• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On road to surplus, U.S. detoured into debt

Ahh come on, you can't fairly level those kind of value judgment against emerging nations.

I don't see why not. My personal belief is that being civilized requires a certain amount of minimum physical comfort for the population. Otherwise, there is no point in being in that particular country.

Efficiency wages are those wages above subsistence level.
Basically the idea is that employers want to pay their employees more than subsistence level to ensure their health, so they don't have large amounts of turnover and loss of efficiency in production.

True, but something sucking less than it otherwise can in whatever situation, can often still suck pretty bad and still be bad :shrug:
 
The article is a hack fluff piece at best. I particularly like the comparison between Bush spending and Obama spending...adjusted separately by their writers, which shows Obama has 'only' added 1.7 trillion to Bush's 7 trillion. The adjustment of course helps to obfuscate the fact that the debt has gone from 9 billion to 14.5 and will go up to 15.3 trillion by the end of the FY under Obama's watch-an increase of 6.3 trillion...and it also ignores the fact that the 1.7 trillion Obama has run up (as Compared to Bush's 7) took him 2 years to do so. At current rate of spending including in the end only God knows how much they will end up spending on Health care, Obama's totals in 8 years will be greater than Bush's-likely FAR greater. So much for the "to a lessor extent".

Its the kind of idiocy cited in this article and parroted by others that will ensure we as a people are continually screwed. Its not an either/or situation. Its not a them or us situation. Its an AND and AND situation...spending MUST come down AND there will need to be an increase in tax revenue. We werent screwed over by Bush OR Obama or democrats OR republicans. We have been screwed over by Bush AND Obama...Democrats AND Republicans. They just continue to count on all the mindless myopic little partisan puppets to do their little dances and ignore the reality and keep the same corrupt clowns in power.
 
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.

No, it's not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. That surplus a decade ago was created by cutting defense and intelligence to leverage the "peace dividend". No entitlements were cut. The realities of our role in the world demanded we re-expand defense and intelligence spending.

The reality is that 100 years ago, federal spending accounted for only 4% of GDP. The defense build-up post-WWII and the introduction of the Great Deal/Society caused the federal spending to exceed 25% today.

It is a spending problem.
 
I don't see why not. My personal belief is that being civilized requires a certain amount of minimum physical comfort for the population. Otherwise, there is no point in being in that particular country.



True, but something sucking less than it otherwise can in whatever situation, can often still suck pretty bad and still be bad :shrug:

Baby steps my friend, baby steps, we don't all develop the same.
In a great many instances, we all have different abnormalities. ;)

More to the point of the thread though and this is something I thought of last night.
We have a budget that tends to flex up and even if it were fixed to a yearly amount of dollars, with adjustments for inflation.
We still have a dynamic revenue structure that floats with the economy.
No matter the method of taxation

Those things can never be congruent.
So we need to either, adjust the tax structure follow the budget or the budget to follow the tax structure.
With one not negatively affecting the other.
 
The article is a hack fluff piece at best. I particularly like the comparison between Bush spending and Obama spending...adjusted separately by their writers, which shows Obama has 'only' added 1.7 trillion to Bush's 7 trillion. The adjustment of course helps to obfuscate the fact that the debt has gone from 9 billion to 14.5 and will go up to 15.3 trillion by the end of the FY under Obama's watch-an increase of 6.3 trillion...and it also ignores the fact that the 1.7 trillion Obama has run up (as Compared to Bush's 7) took him 2 years to do so. At current rate of spending including in the end only God knows how much they will end up spending on Health care, Obama's totals in 8 years will be greater than Bush's-likely FAR greater. So much for the "to a lessor extent".

Its the kind of idiocy cited in this article and parroted by others that will ensure we as a people are continually screwed. Its not an either/or situation. Its not a them or us situation. Its an AND and AND situation...spending MUST come down AND there will need to be an increase in tax revenue. We werent screwed over by Bush OR Obama or democrats OR republicans. We have been screwed over by Bush AND Obama...Democrats AND Republicans. They just continue to count on all the mindless myopic little partisan puppets to do their little dances and ignore the reality and keep the same corrupt clowns in power.

Yes Vance, being in a recession will of course affect revenues and cause a government to run up debt ... especially if the government is trying to stimulate spending to combat that recession.
 
Baby steps my friend, baby steps, we don't all develop the same.
In a great many instances, we all have different abnormalities. ;)

More to the point of the thread though and this is something I thought of last night.
We have a budget that tends to flex up and even if it were fixed to a yearly amount of dollars, with adjustments for inflation.
We still have a dynamic revenue structure that floats with the economy.
No matter the method of taxation

Those things can never be congruent.
So we need to either, adjust the tax structure follow the budget or the budget to follow the tax structure.
With one not negatively affecting the other.

It depends on how one views economics.
 
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.

Hate to break it to you mega, but Clinton's budgetary measures relied more on spending cuts than they did on tax increases.
 
Hate to break it to you mega, but Clinton's budgetary measures relied more on spending cuts than they did on tax increases.

and thats fine. However, the article clearly states that revenues have dropped more than spending has gone up.

I will requote

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.
 
The truth is Clinton's so-called 'surplus' was created by Bush Senior. Clinton plunged the nation into debt, destroyed that surplus, and passed it on to GW. All this talk about 'Clinton's surplus' is replete with LIES. Wake up, America. Wake up.
 
Last edited:
Yes Vance, being in a recession will of course affect revenues and cause a government to run up debt ... especially if the government is trying to stimulate spending to combat that recession.

Ah...so its the recessions fault...the global recession. And in the face of a global recession government should spend more and not worry about the debt. And should tax the only members of society that have consistently been productive to cover for everyone else. Pass everyones failings including those of congress onto them. And that debt spending...how is that working so far? How is the unemployment rate doing? Still up under Obamas watch? And thats NOT counting those that have simply dropped off the radar because they are no longer eligible for services.

The article was a hack article meant to give people ammunition in their mindless arguments to raise taxes on the rich over cutting government spending. And it worked, didnt it?
 
The truth is that Clinton's so-called 'surplus' was created by Bush Senior. Clinton plunged the nation into debt, destroyed that surplus, and passed it on to GW. All this talk about 'Clinton's surplus' is replete with LIES. Wake up, America. Wake up.

HAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!! LOL! ;) Thanks for the laugh,.........have some more koolaide!!! heheheeee
 
Ah...so its the recessions fault...the global recession. And in the face of a global recession government should spend more and not worry about the debt. And should tax the only members of society that have consistently been productive to cover for everyone else. Pass everyones failings including those of congress onto them. And that debt spending...how is that working so far? How is the unemployment rate doing? Still up under Obamas watch? And thats NOT counting those that have simply dropped off the radar because they are no longer eligible for services.

Yes, it was the recession that lowered revenues. Also, comparing the current spending to ... nothing ... and then saying that the current practices are bad is an interesting approach. It is always easy to try and point out problems from the outside when its not your ball in play isn't it.

The article was a hack article meant to give people ammunition in their mindless arguments to raise taxes on the rich over cutting government spending. And it worked, didnt it?

Calling an article a hack article because you didn't like the info it contained. Priceless.
 
HAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!! LOL! ;) Thanks for the laugh,.........have some more koolaide!!! heheheeee

The hidden facts show this to be true. The information has been suppressed by Obama, and the CIA.
 
Last edited:
The truth is Clinton's so-called 'surplus' was created by Bush Senior. Clinton plunged the nation into debt, destroyed that surplus, and passed it on to GW. All this talk about 'Clinton's surplus' is replete with LIES. Wake up, America. Wake up.

Ahhh, no. The surplus was caused by the tech bubble, combined with a re-figuring of the tax code, combined with refiguring the welfare system, combined with the housing bubble.

Assuming it takes ~10 years for a program to kick in is just that, an assumption.

The fact lost revenue is due to millions unemployed and Obama does nothing except help unions.

Obama continues to spend and does little for the economy or unemployment. Those are the facts your partisan hack reporter ignores

The fact that you think the president can wave a magic wand and fix the economy tells me everything I need to know about you.

Tax cuts won't fix it, stimulus won't fix it. The only thing the government can do directly is move money around.


Revenues are low because the taxes are too high, and the ecnomy is stifled.

LOL. The laffer curve is BULL****. Revenue is low because theres a ton of people out of work and theres too many loop holes in the tax code that allow the super rich to pay less in taxes, in terms of a percentage of their income, than the middle class.

There is a revenue and a spending problem. Fixing the tax code to make it more equitable fixes the revenue problem. Fixing the spending problem can be largely done through cuts in defense spending, ending both wars, and letting the stimulus just end.

Fixing medicare, medicaid, and social security are, IMO, separate issues. Ryan's plan doesn't fix medicare or medicaid, it simply eliminates them, Obama's plan doesn't do anything either.

If you believe that that all of those programs shouldn't exist, you need to have a way for people to still get health care without ****ing themselves over. IMO, the easiest way to do this would be to have a 100% tax rebate on health care cost, allow people to set aside more than $1500 in IHA's (unlimited would be used to dodge taxes with the current tax code), etc

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.

Most businesses have moved over seas to save on labor cost. The loop holes that exist in the tax code would allow them to pay nearly the same rates, if not less, as they do were they moved to.

American's need to accept that manufacturing that isn't highly skilled labor (requiring specialized training) is simply not coming back to the united states without a MAJOR SHIFT in the culture i.e. willing to work for pennies.

Of course, if the economist are to be believed, going to a consumption based tax code would bring some of those jobs here since companies would be taxed much less than any where in the world since paying for labor wouldn't be taxed under said system.

why doesn't barack the slasher move his rhetoric thru senate?

700 days, and counting...

Why do you assume that Obama has any influence over the legislature? The Dems aren't the Republicans. They are much more fractured and have a much wider tent. The Senate is Dems are looking at their own intrest, which is to paint Republicans as heartless monsters who want to kill you when you're 70. Its going to work.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was the recession that lowered revenues. Also, comparing the current spending to ... nothing ... and then saying that the current practices are bad is an interesting approach. It is always easy to try and point out problems from the outside when its not your ball in play isn't it.

Calling an article a hack article because you didn't like the info it contained. Priceless.

I dont call it a hack article because I dont like it. I call it a hack article because its mindless fluff designed to appeal to people like...well...you. And you immediately snagged it and posted it. Anytime there is an either or article posted you can bet its more mindless drivel tossed out there for partisans to use as 'evidence' to support their viewpoint.

The problem was caused by many things. It was caused by mismanagement of existing resources. The fault and blame lies with both parties and the solution lies not in taxing more or spending less. The solution requires people to stop being mindless partisans, to stop pointing fingers of blame as if any one was better or worse (people might be wise to note that Clintons successes came from a willingness to work with republicans in congress-one of the reasons why I have on many occasions credited Clinton with being a good president). Both parties have done their part in taking us to the financial mess we are in. It didnt happen overnight and the solution wont be enacted overnight. It will require people to actually consider personal responsibility and the good of their country over continued enablement of irresponsibility and embracing mindless partisan ideology.
 
Last edited:
I dont call it a hack article because I dont like it. I call it a hack article because its mindless fluff designed to appeal to people like...well...you. And you immediately snagged it and posted it. Anytime there is an either or article posted you can bet its more mindless drivel tossed out there for partisans to use as 'evidence' to support their viewpoint.

You are going to have to do better than simply calling it mindless fluff is thats what you believe it is. Otherwise you have not refuted my point :)

The problem was caused by many things. It was caused by mismanagement of existing resources. The fault and blame lies with both parties and the solution lies not in taxing more or spending less. The solution requires people to stop being mindless partisans, to stop pointing fingers of blame as if any one was better or worse (people might be wise to note that Clintons successes came from a willingness to work with republicans in congress-one of the reasons why I have on many occasions created Clinton with being a good president). Both parties have done their part in taking us to the financial mess we are in. It didnt happen overnight and the solution wont be enacted overnight. It will require people to actually consider personal responsibility and the good of their country over continued enablement of irresponsibility and embracing mindless partisan ideology.

Its so easy to go "oh both people did it" and never get into specifics. Such an argument, because its not specific, is even not very vulnerable to counterpoint, because its essentially empty.
 
megapropman said:
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.

No, it's not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. That surplus a decade ago was created by cutting defense and intelligence to leverage the "peace dividend". No entitlements were cut. The realities of our role in the world demanded we re-expand defense and intelligence spending.

The reality is that 100 years ago, federal spending accounted for only 4% of GDP. The defense build-up post-WWII and the introduction of the Great Deal/Society caused the federal spending to exceed 25% today.

It is a spending problem.

I guess megaprop has nothing to say here...how quickly he folds. :lol:
 
You are going to have to do better than simply calling it mindless fluff is thats what you believe it is. Otherwise you have not refuted my point :)

Its so easy to go "oh both people did it" and never get into specifics. Such an argument, because its not specific, is even not very vulnerable to counterpoint, because its essentially empty.

I actually DID read the article. Did you I pointed to several different different idiocrisies that they used that appeal (effectively) to their target base. And seriously dood...if you cant see how both sides have contributed to a 14.5 trillion dollar hole...then you are more blinded by partisanship than I could have ever believed about you.
 
I guess megaprop has nothing to say here...how quickly he folds. :lol:

Actually I didn't notice your post.

Lets see.

Hrm, your point does not address any raised in the article, so :shrug:

I actually DID read the article. Did you I pointed to several different different idiocrisies that they used that appeal (effectively) to their target base. And seriously dood...if you cant see how both sides have contributed to a 14.5 trillion dollar hole...then you are more blinded by partisanship than I could have ever believed about you.

I never said that they didn't. For example, I am against the Iraq war and I believe the money we spent there was wasted. Both parties voted for it. However, since you have accused me of being partisan without actually examining my stance, there is no reason for me to even pay attention to that aspect of your argument. Going "its both parties fault and your too partisan to see that" to everyone seems pretty much to be a reflex for you. Try actually examining whats in front of you.

Over and above the spending, the point is still that we are missing a ton of revenue because of the tax cuts (which again both parties voted for which I will mention for your sake)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom