 and 2014 deficits were lower thsn Bush's last year corrected for inflation.

Trumps deficit's grew every year and were forecast to continue doing so even before covid.

Don't misunderstand me. I am a supporter of fiscal conservatism. I think it is great that a gop controlled congress can moderate Dem spending. I just like to look at facts instead of political rhetoric, and the facts say that the GOP are just as spendthrift as the Dems, and imo often spend in a way that is less productive. Driven by political expediency and ideals rather than a fact driven economic view. It's just really disappointing to watch.

 

[Bullseye]

How many multi generational "Great Recessions", massive job losses etc have GOP presidents inherited from their Dem predecessors? Obama's deficits dropped year over year until 2016 where there was a typical election year uptick.

Not sure losing a few dollars off trillion dollar deficits is anything to write home about; GOP control of Congress seems more noteworthy. The recession ended five months after he took office; sadly he over saw the worst recovery since WW II.

Corrected for inflation, that last year deficit was only a little higher than Bush's 2008 deficit before Obama took over. The 2015 and 2014 deficits were lower thsn Bush's last year corrected for inflation.

Not sure that's a valid comparison - seems like a yearly deficit should be measure in current dollars.

Trumps deficit's grew every year and were forecast to continue doing so even before covid.

And yet never hit a trillion until the pandemic raised its ugly head.

Don't misunderstand me. I am a supporter of fiscal conservatism. I think it is great that a gop controlled congress can moderate Dem spending. I just like to look at facts instead of political rhetoric, and the facts say that the GOP are just as spendthrift as the Dems, and imo often spend in a way that is less productive. Driven by political expediency and ideals rather than a fact driven economic view. It's just really disappointing to watch.

I'm not sure "as spendthrift as Democrats" fits with the current Dem controlled Congress dealing with two trillion dollar spending bills concurrently. You do make a good point however. Politicians are not theoretical economists - they exist to be elected and re-elected. Which means give people stuff.

The scariest part is to do anything to lower the debt we're going to have to spend less than we take in; and do it repeatedly. Given that it takes almost 2/3s of our total revenue just to pay mandatory costs, e.g. interest on the debt, government operational costs, etc. which comes nowhere near what we actually spend - we're in deep doo doo.

 

[The Work Outing]

I dont understand. How does the IRS not doing something, cost more? Im dont see why an additional tax deduction would cause them to stop working. In fact, since they just increased the budget for IRS, that would save us money.

I dunno.
Why not try asking CBSNews - they wrote the article?

 

[jonny5]

Why dont you try backing up your arguments yourself?

 

[code1211]

Ironically they also increase when GDP increases..

And your point might be what?

 

[BlueTex]

And your point might be what?

Simplistic measures like increases in tax revenues after tax cuts are drivel..

 

[code1211]

Sorry, but it is a bunch of links and some calculator work. Simple to research though if you spend 10 minutes googling the data. A site called "The Balance" has most of the data easily available, but there are plenty of places to find the data. To adjust for inflation you can simply search for "US inflation calculator". As I said, 10 minutes and you can check the numbers for yourself.

To be fair to DT, msintaining growth at the back end of a recovery can be harder than at the front end, but suggesting that the tax cuts didn't hurt federal income is incorrect based on the actual results.

Revenues increased following the Tax Cuts.

That's a good thing. That is what the Trump Prediction was.

Trump was right. AGAIN.

 

[Ishm]

Revenues increased following the Tax Cuts.

That's a good thing. That is what the Trump Prediction was.

Trump was right. AGAIN.

You have just perfectly described a Trumpsters version of 'right'. Real, inflation corrected, usable income fell, but the meanigngless uncorrected for inflation number grew, so "Trump was right". What I can't understand is the apparent delight some like you seem to take in being fooled.

Being honest with yourself, when Trump first told you that "Mexico would be laying for the wall", did you sit there thinking that would involve some convoluted claims about wins on trade with Mexico, or did you think like 99.9% of others that Trump was going to make Mexico stroke a check? There are plenty of examples where Trumps claims require stupid amounts of nonsensical verbal 'manipulation' to allow him to claim he 'won' or was "'right'. Delighting in being fooled is the part I teally can't understand.

 

[code1211]

Simplistic measures like increases in tax revenues after tax cuts are drivel..

An observation of what happens in the real world seems like a good way to determine what happens in the real world. Maybe you know of a better one?

The line from Democrats was that a tax cut would reduce tax revenue. The line from Trump was that cutting taxes would NOT reduce tax revenue.

Noting that the Democrats were wrong in this is only noting that the Democrats were wrong.

Noting that Trump was right seems difficult for Democrats to do.

 

[code1211]

You have just perfectly described a Trumpsters version of 'right'. Real, inflation corrected, usable income fell, but the meanigngless uncorrected for inflation number grew, so "Trump was right". What I can't understand is the apparent delight some like you seem to take in being fooled.

Being honest with yourself, when Trump first told you that "Mexico would be laying for the wall", did you sit there thinking that would involve some convoluted claims about wins on trade with Mexico, or did you think like 99.9% of others that Trump was going to make Mexico stroke a check? There are plenty of examples where Trumps claims require stupid amounts of nonsensical verbal 'manipulation' to allow him to claim he 'won' or was "'right'. Delighting in being fooled is the part I teally can't understand.

You are lying either because the propaganda masters told you to do so are because you simply don't know the real facts.

An increase is an increase. A decrease is a decrease.

Calling an increase a decrease is what Democrats do to deceive the weak minded.

Don't be deceived.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

 

[justabubba]

You are lying either because the propaganda masters told you to do so are because you simply don't know the real facts.

An increase is an increase. A decrease is a decrease.

Calling an increase a decrease is what Democrats do to deceive the weak minded.

Don't be deceived.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

you don't seem to recogize the math of it

if tax revenues increased by 2 trillion and one dollars
and the republicans had given the most affluent in our nation a 2 trillion dollar tax break
the tax revenues would have increased nominally - by one dollar in this example - while the rich got a massive tax break - 2 trillion dollars in this example

let's go one step further

if the elite were not the taxpayers who paid that additional 2 trillion and one dollars, yet they are the ones who received the 2 trillion dollar tax break, then the regular tax payer was responsible for paying to the treasury in taxes that the treasury then turned over - in the form of tax breaks - to those having high incomes. the regular taxpayer was subsidizing the tax break for the rich

that's how we arrive at situations where Warren Buffett's secretary was paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than was her very rich employer

it is you, and those like you, who are being deceived

 

[Ishm]

You are lying either because the propaganda masters told you to do so are because you simply don't know the real facts.

An increase is an increase. A decrease is a decrease.

Calling an increase a decrease is what Democrats do to deceive the weak minded.

Don't be deceived.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

So in your mind a $1 in 1921 is worth the same as a $1 in 2021. Sorry, I can't fix your lack of understanding of basic economics where obviously your teachers failed.

 

[highroller]

You are lying either because the propaganda masters told you to do so are because you simply don't know the real facts.

An increase is an increase. A decrease is a decrease.

Calling an increase a decrease is what Democrats do to deceive the weak minded.

Don't be deceived.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

I bet you only measure GDP growth in nominal terms too. Because an increase is an increase and a decrease is a decrease.

Remember, thinking too much makes your mind weak.

 

[Kushinator]

Go harrass someone elses thread.

Every 4 days or so another rant thread about spending and deficits is created by @jonny5

I believe it is well within the realm of these discussions to point out this fact.

You quoted me. I responded.

He just isn't vested in supporting his positions with fact and reasoning. It's all opinionated nonsense and when that fails, foot-stomping.