• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will the Dems balance the budget in FY2008?

Will the Dems balance the budget in FY2008?

  • Total voters
    17

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Dems say:

The Democratic Party

The Dems have control of both houses of Congress.
The Dems write the taxation and spending bills.
Will the Dems balance the budget in FY2008?
If not, why not?
 
Goobieman said:
The Democrats say:


The Democratic Party

The Dems have control of both houses of Congress.
The Dems write the taxation and spending bills.
Will the Dems balance the budget in FY2008?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. I expect Bush would veto or threaten to veto any tax increases nor do I see any consensus in what spending to cut. A pay-go system would be a big step in the right direction, tho' I expect the pass the buck crowd to oppose that.
 
The President plays as large if not a larger role in the federal budget as Congress does. Case in point, the Republicans controlled Congress both during the record surplus years and the record deficits. It was Bush's agenda coupled with the war and economic downturn that lead to the deficits. Expecting the Democrats to fix what remain historically record deficits in 2 years is unrealistic. But I agree with Iriemon, a PAYGO system will certainly help reign in uncontrolled spending and damaging tax cuts.
 
Cremaster77 said:
The President plays as large if not a larger role in the federal budget as Congress does.
Click to expand...
The President submits a budget.
Congress (specifically, the house) writes the taxation/spending bills.
The president can only veto those bills.
Congress, ultimately, controls the budget.

Expecting the Democrats to fix what remain historically record deficits in 2 years is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Why?
All they have to do is wrtie the bills in such a way that they dont spend more than what's brought in. There's no reason it can't be done in FY2008 - presuming that the people who control the writing of the bills are honest when they say they are the party of fiscal responsibilty.
 
They might but they will have to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to do it.......That has never stopped them in the past.....
 
Goobieman said:
The President submits a budget.
Congress (specifically, the house) writes the taxation/spending bills.
The president can only veto those bills.
Congress, ultimately, controls the budget.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't the Republican lead Congress pass the massive tax cuts during the Clinton administration? You said it yourself, Congress controls the budget.
 
Goobieman said:
The President submits a budget.
Congress (specifically, the house) writes the taxation/spending bills.
The president can only veto those bills.
Congress, ultimately, controls the budget.
Click to expand...

Not true if Congress does not have 2/3 majorities to override a veto.



The president would veto any tax increase to accomplish just this objective.
 
Navy Pride said:
They might but they will have to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to do it.......That has never stopped them in the past.....
Click to expand...

Hey, I think you are begging to understand basic federal budetary economics.

But you are wrong saying that: "they will have to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to do it". Sufficient revenues could be generated by tax increases on the wealthier.
 
Cremaster77 said:
Then why didn't the Republican lead Congress pass the massive tax cuts during the Clinton administration? You said it yourself, Congress controls the budget.
Click to expand...
What difference does this make?
We're discussing FY2008 and what the fiscally responsible Dems will do.
 

Yeah and that would stagnate the economy force layoffs and increase unemployment......

You see I have never heard of a poor person hiring people.....

I will never understand the lefts fascination with income redistribution..
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah and that would stagnate the economy force layoffs and increase unemployment......
Click to expand...

You mean like the '93 tax increases caused in the 90s. Yeah that would be terrible.

You see I have never heard of a poor person hiring people.....

I will never understand the lefts fascination with income redistribution..
Click to expand...

I don't like to see families living in cars under freeways. You're a tough guy, it doesn't bother you. I'm just a softie that way.
 
Iriemon said:
I don't like to see families living in cars under freeways. You're a tough guy, it doesn't bother you. I'm just a softie that way.
Click to expand...

Besides voting what to do with my property, what else are you doing about it?

I've seen about enough of your pass the buck crap in one day.
 
no on the poll.

Last time, the cold war ended allowing us to reduce defense spending and of course the democrats took credit by claiming they reduced the size of government.

I don't see a similar windfall waiting for them this time.
 
 
Iriemon said:
You mean like the '93 tax increases caused in the 90s. Yeah that would be terrible.
Click to expand...

Yes recall how that has been cited to you several times and remains unrefutted, the Clinton tax increase COST the government money and slowed down the recovery costing EVERYONE money.
 
Stinger said:
Yes recall how that has been cited to you several times and remains unrefutted, the Clinton tax increase COST the government money and slowed down the recovery costing EVERYONE money.
Click to expand...

Sorry Stinger, I don't recall that at all. Economic growth during Clinton's tenure was significantly better than with Bush and his tax cuts and better than Reagan and his tax cuts, which doesn't support your contention at all.

Real GDP growth and percent change from prior year. Source, Bureau of Econ Analysis at BEA.gov.

1993 7532.7 2.7%
1994 7835.5 4.0%
1995 8031.7 2.5%
1996 8328.9 3.7%
1997 8703.5 4.5%
1998 9066.9 4.2%
1999 9470.3 4.4%
2000 9817.0 3.7%

2001 9890.7 0.8%
2002 10048.8 1.6%
2003 10301.0 2.5%
2004 10703.5 3.9%
2005 11048.6 3.2%

Just look at that terrible growth in the 90s.
 
Iriemon said:
Sorry Stinger, I don't recall that at all.
Click to expand...

Oh yes you do and don't tell me you don't. The University of Maryland macro economic study and the Joint Congressional Tax committee study. Both showed how the Clinton tax increase slowed down the recovery. Your simplistic list of numbers is not a higher authority,
 

That rings a bell -- wasn't that a '95 college report you cited that was based on future projections which you used to claim how lousy things were during the Clinton presidency? I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember anything about it not being not being unrefuted by actual numbers and data published by the Govt. In your mind maybe, but heck, that's no surprise.
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah and that would stagnate the economy force layoffs and increase unemployment.
Click to expand...
Bush Sr. raised taxes considerably, then so did Clinton - by approval also from a republican controlled congress. Yet hardly did we see a stagnant economy in the 90's.
You're argument has no basis.
 
Goobieman said:
The Dems have control of both houses of Congress.
The Dems write the taxation and spending bills.
Will the Dems balance the budget in FY2008?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

They will not even attempt to balance it with present revenues, which are probably 200 - 250% more than they really need.
 
jfuh said:
Bush Sr. raised taxes considerably, then so did Clinton - by approval also from a republican controlled congress. Yet hardly did we see a stagnant economy in the 90's.
You're argument has no basis.
Click to expand...

Your argument has no basis.
You are trying to prove cause and effect with one independent and one dependent variable. This is simply nonsense in a multivariate system.

Your analysis is like the partial differential. It only holds true when all other variables are held constant, and then only over a finite data set.
 
ARealConservative said:
Besides voting what to do with my property, what else are you doing about it?

I've seen about enough of your pass the buck crap in one day.
Click to expand...

LOL then click the little "x" in the top right of your computer monitor.
 
jfuh said:
Bush Sr. raised taxes considerably, then so did Clinton - by approval also from a republican controlled congress. Yet hardly did we see a stagnant economy in the 90's.
You're argument has no basis.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I complete agree with your take on history The Clinton tax increase passed in '93 was a time when the Democrats still controlled the Congress. The Senate was 50-50, and the tax increase was passed only by the pro tem vote of Gore. The Democrats paid for that bit of political courage, and were swept out of power in '94 with the Repandercans promising to slash everyone's taxes again. However, Clinton checked the Republican's tax slashing efforts during his tenure, excepting a very modest cut in investment taxes in '97.

The '93 tax increase flooded the Govt in revenues (which grew much faster than the economy), and that, combined with fiscal restraint practiced on the spending side, corrected the huge deficits bequeathed by Bush1 ($340 billion in '92) and almost miraculously put the budget into surplus in 2000. Which was unfortunately was very short lived; Republicans got the WH in '01, got the power to slash taxes which they immediately did, and within a couple years deficits were once again at all time highs and the debt was growing out of control.

But you are correct in observing the tax increases under Bush1 and in '93 apparently had little if any negative effect on the economy, which between '93-00 grew at a better clip than during the low tax periods under Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2.
 
Last edited:

The study done by two economist

"The study was conducted by economists William Beach and Scott Hodge using a highly reliable computer model of the U.S. economy.
What the model does is simulate economic activity. By feeding the many "variables" that affect the economy into the model -- from changes in tax and budget policy to data on population growth and other demographic factors -- a seasoned economic forecaster can predict future economic activity.
Beach and Hodge turned the clock back to January 1993, before the new administration pushed the $241 billion tax hike through the 103rd Congress. Without getting into all of the mind-numbing technical details, they then ran the model on "fast-forward," asking it to tell them what the economy would look like today if tax and budget policy had not been changed in 1993.
What they found was not good news for the White House.
They found that another 1.2 million Americans would have jobs today if the economy hadn't been saddled with the tax increase. They learned that the U.S. auto industry would have built and sold an additional 1.1 million new cars and light trucks. And they learned that the typical U.S. wage-earner would have taken home an additional $2,600 in after-tax income.
The big numbers are equally disturbing. For example: The overall U.S. economy would have grown an additional $208 billion between 1993 and 1996. And business investment -- the key factor in creating jobs -- would have been $42.5 billion higher."


http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED051696b.cfm

AND the Congressional Joint Economic Committee report. Your simplistic listing of figures has been discounted many times and is not a higher authority than the two sources I provided.

Here's some more

"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Interest rates were falling before he raised taxes, and they started rising almost as soon as he did — not to fall again until Republicans took Congress. The economy slowed down after the tax increase: The growth rate from 1993 to 1995 was below the norm for an economy in the early stages of recovery. The best that can be said for Clinton's tax hike is that it did not hurt the economy as badly as its Republican critics at the time foolishly predicted."
Washington Bulletin on NRO


[/FONT]
 

Err, right. Maybe in Stingerworld, 1995 projections by the Heritage Foundation (there's an objective organization) are a "higher authority" of economic performance during the Clinton administration than actual economic data published by the US Govt.

But if you don't have to take my word for it. Here's what the highly respected Center for Budget and Policy Priorities had to say, relying on actual data and not some right-wing projections from the first part of Clinton's term:

Marginal tax rates and economic performance during the 1990s

The history of the 1990s raises further questions about the impact of marginal tax rates on the economy. In 1993, as noted above, the top marginal tax rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. When these marginal tax rate increases were passed as part of the 1993 budget agreement, many prominent conservatives predicted an economic disaster would result. For example, then-Senator William Roth stated that the marginal tax increase would "flatten the economy."19 Then-Representative Newt Gingrich stated that the "tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and actually increase the deficit."20 Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard University wrote of the "harmful effects of higher marginal tax rates on the economy" and warned that many higher earners "are asking themselves whether life wouldn’t be better if they worked a little less and enjoyed a bit more leisure."21

History has betrayed these predictions, raising questions about the significance of marginal tax rates on economic performance. Instead of a recession, the economy experienced its longest economic expansion in history during the 1990s. Real GDP grew by an average of 4 percent per year from 1993 through 2000, almost 50 percent faster than the average from 1973 to 1993. Since 1995, productivity growth has averaged 3 percent per year, roughly double its average of 1.4 percent per year between 1973 and 1993. Unemployment and poverty rates have declined substantially.

To be sure, some may argue that economic growth would have been even more rapid, and income gains among top earners even more dramatic, were it not for the 1993 marginal tax rate increases. But the evidence in support of such a proposition is weak, and on its face it seems implausible. The upshot is that the experience of the 1990s, which is not reflected in most of the studies mentioned above, provides yet another reason to remain skeptical that marginal tax rates have dramatic effects on the economy.

Marginal Tax Rate Reductions and the Economy - 3/15/01

Refuted.



LOL - oh, the National Review -- another objective perspective! Let's look at how their claims compare to actual data:

1991 7100.5 -0.2%
1992 7336.6 3.3%
1993 7532.7 2.7% <-tax increase passed
1994 7835.5 4.0%
1995 8031.7 2.5%
1996 8328.9 3.7%
1997 8703.5 4.5%
1998 9066.9 4.2%
1999 9470.3 4.4%
2000 9817.0 3.7%


Yep, those case at the National Review are right on the money. The economy sure hit the skids after that tax increase! LOL!

Refuted.

And since we are looking at other sources, it was interesting to read about what has the Bush tax cuts done for the economy:

... tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years ...

Myth 1: Tax cuts “Pay for Themselves." Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 and 2006. Reality: Strong revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.

... this year’s budget would be essentially balanced were it not for the tax cuts....

Myth 3: The current economic expansion has been strong as a result of the tax cuts. Reality: The current economic expansion has been sub-par overall, and job and wage growth have been anemic.

...Also striking is the fact that the recovery of the 1990s followed a pattern similar to the current recovery, especially with respect to investment growth (which the dividend and capital gains tax cuts were supposed to encourage). Investment initially was weak in the recovery of the 1990s and then began to improve about two years into the expansion. But in the 1990s, that improvement coincided with a tax increase. If one accepts the notion that any economic change that follows a tax change must have been caused by the tax change, one might conclude that tax increases promote stronger growth. The more reasonable conclusion, of course, is that weak recoveries eventually tend to return to historical norms. ...

Myth 5: Extending the tax cuts is important for the economy’s long-run health. Reality: Extending the tax cuts without paying for them would be more likely to reduce economic growth over the long run than to increase it. ... The reason behind these results is that, even if tax cuts have modest positive effects on work and savings decisions, those effects are outweighed by the negative consequences of higher budget deficits.

More interesting analyses and data can be found in the article: TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES at Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities, Revised 10/12/06.

Which pretty much refutes those arguments you've been making about how the Bush tax cuts have increased revenues and helped the economy.

It's really a lot easier to cut-n-paste articles than actually pulling the data. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
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…