[nvmrfgopyy]

It's unreasonable to add expected expenses to the debt but not substract the expected income over the same period.

That’s like the head of a household accounting for car loans and the mortgage but pretending there is no obligation to provide food, health care promised allowances for the kids“ Yes that's how it's like when you make a balance. You don't include the cost of food for the next 20 years.

[qzgCVHex]

So what to do--what are we to do?

Here's a bullet from Realityland.

Reverse the policies that got us here. Those include, for the most part, unfunded tax cuts.

I know conservatives hate this reality. But there it is.

[inchaaruutaa]

I really don’t know why I am even trying to explain this again – this information has been linked to over and over. For anyone capable of logic the story told by the numbers is quite obvious. Tax cuts do not cost anything, they do not need to be 'paid' for, and the cost of Bush tax cuts on that idiotic chart is complete liberal fantasy.

First, the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts in 1964 & 1966. The pre tax cut federal revenue (1963) was $107 billion. The last year of the Johnson administration (1968) the revenue was $153 billion. I will repeat this slowly (and I hate typing slowly) – with a top tax rate of 91% revenue was $107B, and 5 years later at a tax rate of 70% revenue was $153B. The 1968 deficit is five times greater than the 1963 deficit, but that cannot possibly have ANYTHING to do with the tax cuts. How do I know this? Because 153 is more than 107 . . . significantly more. Revenue grew by 50% in the five years following the tax cuts, which means if the deficit grew, then it is the direct fault of too much spending.

The pre-‘Reagan tax cut’ revenue in 1981 was $599 billion. Revenue in 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, was $909 billion. During that same period income tax rates were lowered from 70% down to 28%. No matter what the deficit is you cannot possibly blame it on tax cuts because . . . are you still following . . . because 909 is more than 599. In fact, yet again, it is 50% more. What caused the big deficits? Well, possibly the fact that spending increased from $678 billion to $1.06 trillion over that same period. A 57% increase in spending.

The pre-‘Bush tax cut’ revenue in 2000 was $2.02 trillion. By the last year of Bush in 2008 federal revenue increased to $2.52 trillion. A less impressive 25% increase over 8 years, but still an increase. What happened to spending over those 8 years? Say it together. It increased faster than revenue. Spending increased from $1.8 trillion to $3 trillion, or a 67% increase.

I should not leave out the Clinton tax increases you are so proud of. The pre-increase revenue of 1992 was $1.1 trillion. In 2000 Clinton left us with a $2.0 trillion revenue. Another near 50% revenue increase over his tenure.

The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and the Clinton tax increases all had a near identical effect on federal revenue. Tell me, given those facts, how anyone can claim tax cuts have added a single dime to the deficit? To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton campaign, 'Its the spending, stupid!'

Source:
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

[ChexEcodece]

What we really suffer from is a massive shortage of imagination.

Have we really fallen so far that the only way we can think of to get by is to take from our kids?

[Centurnion]

Here's a bullet from Realityland.

Reverse the policies that got us here. Those include, for the most part, unfunded tax cuts.

I know conservatives hate this reality. But there it is.

BS--If the Bush tax cuts never even happened or existed-(including all the tax cuts for the middle class)---we would have been at ONLY 2.7 TRILLION ahead. Meaning we would still be showing a deficit of approximately 11 TRILLION right now.

What--do YOU really believe that there are enough "rich people" in this country to pay for 61 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities or even come CLOSE to paying our current deficit of 14.3 TRILLION? Exactly how many "trillionaires" do you know?

Get your head out of the sand--and WELCOME to the real world.

It's very difficult for one to move ahead when they are continually looking out their rear view mirror.

[inchaaruutaa]

BS--If the Bush tax cuts never even happened or existed-(including all the tax cuts for the middle class)---we would have been at ONLY 2.7 TRILLION ahead. Meaning we would still be showing a deficit of approximately 11 TRILLION right now.

It truly bothers me that anyone, no matter what point is trying to be made, will facilitate this myth that tax cuts reduce revenue by any amount – let alone the full amount of the tax reductions. I realize the CBO scores it that way, but when is the last time the CBO has been right about any prediction? Tax cuts effect economic activity, which in turn changes revenue – which makes graphing the Bush tax cuts all the way to 2016 ridicules.

[inchaaruutaa]

Bush deficits:

2002: 157.8 billion
2003: 377.6 billion
2004: 412.7 billion
2005: 318.3 billion
2006: 248.2 billion
2007: 160.7 billion

If the tax cuts were so damaging, why were we moving toward a balanced budget up until 2007? What changed in 2007? The housing bubble burst leading to economic recession.

2008: 458.6 billion
2009: 1.41 trillion

One cannot honestly blame those increased deficits on a tax cut 5 years prior. The best argument that could be made is that the Bush cuts caused the deficit to spike to $412 billion, but then what is the explanation for the deficit coming back down? Another argument that has been made is that the tax cuts caused the 2001 Clinton surplus of $128 billion to turn into a $157 billion deficit in 2002. Only one problem with that argument. The Bush tax cuts 'for the rich' were not implemented until 2003.

It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about how changes in tax policy will effect the future when some insist on continueing to lie about what has happened in the past.

[Centurnion]

Bush deficits:

2002: 157.8 billion
2003: 377.6 billion
2004: 412.7 billion
2005: 318.3 billion
2006: 248.2 billion
2007: 160.7 billion

If the tax cuts were so damaging, why were we moving toward a balanced budget up until 2007? What changed in 2007? The housing bubble burst leading to economic recession.

2008: 458.6 billion
2009: 1.41 trillion

One cannot honestly blame those increased deficits on a tax cut 5 years prior. The best argument that could be made is that the Bush cuts caused the deficit to spike to $412 billion, but then what is the explanation for the deficit coming back down? Another argument that has been made is that the tax cuts caused the 2001 Clinton surplus of $128 billion to turn into a $157 billion deficit in 2002. Only one problem with that argument. The Bush tax cuts 'for the rich' were not implemented until 2003.

It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about how changes in tax policy will effect the future when some insist on continueing to lie about what has happened in the past.

Agreed--it's the same ol' democraperia--rich versus poor. Some of these liberals have been so brainwashed with--let's hate the rich--that they can't even look at tise USA Today report--a say--you know no matter how many rich people are in this country--they couldn't possibly come up with $534,000.00 per household in America.

So let's talk about Bush--and the tax cuts he handed out to the rich--completely ignoring that there were a lot of middle class tax cuts in those too. Let's talk about Tarp 1--even though 97% of those funds have been paid back with interest. Oh--and let's not forget about Afganistan and Iraq. IF none of these even happened we would still be looking at a sky-rocketing deficit--along with another 63 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

[Bondjrno]

Bush deficits:

2002: 157.8 billion
2003: 377.6 billion
2004: 412.7 billion
2005: 318.3 billion
2006: 248.2 billion
2007: 160.7 billion

If the tax cuts were so damaging, why were we moving toward a balanced budget up until 2007? What changed in 2007? The housing bubble burst leading to economic recession.

2008: 458.6 billion
2009: 1.41 trillion

One cannot honestly blame those increased deficits on a tax cut 5 years prior. The best argument that could be made is that the Bush cuts caused the deficit to spike to $412 billion, but then what is the explanation for the deficit coming back down? Another argument that has been made is that the tax cuts caused the 2001 Clinton surplus of $128 billion to turn into a $157 billion deficit in 2002. Only one problem with that argument. The Bush tax cuts 'for the rich' were not implemented until 2003.

It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about how changes in tax policy will effect the future when some insist on continueing to lie about what has happened in the past.

Look, this is over your head, that's pretty clear.
You are another denier of reality.
Whether it's Obama's Birth Certificate, Clinton's surpluses or tax cuts creating deficits, it seems the right wing mind is capable of ignoring reality, and stringing together a bunch of numbers that are unrelated to their argument, and claiming that proves they are right.
I'm sorry, I went to school, I studied economics, I don't buy your "theory", and surprise, nobody else does who is educated on the subject, there's a clue there ...

[Centurnion]

Look, this is over your head, that's pretty clear.
You are another denier of reality.
Whether it's Obama's Birth Certificate, Clinton's surpluses or tax cuts creating deficits, it seems the right wing mind is capable of ignoring reality, and stringing together a bunch of numbers that are unrelated to their argument, and claiming that proves they are right.
I'm sorry, I went to school, I studied economics, I don't buy your "theory", and surprise, nobody else does who is educated on the subject, there's a clue there ...

There are currently 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare DAILY which will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in the 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities? You don't believe that?

[Bondjrno]

There are currently 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare DAILY which will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in the 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities? You don't believe that?

That's been known since the 1950's, there is enough money to pay benefits.
A minor change in the tax law makes the fund solid for 100 years.
Do you believe that?

[inchaaruutaa]

Look, this is over your head, that's pretty clear.
You are another denier of reality.
Whether it's Obama's Birth Certificate, Clinton's surpluses or tax cuts creating deficits, it seems the right wing mind is capable of ignoring reality, and stringing together a bunch of numbers that are unrelated to their argument, and claiming that proves they are right.
I'm sorry, I went to school, I studied economics, I don't buy your "theory", and surprise, nobody else does who is educated on the subject, there's a clue there ...

Unbelievable! On 3 seperate economic threads where I have been showing the actual numbers proving that tax cuts do not reduce revenue - you have been responding, "What about the deficits!" over and over again. So now I show the actual deficits with more factual analysis proving you wrong once again - and I am a denier using numbers unrelated to the arguement?

And yes, the numbers do prove I am right. I cannot be beat with sweeping generalizations. You have brought a can of Mace to a gun fight.

[enactolaelant]

Each household owes $534,000 (poll) - OUR VIEW - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

So what to do--what are we to do? Oh I remember--let's tax the "rich"-

Today there are 18,000 baby boomers DAILY entering Social Security/Medicare programs and this will continue for the next 15 years.

And yet we have conservatives--liberals--and independents--stating--don't throw Grandma under the bus in the continual democrapperie rhetoric of MediSCARE.

ahoy Oreo,

i agree that the situation be perilous, me hearty, fer we be now sailin' in treacherous waters.

*battens down the hatches*

do ye agree then that what we need be a vessel rife with these measures;

1) aggressively slash education spendin'
2) cancel medicare, or drastically reduce it, promptly
3) lower corporate taxes to and taxes on the wealthiest americans to 'round 10%
4) eviscerate regulations regardin' air and water pollution

i ask ye these questions purely in the spirit 'o hypothetical debate, me friend, fer 'tis plain to see that neither conservatives nor liberals in congress be serious 'bout any kinda significant spendin' cuts.

- MeadHallPirate

[inchaaruutaa]

So let's talk about Bush--and the tax cuts he handed out to the rich--completely ignoring that there were a lot of middle class tax cuts in those too. Let's talk about Tarp 1--even though 97% of those funds have been paid back with interest. Oh--and let's not forget about Afganistan and Iraq. IF none of these even happened we would still be looking at a sky-rocketing deficit--along with another 63 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

And while graphing all the Bush era causes for the deficts, never once do they consider adding in a line for the costs of September 11th 2001. I guess that estimated trillion is not worth graphing - might not fit into the Bush hatred agenda.

[enactolaelant]

I'd be happy enough with a slight increase in taxes to pay down what the nation owes as long as congress didn't hike up the entire budget to meet the perceived tax increase.

Until fiscal responsibility actually arrives there no reason at all to allow the thieve to get their hands deeper in our pockets.

ahoy JDJarvis,

ye seem like a reasonable swabby, matey...so lemme asks ye a question;

when we look at tax cuts and tax hikes (in our current reality) which measure raises more revenue to address our nations mighty debt? i think we ought to sail the course that does the most to raise funds to pay down our nation's debt.

- MeadHallPirate

[enactolaelant]

Unbelievable! On 3 seperate economic threads where I have been showing the actual numbers proving that tax cuts do not reduce revenue - you have been responding, "What about the deficits!" over and over again. So now I show the actual deficits with more factual analysis proving you wrong once again - and I am a denier using numbers unrelated to the arguement?

And yes, the numbers do prove I am right. I cannot be beat with sweeping generalizations. You have brought a can of Mace to a gun fight.

ahoy SupPackFan,

i think, matey, that lettin' the Bush era temporary tax cuts (which have now become the Obama temporary tax cuts) expire would raise more revenue fer the government to pay down the debt than keepin' the current tax policy intact.

if i be wrong, can ye explain to me how keepin' the status quo, or even cuttin' taxes a bit more, would raise more revenue to pay debt than raisin' taxes would?

if possible, try'n keep it simple....i be a Bachelor 'o Fine Arts sorta swabby, not some MBA.

- MeadHallPirate

[enactolaelant]

Nice try with the hate Obama rhetoric, probably expected from you. Obama deserves the criticism for for refusing to implement fiscal policy that makes sense and in effect making our problems worse. He has joined those that suggest we can get away with "higher spending and lower taxes" which makes him no better than his predecessor. Few are willing to accept that a fiscal policy that makes sense is lower spending with higher taxes to a point in which we no longer run deficits. Until then expect the problem to only get worse with both sides of the isle playing the typical role.

ahoy Sluggo,

few?

matey, i'd say thar be almost no conservatives on our forum, outside 'o JDJarvis, who believe that taxes need to be raised a bit, perhaps to Reagan era rates.

therefore, it be inescapable that the fiscal policy they'd recommend would be to basically end Medicare, Medicaid and Social Securty and send them eldest folks off to private health insurance companies. oh, and they'd also like to see the wealthiest americans get a tax cut.

would ye agree that these be more or less the facts?

- MeadHallPirate

[Zaebal]

Look, this is over your head, that's pretty clear.
You are another denier of reality.
Whether it's Obama's Birth Certificate, Clinton's surpluses or tax cuts creating deficits, it seems the right wing mind is capable of ignoring reality, and stringing together a bunch of numbers that are unrelated to their argument, and claiming that proves they are right.
I'm sorry, I went to school, I studied economics, I don't buy your "theory", and surprise, nobody else does who is educated on the subject, there's a clue there ...

His argument is sound, and his numbers back it.

You make personal attacks, and then try an appeal to authority fallacy which is even more pathetic than usual, because you try to cite yourself as an authority.

The more that you post, the sillier you look.

[inchaaruutaa]

ahoy JDJarvis,

ye seem like a reasonable swabby, matey...so lemme asks ye a question;

when we look at tax cuts and tax hikes (in our current reality) which measure raises more revenue to address our nations mighty debt? i think we ought to sail the course that does the most to raise funds to pay down our nation's debt.

- MeadHallPirate

I know this is not addressed to me, and I may not qualify as 'reasonable'. But if the definition of reasonable is 'both tax increases and spending cuts' then I want nothing to do with it. As historical numbers show, and I truly believe, increasing taxes will result in no long term revenue increase above leaving the Bush rates in place. Therefore, to raise taxes on a select group of Americans for no apparent reason (other than jealousy and revenge) is wrong and immoral even if in the spirit of compromise.

Our current debt is the product of absolute irresponsibility of two generations of politicians. Both political parties have been using federal funds to hand out goodies in their own name to buy votes where required.

Paul Ryan has proposed moderate cuts that are not scored to balance the budget until 2020, yet he is being demogagued as a heartless grandma killing SOB by the opposition. If the TEA Party mentality does not win over Washington D.C. our nation is doomed to bankrupcy.

[enactolaelant]

I know this is not addressed to me, and I may not qualify as 'reasonable'. But if the definition of reasonable is 'both tax increases and spending cuts' then I want nothing to do with it. As historical numbers show, and I truly believe, increasing taxes will result in no long term revenue increase above leaving the Bush rates in place. Therefore, to raise taxes on a select group of Americans for no apparent reason (other than jealousy and revenge) is wrong and immoral even if in the spirit of compromise.

Our current debt is the product of absolute irresponsibility of two generations of politicians. Both political parties have been using federal funds to hand out goodies in their own name to buy votes where required.

Paul Ryan has proposed moderate cuts that are not scored to balance the budget until 2020, yet he is being demogagued as a heartless grandma killing SOB by the opposition. If the TEA Party mentality does not win over Washington D.C. our nation is doomed to bankrupcy.

ahoy SupPackFan,

let me ask ye, why wouldn't askin' the american public (i didn't really single out the wealthiest americans, imma unsure why ye specified that group 'o our citizens) to pay Reagan era tax rates raise more revenue than the our current historically low rates that President Obama hath instituted? try'n keep yer answer so i can understand it, if it be possible. please don't refer to me to a government website with 20 pages 'o tables and spreadsheets that i won't be able to make no sense of.

i also disagree that this be the product 'o two generations 'o politicians...i would perhaps agree that this kinda spendin' be the product 'o the "greatest generation" through the "generation X" swabbys, fer them be the folks who voted our representatives into office. the officers on the bridge be only doin' the biddin' 'o the folks ondeck.

- MeadHallPirate