• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Actually I didn't notice your post.

Lets see.

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

*****

kitten-and-gun--kitten-pictures.jpg
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

shintao

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
994
Reaction score
195
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So it wasn't really a surplus. ;)
You have to make up that spent revenue somewhere and at some time in the future.

Here is the quote.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here is the quote.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

And while that may be true, you still have to make up for future outlays that the money was supposed to directed towards, aka future Social Security obligations.
 

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
theres too many loop holes in the tax code

and immelt is the man barack the slasher selects as JOBS CZAR

good job, CHARLIE!

There is a revenue and a spending problem

First Read - Obama signs tax cut bill into law

Fixing the spending problem can be largely done through cuts in defense spending, ending both wars, and letting the stimulus just end

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

Most businesses have moved over seas to save on labor cost

and immelt is the person the slasher selects to be JOBS CZAR

a MAJOR SHIFT in the culture i.e. willing to work for pennies

One Million Apply for 60,000 McDonalds Jobs

Why do you assume that Obama has any influence over the legislature?

he's head of the party, silly

ask the dozens of bluedogs voted outta office on tsunami tuesday

Its going to work

tell it to tester in montana, nelson in nebraska, whoever runs for budget chair conrad's seat in dakota, nelson in florida, kaine in virginia, whoever tries for bingaman's in new mexico, mccaskill in missouri, manchin in west virginia, brown in ohio, casey in pennsylvania, kohl in wisonsin...

Tougher road ahead for Senate Dems - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.com

Harry Reid lets 2012 Democrats off the hook - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Charlie Cook of the Cook Report Sees Grim Future for Democrats in Senate in 2012 and 2014
 
Last edited:

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the point is still that we are missing a ton of revenue because of the tax cuts

in my opinion, this is as valid a point as any other

but until budget chair kent conrad actually PRODUCES something, it's nothing more than the express wish of another anonymous poster

ie, not worth much in a world wanting answers

why do you think hurryup harry won't write up the slasher's tax-the-rich rhetoric?

he's had 700 days, y'know

it's harry's move, you should really be talking to him
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
and thats fine. However, the article clearly states that revenues have dropped more than spending has gone up.

I will requote

One problem is that most of Bush's tax cuts, particularly the income tax cuts, were not actually in effect when we saw the largest decrease in revenue and your own source acknowledges the decrease must also considered in light of economic conditions. Given my first point it seems more appropriate to say that the decline in revenue was mostly driven by economic conditions.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
50,225
Reaction score
29,947
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
One problem is that most of Bush's tax cuts, particularly the income tax cuts, were not actually in effect when we saw the largest decrease in revenue and your own source acknowledges the decrease must also considered in light of economic conditions. Given my first point it seems more appropriate to say that the decline in revenue was mostly driven by economic conditions.

I agree, economic conditions have certainly had an effect in recent years.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,240
Reaction score
32,801
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually I didn't notice your post.

Lets see.

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



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)

Mega...Ive stated several times that the reason I left the republican party is because of Bush's spending. I personally AGREE with us going to war...I dont think that is what put us into the economic nightmare we are in. I disagree very much with our postwar ops-I think that has contributed to the problem, as has Obama's "choice" to maintain whatever it is we are doing there. I dont think we should have had the tax cuts and spending increases...Ive always said that. I think ultimately the government should be mandated to be fiscally accountable for every dollar they spend. I think education spending is inane. Its poorly managed. I think medicare and medicaid spending is poorly managed. Across the board there are spending cuts that should be made and programs that should never have been instituted at a federal level in the first place. It cant be sustained. We have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt, 10% new unemployment claim rates (with who knows how high actual unemployment rates), the housing market is still in the toilet, foreign investors government our debt, and many other factors that PROVE we cant sustain the spending. We have partisan politicians squabbling over pennies and people taking sides over the politicians. If you can see anything redeemable in EITHER side, more power to you because I cant. The social spending cripples capable people and prevent resources from reaching people that are truly in need.

This problem we face will either have citizens demanding of their elected representatives REAL solutions, or will continue to be ignored by the same mindless partisan squabbles that enabled them to put us here in the first place. The article and thread are emblematic of the problem.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
50,225
Reaction score
29,947
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Mega...Ive stated several times that the reason I left the republican party is because of Bush's spending. I personally AGREE with us going to war...I dont think that is what put us into the economic nightmare we are in. I disagree very much with our postwar ops-I think that has contributed to the problem, as has Obama's "choice" to maintain whatever it is we are doing there. I dont think we should have had the tax cuts and spending increases...Ive always said that. I think ultimately the government should be mandated to be fiscally accountable for every dollar they spend. I think education spending is inane. Its poorly managed. I think medicare and medicaid spending is poorly managed. Across the board there are spending cuts that should be made and programs that should never have been instituted at a federal level in the first place. It cant be sustained. We have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt, 10% new unemployment claim rates (with who knows how high actual unemployment rates), the housing market is still in the toilet, foreign investors government our debt, and many other factors that PROVE we cant sustain the spending. We have partisan politicians squabbling over pennies and people taking sides over the politicians. If you can see anything redeemable in EITHER side, more power to you because I cant. The social spending cripples capable people and prevent resources from reaching people that are truly in need.

This problem we face will either have citizens demanding of their elected representatives REAL solutions, or will continue to be ignored by the same mindless partisan squabbles that enabled them to put us here in the first place. The article and thread are emblematic of the problem.

We have multiple problems and those problems are different types of problems, however, they are compounding to make the sum of the problems greater than the individual problems. We have a problem with our debt, that is fueled in part by our economy, in part by our spending, and in part by our tax structure. We have a bad economy, partially because of deregulation and malfeasence in the private sector, however, it is compounding other issues. Its like a horrible game of pick up sticks, where it seems like every stick will cause another stick to move. It seems overwhelming.

However, even though its one big mess, it does not (and should not) prevent us from looking at individual pieces of the mess and discussing those things individually, trying to find where we went wrong, and proposing a corrective action, which is what I am attempting to do with this thread. That combined with that fact that I am quite sure everyone wants a REAL solution, but we disagree what that real solution should be, leading to the gridlock. We all think our solution is the correct one, so simply going "we need real solutions" does not really cut it. All you are doing is pretending to be above the fray, so you don't get **** on you like the rest of us do when we discuss actual issues.

I am sorry you are fed up with the whole thing, however, going "Everyone sucks!" does nothing to help.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,240
Reaction score
32,801
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We have multiple problems and those problems are different types of problems, however, they are compounding to make the sum of the problems greater than the individual problems. We have a problem with our debt, that is fueled in part by our economy, in part by our spending, and in part by our tax structure. We have a bad economy, partially because of deregulation and malfeasence in the private sector, however, it is compounding other issues. Its like a horrible game of pick up sticks, where it seems like every stick will cause another stick to move. It seems overwhelming.

However, even though its one big mess, it does not (and should not) prevent us from looking at individual pieces of the mess and discussing those things individually, trying to find where we went wrong, and proposing a corrective action, which is what I am attempting to do with this thread. That combined with that fact that I am quite sure everyone wants a REAL solution, but we disagree what that real solution should be, leading to the gridlock. We all think our solution is the correct one, so simply going "we need real solutions" does not really cut it. All you are doing is pretending to be above the fray, so you don't get **** on you like the rest of us do when we discuss actual issues.

I am sorry you are fed up with the whole thing, however, going "Everyone sucks!" does nothing to help.

Everyone DOES suck...and they do because they can...and a realistic solution will not require an either or solution. Massive spending cuts are needed. We didnt not tax ourselves into a 14.5 trillion dollar hole, we spent ourselves into that hole. We did it willingly and willfully. Today we have people still kicking and stomping and maintaining that we cant cut union contracts, we cant cut social spending, we cant cut M2, we cant cut defense...we cant cut anything. We had a congress that just threw up their hands and didnt even bother voting on an operating budget. Which means solution be is then in the bucket...just raise taxes. The problem is we didnt raise enough taxes...THATS the ticket. Right?

Government SHOULD be responsive to the country's needs...and it should do so...well..responsibly. If money was needed to rebuild not just the city of New Orleans but a significant portion of the Gulf Coast, then it should have been spent...and taxes should have been raised accordingly. If money was needed to fight a war, then it should have been spent...and taxes raised accordingly. Demanding fiscal accountability of our representatives makes us invested in the outcomes and dollars spent. As it is...47% of the people dont rightly care, because the concept of 'taxes' means absolutely nothing to them. They arent invested in the expense side...merely the draining of the resource side.

Go back to your OP and the article. Its crap. Its not an either or problem. Never has been, never will be.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree, economic conditions have certainly had an effect in recent years.

Look back at what happened from 2001 to 2003. You saw unemployment jump from 4% to 6% together with a bear market in stocks. This had a cumulative effect on tax revenue. I think this destruction of wealth was the primary contributing factor to the decline in tax revenue as revenue afterwards grew to the point where 2001 spending levels would have put us in the black in 2007.
 

Ron Mars

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
170
Location
Central Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

It's hard to imagine intelligent people believing this nonsense.

That theory will only work if we go back to the same spending levels and that will never happen until 0bama is out of office. It may be too late already.

0bama's and Democrats spending, as well as Bush's and the Republicans, is the problem.

We will never tax ourselves out of the problems caused by reckless spending increases.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
50,225
Reaction score
29,947
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Look back at what happened from 2001 to 2003. You saw unemployment jump from 4% to 6% together with a bear market in stocks. This had a cumulative effect on tax revenue. I think this destruction of wealth was the primary contributing factor to the decline in tax revenue as revenue afterwards grew to the point where 2001 spending levels would have put us in the black in 2007.

I am pretty sure a recently released CBO analysis has already considered this.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am pretty sure a recently released CBO analysis has already considered this.

Did it include this?:

Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png


Even at the peak revenue levels under Clinton Obama's budgetary spending would still put us solidly in the red proportionately, which is not something you can even say of Bush's spending.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
50,225
Reaction score
29,947
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Did it include this?:

Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png


Even at the peak revenue levels under Clinton Obama's budgetary spending would still put us solidly in the red proportionately, which is not something you can even say of Bush's spending.

That graph tracks current revenue levels, not what the projection of what they would be if tax rates were different.
 

Ron Mars

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
170
Location
Central Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Even at the peak revenue levels under Clinton Obama's budgetary spending would still put us solidly in the red proportionately, which is not something you can even say of Bush's spending.

Are you suggesting that 0bama's fiscal policies will balance the budget?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That graph tracks current revenue levels, not what the projection of what they would be if tax rates were different.

I am aware of that, but look at the revenue levels compared to before the Bush tax cuts and look at the expenses Obama has made so far. You would have to be deep in the kool-aid to think simply lifting the Bush tax cuts will have any serious impact without major cuts to Obama's spending.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
50,225
Reaction score
29,947
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am aware of that, but look at the revenue levels compared to before the Bush tax cuts and look at the expenses Obama has made so far. You would have to be deep in the kool-aid to think simply lifting the Bush tax cuts will have any serious impact without major cuts to Obama's spending.

1. You are assigning all expenses that occured during Obama's tenure as Obama's. This has been debunked mulitple times. However, I do agree, the stimulus was quite expensive.
2. The projected differences in revenue are 6.3 trillion, that is a serious impact.

Obama's 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion - 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.

Will you bring something up that has not already been addressed by the article?
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,795
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So it wasn't really a surplus. ;)
You have to make up that spent revenue somewhere and at some time in the future.


Seems like ole times. :roll:

:mrgreen:
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This thread belongs in the partisan politics forum.
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,795
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This thread belongs in the partisan politics forum.


This thread has evolved into a debate that Harry and I had a few years ago…almost the same answers to the same questions…kinda spooky.:shock:
 
Top Bottom