DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Breaking: President to address nation tonight, 9pm EST

**mikeyyuiok** · 07-26-2011, 02:11 AM

1992 was a "Clinton Year"?
It was a good year for Clinton, he got elected president, but he didn't take office until 1993.

Tax revenues do go up most years, the economy grows most years, and government spending goes up most years.
But when huge deficits regularly follow tax cuts, then you need to consider that tax cuts produce deficits.
I know you are going to say the problem is spending, but the same people that passed the tax cuts, passed the spending.

They said that we were spending too much, that we needed to reduce the "cost of government", and their "heroic" stance was to spend more, and reduce the "cost of government" by borrowing record amounts so they could cut taxes and pretend they had done something.

So why not deal with reality?

The economy needs fixing, tax cuts didn't work, they didn't "grow the economy", the economy needs a big customer to spend it into prosperity, that's what happened in 1943-45 when over half the GDP was federal spending, when the national debt went to 125% of gdp.
But the economy got moving, money got flowing, and the economy could continue at a higher level even as federal spending was reduced.
Before that, timid levels of stimulus had produced small improvements, but the economy was stuck at a place where the economy was stable, but awful.
It needed to be kicked up to a higher level of GDP, and to stabilize at that higher level. That requires increased government spending, the alternative is to allow the country to grow out of the current situation with lower taxes and reduced government, and that process will work, it will probably take a couple of decades, but it will work.
I favor an aggressive approach that could get the economy back up to target levels in a few years. But that's me, the main problem I see with the conservative approach, is that it reduces the US to a second rate power probably forever, and cedes world dominance to China.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that government spending can only come from 2 places....taxes or borrowing. When it gets money from taxes all that's happening is that the taxpayers money is getting shifted around. When they borrow all that they are doing is racking up a debt that the taxpayers will have to service.

Over the past 60 years or so the government has managed to put the US taxpayer on the hook for debt which is now pretty much equal to one full years productivity while chopping the taxpayer base down to 50% of the population. On top of that the debt horizon keeps increasing. That 50% of taxpayers is looking at future debt of more than 5 years productivity and the plan government seems to be pushing is to decrease the tax base even more.

It's pure insanity. You can't simply keep dumping more and more financial responsibility on less and less people and expect to stay solvent. Eventually your revenue base goes broke or simply goes away.

07-26-2011, 02:11 AM	#31
mikeyyuiok Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 502 Senior Member	1992 was a "Clinton Year"? It was a good year for Clinton, he got elected president, but he didn't take office until 1993. Tax revenues do go up most years, the economy grows most years, and government spending goes up most years. But when huge deficits regularly follow tax cuts, then you need to consider that tax cuts produce deficits. I know you are going to say the problem is spending, but the same people that passed the tax cuts, passed the spending. They said that we were spending too much, that we needed to reduce the "cost of government", and their "heroic" stance was to spend more, and reduce the "cost of government" by borrowing record amounts so they could cut taxes and pretend they had done something. So why not deal with reality? The economy needs fixing, tax cuts didn't work, they didn't "grow the economy", the economy needs a big customer to spend it into prosperity, that's what happened in 1943-45 when over half the GDP was federal spending, when the national debt went to 125% of gdp. But the economy got moving, money got flowing, and the economy could continue at a higher level even as federal spending was reduced. Before that, timid levels of stimulus had produced small improvements, but the economy was stuck at a place where the economy was stable, but awful. It needed to be kicked up to a higher level of GDP, and to stabilize at that higher level. That requires increased government spending, the alternative is to allow the country to grow out of the current situation with lower taxes and reduced government, and that process will work, it will probably take a couple of decades, but it will work. I favor an aggressive approach that could get the economy back up to target levels in a few years. But that's me, the main problem I see with the conservative approach, is that it reduces the US to a second rate power probably forever, and cedes world dominance to China. Why is it so hard for you to understand that government spending can only come from 2 places....taxes or borrowing. When it gets money from taxes all that's happening is that the taxpayers money is getting shifted around. When they borrow all that they are doing is racking up a debt that the taxpayers will have to service. Over the past 60 years or so the government has managed to put the US taxpayer on the hook for debt which is now pretty much equal to one full years productivity while chopping the taxpayer base down to 50% of the population. On top of that the debt horizon keeps increasing. That 50% of taxpayers is looking at future debt of more than 5 years productivity and the plan government seems to be pushing is to decrease the tax base even more. It's pure insanity. You can't simply keep dumping more and more financial responsibility on less and less people and expect to stay solvent. Eventually your revenue base goes broke or simply goes away.
	Quote