• 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!

U.S. deficit falls to $680 billion [W:599]

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,826
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Treasury: $680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30, 2013


Surely a large step in the right direction. Hopefully the current budget negotiations will seek to further close the gap in a responsible manner. Given further economic improvement, the 2016 elect might just be saddled with a far more manageable fiscal scenario than many would have envisioned.
 
Thank you sequester.
 
azgreg said:
Thank you sequester.
Click to expand...
Bolded for emphasis.

 
azgreg said:
OK, you're right. The sequester had no effect. smh
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.
 
Once again, economic growth -- as evidenced by increased tax revenue -- is the key to dealing with deficits. It's how we dealt with the huge post WWII debt. And the debt incurred in Vietnam. And the Reagan military build up debt.

But this won't stop the debt fetishists from trying to strangle growth by cutting spending at a time when it is still counteracting the deflationary effects of Bush's Meltdown.
 
azgreg said:
OK, you're right. The sequester had no effect. smh
Click to expand...

Anything that cuts the dead weight of military spending on the economy has a positive effect. But we can do that without a sequester, which cuts spending that is assisting in aggregate demand.

It's like praising surgery to remove a cancerous mole that cut off a patient's arm.
 
Kushinator said:
False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.
Click to expand...

Your cute little emoticon implied that my comment was irrelevant.
 
azgreg said:
Your cute little emoticon implied that my comment was irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Because you ignored the OP, which directly quoted the composition of budget reduction causes. Sequestration accounts for exactly how much (be careful)?
 
Kushinator said:
False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.
Click to expand...

since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.
 
Kushinator said:
Because you ignored the OP, which directly quoted the composition of budget reduction causes. Sequestration accounts for exactly how much (be careful)?
Click to expand...

The CBO estimates $42 billion.
 
Fisher said:
since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.
Click to expand...

You can't have your cake and eat it too! The Bush days are long gone. Reducing the deficit primarily via spending cuts will reduce economic growth more significantly than raising tax revenue. Or do you deny the current state of the economy?
 
Fisher said:
since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.
Click to expand...

Let's unpack this.

1. The premise is false, of course. Under the Obama administration taxes on most Americans have gone down or stayed the same. The package of cuts and increases is complex, involving several interrelated laws (including ACA) but there is no indication the effective rates of most Americans have changed.

2. The conclusion that raising taxes to increase revenue is somehow appalling is argument by labels. Raising taxes is generally a good way to raise revenues, and generally you should tax people who make a lot of money. It sort of follows and it's what has happened.

3. Your faux concern for workers is, well, faux.
 
azgreg said:
The CBO estimates $42 billion.
Click to expand...

Since that's just ten percent of the amount at issue, shouldn't you have thanked the tax increase on the rich and the stimulus which at the very least kept the economy from totally tanking? The study seems to indicate that that's were the budget reduction comes from -- increased tax revenues.

Your gratitude seems tendentious.
 
Kushinator said:
$42 billion out of.... $420 billion. And you mentioned sequestration why exactly?
Click to expand...

I just mentioned one. Didn't feel like typing for 3 hours listing all the reasons for the numbers. Go ahead yourself if you want to though. Knock yourself out.
 
Kushinator said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too! The Bush days are long gone. Reducing the deficit primarily via spending cuts will reduce economic growth more significantly than raising tax revenue. Or do you deny the current state of the economy?
Click to expand...

Deny what part of the current state of the economy? That the median household income is falling and that employment is stagnant? Maybe it is that the stock-market prices are artificially inflated and that bond bubble being created by QE will screw us. Is that it? Bush shouldn't have saved the stockmarket and neither should have Obama.
 
head of joaquin said:
Raising taxes is generally a good way to raise revenues, and generally you should tax people who make a lot of money. It sort of follows and it's what has happened.
Click to expand...

They are blinded by economic logic.

If you increase taxes on someone who generally has a high savings rate, it will reduce their economic activity in proportion to someone with a low savings rate. Wait, that's not true at all.
 
Fisher said:
since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.
Click to expand...
Important to note that the payroll tax cut merely expired, and its potential continuation received no support whatsoever from the right during the new years eve budget negotiations.
 
azgreg said:
I just mentioned one. Didn't feel like typing for 3 hours listing all the reasons for the numbers. Go ahead yourself if you want to though. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's worse: making a disingenuous post about why the deficit has fallen, or defending it as a mere mention when in fact the debt fetishism was clear.
 
a351 said:
Important to note that the payroll tax cut merely expired, and its potential continuation received no support whatsoever from the right during the new years eve budget negotiations.
Click to expand...

So we can shut down the government to get deadbeats freebies but not workers 2%?
 
Kushinator said:
They are blinded by economic logic.

If you increase taxes on someone who generally has a high savings rate, it will reduce their economic activity in proportion to someone with a low savings rate. Wait, that's not true at all.
Click to expand...

That's their story and they're sticking to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…