- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,128
- Reaction score
- 58,861
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
WASHINGTON - The nation's unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses for the foreseeable future. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. "In the end, the floodgates opened," said former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.
Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.
Polls show a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation's budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former President George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Barack Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That's nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
Nice try but it is a spending problem. You want more revenue then Obama needs to help the private sector to create more jobs. The tax rates are not the problem the economy and unemployment that Obama has done nothing about is the problem
I am glad that you have such integrity in your beliefs that they are immune to facts. Keep it up.
You article is a Washington Post liberal hack reporter I find this more partisan than fact
Why worry about data and maybe learn something when you can just dismiss someone who doesn't jive with your world view? Its so much easier :lol:
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses for the foreseeable future. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. "In the end, the floodgates opened," said former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.
Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year.
The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.
Right now the US has both a revenue problem and a spending problem
Tax revenues are at a low level for the US government, and spending is at a high level (% of GDP)
And it's entirely due to the spending addictions you socialists have.
The argument in the article is flawed based on this: if you have to borrow extensive amounts of money to do anything then you didn't actually have a wrothy SURPLUS - possibly a balanced budget in which money in matched money out. But a surplus? Not likely - being *over* just a smidge is not 'surplus' that's just extra spending money.
A technical surplus is like an adequate balance in your savings account.
Our country never had that at any time - Clinton did not *have a surplus* in this sense - the overall national debt ROSE significantly while he was in office. You cannot have a mass amount of debt and have a surplus at the same time - it just doesn't work that way.
You can have money you bring in that isn't being allocated - but that doesn't mean it's a surplus, that menas that you're not applying more to your debts to pay them off.
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt
So, yes it is a revenue problem, despite what so many here want to believe. Instead of gutting our society, like what paul ryan wants to do, we should just go back to our old tax rates, which would take care of most, if not all, of the problem.
In 2010, the company reported global profits of $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of which came from the U.S. But using a combination of offshore accounts and aggressive lobbying for tax breaks, GE managed to not only pay no taxes, but get a benefit of $3.2 billion. GE spent $200 million on lobbying in the last decade. At one point, when a generous tax break was about to expire, the head of GE's tax team met with Representative Charles Rangel, then chairman of the ways and means committee, and begged for an extension on one knee. Supposedly it was a joke, but GE got its extension, and Rangel got a $30 million gift for New York City schools.
The problem is that those things don't exist in a vacuum.
Our global competitors are engineering much more favorable tax rates towards businesses and individuals who are involved in job creation.
Many businesses have already moved chunks of their operations overseas to save on taxes.
Simply raising taxes does not confront this problem.
This is true, a civilized society is at a disadvantage in this respect.
No, blame the Progressives, in BOTH parties that believe Gov't really is the answer to life's problems (in exchange of course, for votes.)
Civilized?
Was watching a 60 minutes vid about how one city in Switzerland is booming during the Global recession because all of the international reallocation of businesses to it, to save on taxes.
Companies like Cisco, etc do strategic moves, particularly their most profitable branches, to avoid the American tax structure.
That's how a lot of businesses have low marginal tax rates.
Oh, I figured you were talking about the third world countries that are now starting the long climb to a first world level. Yeah, I think corporate tax rates should be low as well.
You'd be surprised to know that people in third world nations still earn an efficiency wage.
That it isn't bad for them.
Without modern institutions such as societal safety nets, it is impossible to be civilized (and I can say this since civilized is a value judgement :mrgreen
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?