Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:57 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The key issue is when YOUR party controls the White House or the Senate or the House, the deficit is obscenely high and needs to be addressed. When MY party controls any or all of those, it's different.
I disagree. The size of the deficit and whether it is a big problem depends more on circumstances than political fortunes.

If we are in an economic downturn, receipts are going to be in the dumps and it's downright stupid to cut spending for an arbitrary reason. In a war, expenditures are going to be sky-high, and it's stupid to cut the deficit in the 2:1 ratio you suggested.

In an economy with full employment, high deficits is indefensible. Cutting taxes during a good economy with high deficits is lunacy. It doesn't matter who's in charge, it's sheer stupidity in its most obvious form.
  #52  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:23 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I disagree. The size of the deficit and whether it is a big problem depends more on circumstances than political fortunes.

If we are in an economic downturn, receipts are going to be in the dumps and it's downright stupid to cut spending for an arbitrary reason. In a war, expenditures are going to be sky-high, and it's stupid to cut the deficit in the 2:1 ratio you suggested.

In an economy with full employment, high deficits is indefensible. Cutting taxes during a good economy with high deficits is lunacy. It doesn't matter who's in charge, it's sheer stupidity in its most obvious form.
Assume all that is true. Can't vote for Trump, because of the deficit. Can't vote for Warren, because of the deficit. Can't vote for Sanders, because same. Who else? Biden?

Now's the moment. Who's going to step up?

IMO no one. "The deficit is a huge problem, but I am still going to vote for whoever" is what is being said on both sides.

I wish Trump didn't increase the deficit. I also wish some Democratic front-runner isn't going to increase the deficit. I don't get either wish.

Regards,
Shodan
  #53  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:25 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Assume all that is true. Can't vote for Trump, because of the deficit. Can't vote for Warren, because of the deficit. Can't vote for Sanders, because same. Who else? Biden?
Well, we know nobody who votes on the deficit should vote for Trump. No education in the second kick of the mule.

What do you mean that someone can't vote for the Dems because of the deficit? I thought conservatives were afraid of them because they would raise taxes to pay for the stuff they want to do? "OMG! Fiscal responsibility! That's like SOcIALisM!!!"
  #54  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What do you mean that someone can't vote for the Dems because of the deficit?
Because they are all going to increase the deficit. Read the cites, read mhendo's post about Warren, read what AOC says, read what they all say.

Regards,
Shodan
  #55  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:01 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,489
Neither party has the moral high ground on this particular issue. It's just that Republicans are more hypocritical since they spout a line about how fiscally responsible they are, and constantly hammer the Democrats for not being fiscally responsible. Sadly, both parties, in practice, are pushing us further and further into debt. What is really in contention is who's gore is getting oxed....IOW, what we are spending the money on is more important to each side than the fact that we are spending too much.

This is all beyond what the OP was asking, of course, which as a slam on the Tea Party, but really the OP should have just asked 'Where is the Republican Party' wrt increasing debt. Their one trick pony tactic of tax cuts (for the rich) was never supposed to be some sort of silver bullet, just like tax increases aren't a silver bullet. They both have their use and their time and place, but, sadly, neither party seems to know when that is and so they always advocate for the same thing (cut or increase), instead of advocating for what we need at a given time based on where the economy is.

Trump took a basically strong economy, juiced it in all the wrong ways, and before his term is even out has basically driven us onto the rocks with his stupid policy decisions. Not everything he's done or is doing is stupid, in isolation...but in the aggregate, it's a freaking disaster. And the Republicans haven't done anything to stop him.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #56  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:02 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because they are all going to increase the deficit.
Stop changing the subject, and everyone else, stop letting him change the subject.



This isn't about the Democrats, it's about the Tea Party and the Republicans who couldn't shut the fuck up about deficits when the Black Democrat was in office, and who now won't say a damn thing about the White Republican who jacked that shit up the moment he got to vote on a budget.


Do you have a comment on why Republicans are suddenly silent on deficits? I would find that silence curious if I didn't already think the Republicans were all dishonest shits to begin with.
  #57  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:16 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The key issue is when YOUR party controls the White House or the Senate or the House, the deficit is obscenely high and needs to be addressed. When MY party controls any or all of those, it's different.
Except that the Democrats are at least willing to address the problem, primarily by raising taxes on the wealthy, and have had notably better success than Republicans in actually addressing it. As this Oct. 2018 report notes,
Quote:
Over the past year, we have seen a repeat of long-standing Republican fiscal and economic policies: Republicans have passed a deep tax cut, overwhelmingly benefitting corporations and wealthier Americans; the deficit, predictably, has soared; and Republicans have pointed to the deficits they have created as justification for cutting spending on programs vital to American families, including Social Security and Medicare. [...]

Democrats have taken a very different fiscal approach. Democratic Congresses and Presidents have presided over eras of deficit reduction and even balanced budgets, and Democrats have pushed to require Congress to pay for major new initiatives. While Republicansí main approach to federal budget deficits is to simultaneously create and complain about them, Democrats have actually done something about them. [...]

The budget deficit began to climb after President Reagan and congressional Republicans passed deep tax cuts in 1981. [...]

Congressional Democrats responded with a major deficit reduction package in 1990 and then again in 1993 with a historic budget and economic plan that turned our fiscal outlook around. [...]

Within five years, the budget was in surplus, for the first time since President Johnson left office with a balanced budget for 1969. Annual budget surpluses continued for four years, from fiscal year 1998 through 2001 [...]

While economic ups and downs and other factors also affect the federal budget, the pattern is clear. Republican control of Congress and the White House beginning in 2001 was followed by an immediate revival of the budget deficit. In contrast, after Democrats retook control in 2009, the deficit fell steadily, dropping from $1.4 trillion that year to $438 billion by 2015.

Now that Congress and the White House are once again under unified Republican control, Republicans have resumed their fiscally irresponsible policies. Last year, they enacted a set of tax cuts that have sent the deficit soaring, resulting in trillion-dollar deficits yet again.
  #58  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:26 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
the next time the GOP/media sounds the five-alarm fire on deficits the Democrats must collectively tell them all to screw off and proceed to implement whatever policies they want to implement.
Unfortunately, the deficit does have real effects. This sounds like the USA and China quarreling over who emits more carbon emissions, and then saying "the next time you complain about my emissions while you spew billions of tons, I'm going to ignore you and keep spewing mine as well." The net result is the same: A heated world environment.

D's and R's can spar and accuse and criticize, but the numbers will go up steadily - $25 trillion, $30 trillion, $40 trillion.
  #59  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:31 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Read the cites, read mhendo's post about Warren, read what AOC says, read what they all say.
I am 95% I'll vote for a candidate other than Warren in my (meaningless) primary, and AOC is an idiot. I'm far more likely to vote for someone with a reasonable fiscal policy, but I just haven't decided who yet.

That's the difference between me and a Republican voter.
  #60  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:36 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
D's and R's can spar and accuse and criticize
The R's were 100% responsible for this recent increase in the deficit, they held both houses and the presidency, and voted to sharply increase the deficit despite complaining about how high it was for the last 8 years.

Every single Democrat voted against this deficit increasing crapshow, stop with the BSAB.

So, must we ask the question again? What happened to the deficit hawks in the Republican party who wouldn't shut up about them when Obama was in office?
  #61  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:47 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, must we ask the question again? What happened to the deficit hawks in the Republican party who wouldn't shut up about them when Obama was in office?
How many times does it need to be answered? They only care about the deficit to criticize liberals. Literally everyone in this thread is saying it, even Shodan (in his own way).
  #62  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:26 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
More specifically, it's a cover story they can tell themselves about why "those people" should not get any benefits, like they do.
  #63  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:29 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I am 95% I'll vote for a candidate other than Warren in my (meaningless) primary, and AOC is an idiot. I'm far more likely to vote for someone with a reasonable fiscal policy, but I just haven't decided who yet.

That's the difference between me and a Republican voter.
I don't know about "a Republican voter", but like you, I am also far more likely to vote for someone with a a reasonable fiscal policy, and I also have not decided who to vote for yet.

The trouble is, I don't think there will be any such candidate, in either the Republican or Democratic primaries, or in the general election.

Whoever wins, it will be terrible because
  • The deficit is unsustainably high! No fiscal responsibility! Boo! Or
  • We can't deal with the deficit because we are in recession, or might go into recession, or the other party won't let us, or deficits don't matter, or we have a plan to raise spending this year and make cuts next year, etc.
And who says which is going to be completely dependent on who wins the White House.

Regards,
Shodan
  #64  
Old 08-15-2019, 01:40 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And who says which is going to be completely dependent on who wins the White House.
Except that, as I previously noted and cited, Democrats have been much more responsible and serious than Republicans about actually addressing and reducing deficits, whether they are in the White House or not. Your attempt to dismiss this with bothsidesism rhetoric is simply misrepresenting the facts.

Last edited by Kimstu; 08-15-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #65  
Old 08-15-2019, 02:52 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Except that, as I previously noted and cited, Democrats have been much more responsible and serious than Republicans about actually addressing and reducing deficits, whether they are in the White House or not. Your attempt to dismiss this with bothsidesism rhetoric is simply misrepresenting the facts.
The problem with this is that it isn't true. Your "cite" is laughable spin.

"Look! In 1990 the Democrats passed a bill raising taxes now so we could get Bush Sr. to break a campaign promise and cutting spending later OK, that never happened, and then the Democrats passed a bill in 1993, and only five years later after they lost control of Congress and the GOP fought back an attempt by Clinton to increase the deficit and despite Clinton vetoing the budget the budget was balanced!"

"Then, evil irresponsible Bush 43 passed tax cuts and then when they came to expire, all we had to do was sit still and let them expire but we voted to extend them and therefore the deficit is ALL REPUBLICANS' FAULT! Especially under Obama - they had us outnumbered 41-59!"

"So, vote for Biden/Sanders/Warren/a player to be named later, because their massive increases in taxation and even more massive increases in spending will balance the budget!"

Gosh, that's persuasive. not

Regards,
Shodan
  #66  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:19 PM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And Trump meant exactly as much by his pledge as previous Presidents meant by theirs.
I want to ask you directly about this, because you ignored my previous post on the issue.

Scenario 1

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term, but according to your story, he failed to do that, and only managed to reduce the deficit by about 36%, or about $500 billion.*

Scenario 2

Trump promised to reduce the deficit, and in one interview said that he could eliminate it altogether and balance the budget "I think over a five-year period." He also promised to eliminate the national debt (not the deficit; the debt**) "over a period of eight years." Deficits have increased by about $300 million per year, and are projected to keep rising. The debt has risen by almost three trillion dollars.

Your quoted comment above suggests that you believe that these two scenarios are equivalent, in terms of honesty and a good faith effort to fulfill promises. Do you actually believe this to be the case?

* It's worth noting that the figures in your linked article ($900 billion deficit) were still projections, because the 2013 budget had not been finalized. If we go to the CBO's own figures (Excel Spreadsheet), we see that they list the actual 2013 deficit at $679.8 billion. If we subtract this from the 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, it looks like Obama actually did fulfill his promise to halve the deficit in four years.

** To be fair, it's not clear to me whether Trump actually understands the difference between the deficit and the debt. He might, in that second interview, have thought that he was promising to eliminate the deficit in eight years, rather than the whole debt.

Last edited by mhendo; 08-15-2019 at 07:19 PM.
  #67  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:59 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,735
A good article by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in economics:

Trumpís Deficit Economy

Quote:
Trump promised to get the trade deficit down, but his profound lack of understanding of economics has led to it increasing, just as most economists predicted it would.
  #68  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:04 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And who says which is going to be completely dependent on who wins the White House.
Bullshit.

Democrats weren't worried about the deficit during Obama because you WANT a high deficit during a economic collapse. The only people bitching about it were Republicans, because, as a great man once said "They only care about the deficit to criticize liberals."

Democrats are worried now because we have a huge deficit during a time of relative economic stability. Now is NOT the time to have a high deficit, now is the time to reel in the deficit and bank some equity for the next downturn. The only people not bitching about it are Republicans, because, as a great man once said "They only care about the deficit to criticize liberals."
  #69  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:05 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
A) The tea party wasn't about the debt, as was clear to anyone who actually looked for 3 seconds at one of the protests.

B) The guiding principle of the conservative movement on fiscal matters is that there should be stimulus during Republican presidencies and austerity during Democratic presidencies.
Although your "B)" is correct from a functional standpoint, I'm not sure it's a guiding principle. On the right, when it comes to fiscal matters, the only thing that matters is that there are tax cuts. End of story. They don't care about debt. They don't care about spending, austerity, or stimulus. They just want to cut taxes, and those tax cuts should occur mostly, or all, within the top 1%.

To answer the OP's question about where is the Tea Party? They're out there trying to help Trump get re-elected. The Tea Party never existed as an actual fiscally conservative force. They were astroturf from day one. And most of them voted for Trump, and still like Trump.
  #70  
Old 08-16-2019, 08:35 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
More specifically, let former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill explain it:

Quote:
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits posed a threat to the economy.

Cheney cut him off, O'Neill said. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms [congressional elections]. This is our due."

A month later, in December 2002, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
But that doesn't hold a patch to Trump's promise to eliminate not only the deficit, but the debt, in 10 years. How's that goin', big fella?
  #71  
Old 08-16-2019, 09:16 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,806
Simple:
  • Trump The US declares bankruptcy
  • The debt goes away.
  • Profit!
I mean, it's worked for him before, hasn't it?
  #72  
Old 08-16-2019, 09:28 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,376
Hopefully someone can crunch some math for us:

Realistically, how much could Trump have reduced the deficit? If he had put in steep tax increases on the rich and maybe reduced defense spending by $50-100 billion, what would we be looking at right now?
  #73  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:10 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Hopefully someone can crunch some math for us:

Realistically, how much could Trump have reduced the deficit? If he had put in steep tax increases on the rich and maybe reduced defense spending by $50-100 billion, what would we be looking at right now?
It depends on who you think is "the rich". If the deficit is $1T, and you cut defense spending by $100B, then another $900B has to come from somewhere. The top 1% paid $538B in income taxes in 2016 so getting it just from them would involve somewhere less than tripling their taxes. The top 10% paid a little over $1T, so their taxes would double. The top 25% paid $1.2T, so somewhat less than double. In 2014, taxes on capital gains totaled almost $1.4T with an average effective rate of 19.4% so I suppose you could tax capital gains as ordinary income as long as you don't mind fucking the economy up.

The budget should be balanced IMO by a spending cut-to-tax increase ration of closer to 2:1 than 10:1, and "just soak the rich" is a pipe dream.

Regards,
Shodan
  #74  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:40 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
So is "let all the poors die".
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #75  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:48 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The problem with this is that it isn't true. Your "cite" is laughable spin.
Since the Reagan years, Democratic administrations have significantly reduced budget deficits while Republican administrations have significantly raised them. It's your pretense of "bothsidesism" on deficit issues that is laughable spin.

Last edited by Kimstu; 08-16-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #76  
Old 08-16-2019, 07:29 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Since the Reagan years, Democratic administrations have significantly reduced budget deficits while Republican administrations have significantly raised them. It's your pretense of "bothsidesism" on deficit issues that is laughable spin.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

A quick glance at the chart above tells us that the Democrats have very much been accomplices with the massive budget deficits. The current Democratic house is exploding the budget to the heavens. Please refrain from the most basic of party hackery if possible.

A simple analysis of who is in control of the presidency when deficits are higher is about as basic as you can get. High school standardized test essay response stuff.

Another thing to be considered is which programs are driving the huge spending. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the big spending hitters and they are Dem programs. The Dems have also bent over backwards to increase spending in every other area of the budget, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Taxes are a red herring. They have consistently bebopped and scatted around 19% of GDP since WWII regardless of marginal tax rates. It seems the govt simply can’t milk more than that from the defiant American taxpayer, so progressive dreams of raising more taxes to lower the deficit and bilking us like they do in Europe are pretty much hopeless.

The inconvenient fact for Dems and Republicans is that Reagan didn’t lower taxes. That is a grand myth. He and his Dem Congress just exploded the budget. That is what sent the govt totally off the rails (abetted by Nixon’s closing of the gold window).

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-16-2019 at 07:33 PM.
  #77  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:10 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 97
I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the tea party, they’re coming for all social programs started by the dems 100 years ago, even if it’s the republicans who explode the deficit to insane levels(I’m convinced that’s their long game)An 18th century utopia is right around the corner.

Last edited by Mcmechanic; 08-16-2019 at 11:10 PM.
  #78  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:21 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,611
Since the tea party didn't arrive while trillions were being spent on useless wars, but instead arose when a man with excess melanin became President, one might argue that the deficit isn't what they were really upset about.

For reference, using the White House's own data, discretionary spending increases over 40% MORE under Republican Presidents than Democrats.
  #79  
Old 08-17-2019, 06:31 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post

Taxes are a red herring. They have consistently bebopped and scatted around 19% of GDP since WWII regardless of marginal tax rates. It seems the govt simply canít milk more than that from the defiant American taxpayer, so progressive dreams of raising more taxes to lower the deficit and bilking us like they do in Europe are pretty much hopeless.
Red Herring my ass. We could have lowered the deficits in the past significantly if one of our parties wasn't a consistent liar on taxes. We could have lowered the trajectory of our debt in the future if one of our parties wasn't a consistent liar on taxes.

Since the only consistent position the Republicans ever take is "tax cuts for our cronies pay for themselves", it's worth pointing out their rank dishonesty in this area. They used to say that tax cuts paid for themselves and that tax hikes were self-defeating, using the laffer curve. But just about every instance of that has been proven wrong. Take Trump's tax cut. We're now heading toward a trillion in the deficit this year, and all of this just so we can get a small bump in growth during half of 2018. It was sold on an increase in business investment, which most economists warned would not happen....and said economists were correct.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...ay-itself-2018

https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts...pay-themselves

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#1d562d3758c1
  #80  
Old 08-17-2019, 07:09 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post

Taxes are a red herring. They have consistently bebopped and scatted around 19% of GDP since WWII regardless of marginal tax rates. It seems the govt simply canít milk more than that from the defiant American taxpayer, so progressive dreams of raising more taxes to lower the deficit and bilking us like they do in Europe are pretty much hopeless.
By the way, the 19% number is incorrect. They have mostly bounced between 16-18%, including only 16.2% last year. If they were centered around 19%, we'd be in better shape than we are from a fiscal standpoint.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
  #81  
Old 08-17-2019, 09:21 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
Red Herring my ass. We could have lowered the deficits in the past significantly if one of our parties wasn't a consistent liar on taxes. We could have lowered the trajectory of our debt in the future if one of our parties wasn't a consistent liar on taxes.

Since the only consistent position the Republicans ever take is "tax cuts for our cronies pay for themselves", it's worth pointing out their rank dishonesty in this area. They used to say that tax cuts paid for themselves and that tax hikes were self-defeating, using the laffer curve. But just about every instance of that has been proven wrong. Take Trump's tax cut. We're now heading toward a trillion in the deficit this year, and all of this just so we can get a small bump in growth during half of 2018. It was sold on an increase in business investment, which most economists warned would not happen....and said economists were correct.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...ay-itself-2018

https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts...pay-themselves

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#1d562d3758c1
No. Historically effective tax rates as a percentage of GDP remain relatively constant regardless of how the government shuffles them around. Republicans donít really cut taxes. Reagan didnít cut taxes. They shuffle taxes around, but effectively the government is taxing the productive sector at the same rate it was when marginal rates were high back in the 60s.
  #82  
Old 08-17-2019, 09:26 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
By the way, the 19% number is incorrect. They have mostly bounced between 16-18%, including only 16.2% last year. If they were centered around 19%, we'd be in better shape than we are from a fiscal standpoint.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Nah. 19% is more accurate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. The progressive idea that we will simply increase taxes to a European level to finance this or that federal program is cuckoo bananas.

They also like to say that the added revenue will come from rich people. Pure fantasy. Europe is taxing the middle and lower classes much more than the US is. Perhaps that is how they get those levels of taxation without any meaningful anti-tax movements.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-17-2019 at 09:30 AM.
  #83  
Old 08-17-2019, 09:44 AM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hauser's law may say 19.5%, but your specific cite says it has averaged 17.9%. So I would say that 19% is NOT more accurate.
  #84  
Old 08-17-2019, 10:38 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
Hauser's law may say 19.5%, but your specific cite says it has averaged 17.9%. So I would say that 19% is NOT more accurate.
Yeah I used to say 18% but thought I remembered seeing 19% somewhere.

The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-17-2019 at 10:40 AM.
  #85  
Old 08-17-2019, 08:48 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Nah. 19% is more accurate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. The progressive idea that we will simply increase taxes to a European level to finance this or that federal program is cuckoo bananas.

They also like to say that the added revenue will come from rich people. Pure fantasy. Europe is taxing the middle and lower classes much more than the US is. Perhaps that is how they get those levels of taxation without any meaningful anti-tax movements.
19% is not more accurate. See table 2-3 from the attached. The average from 1945-2018 is about 17.2%, not 19%. We've only exceeded 19% four times since 1981. We'd have higher, and more reasonable, tax/gdp levels if the Republican party would operate in good faith. But they won't, and we don't.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

Last edited by survinga; 08-17-2019 at 08:50 PM.
  #86  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:16 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 97
Iím just trying to figure out which party is the ďstatists.Ē
  #87  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:26 PM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yeah I used to say 18% but thought I remembered seeing 19% somewhere.

The point is that the government canít increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much.
If it's inevitable that taxes return to roughly 19%, why do Republicans keep trying to lower them?
  #88  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:11 AM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
https://www.newsweek.com/budget-nati...-trump-1454143

In line with Rush Limbaugh stating "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore" recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again?
Still pushing for a balanced budget amendment.
  #89  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:43 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
19% is not more accurate. See table 2-3 from the attached. The average from 1945-2018 is about 17.2%, not 19%. We've only exceeded 19% four times since 1981. We'd have higher, and more reasonable, tax/gdp levels if the Republican party would operate in good faith. But they won't, and we don't.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/
You continue to fly by the point at 100mph. The American people buck when taxes get too high. The government doesn’t have the ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. We have many years of history demonstrating this. Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there.

If you look at the chart, you will see that tax/gdp ratios largely correlate with the health of the economy, raising during boom times and falling during recessions. Party control is irrelevant to the trend. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
If it's inevitable that taxes return to roughly 19%, why do Republicans keep trying to lower them?
That’s how they get re-elected. It’s a shell game, they mostly shuffle taxes around, no real cuts are made as demonstrated by the chart showing the irrelevance of marginal rates.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-18-2019 at 08:45 AM.
  #90  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:57 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Thatís how they get re-elected. Itís a shell game, they mostly shuffle taxes around, no real cuts are made as demonstrated by the chart showing the irrelevance of marginal rates.
So if Democrates shuffle them back and raise the marginal rates, you'd be okay with that?
  #91  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:58 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You continue to fly by the point at 100mph.... Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there.
You do, too. Dem Congresses have rarely increased taxes, and that correlated with both an expansion of the economy and an increase in revenues.

Quote:
Marginal tax rates are irrelevant.
Dick Cheney-esque nonsense. If rates were irrelevant, as the woo-pitching fringes of economists thought alleges, then nobody would care if there were higher tax rates on the rich. The moonbats would just say that higher taxes are fine, because it all comes out in the wash - but in reality they shit their pants when it comes to billionaires paying any more.
  #92  
Old 08-18-2019, 09:20 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Joe Walsh just apologized for his role in electing Teimp, so maybe some Tea Party Representatives can admit that they were wrong/pandering.
You mean all 43 of them that were actually motivated by fiscal responsibility?
  #93  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:19 AM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
https://www.newsweek.com/budget-nati...-trump-1454143

In line with Rush Limbaugh stating "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore" recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again?
Debt to pay for tax cuts for the rich? Good!
Debts to pay for war and "securing the borders"? Good!
Debt to pay for almost anything else? Bad.
Debts under Republicans? Okay.
Debts under Democrats? Incompetence!

Modern America: Tribalism > Budget.
  #94  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:27 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You continue to fly by the point at 100mph. The American people buck when taxes get too high. The government doesnít have the ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. We have many years of history demonstrating this. Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there.

If you look at the chart, you will see that tax/gdp ratios largely correlate with the health of the economy, raising during boom times and falling during recessions. Party control is irrelevant to the trend. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant.


As for your assertion that I'm flying by your point, that's nonsense. The government does have the ability to raise taxes significantly, as even 2 to 3% of GDP is significant. If we had actually averaged 19% over the last 74 years, as you originally incorrectly asserted, we would have a significantly lower debt load today, which the Tea Party lyingly pretends to want. And this idea that "the people" rise up to lower taxes is mostly astroturf groups supporting Republicans who are targeting tax cuts to a certain group of donors who make millions, based on nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves. Marginal rates do matter, but they're often offset by loopholes. There is not law of physics that makes marginal rates irrelevant. But there are tax laws that are passed to offset marginal rates, which matter greatly, or said tax laws with loopholes wouldn't exist to begin with.
  #95  
Old 08-18-2019, 02:10 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
So if Democrates shuffle them back and raise the marginal rates, you'd be okay with that?
If they pursued a broader base of taxation without increasing taxes as a percentage of GDP, I really don't care. Tax policy is not the problem, spending is the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You do, too. Dem Congresses have rarely increased taxes, and that correlated with both an expansion of the economy and an increase in revenues.
No. Look at the chart again and this time cross-reference it with the chart I posted showing control of government. There is no such correlation between Dem congresses and increased tax revenues.

Quote:
Dick Cheney-esque nonsense.
Incoherent.


Quote:
If rates were irrelevant, as the woo-pitching fringes of economists thought alleges, then nobody would care if there were higher tax rates on the rich. The moonbats would just say that higher taxes are fine, because it all comes out in the wash - but in reality they shit their pants when it comes to billionaires paying any more.
When I say the marginal rates are irrelevant, those that are following would realize that I mean high marginal rates do not correlate with higher taxes as a percentage of GDP. Look at the chart please. There were high marginal rates in the 50s and 60s, and low marginal rates in the 2000s and today, yet the taxes as a percentage of GDP remains bebopping and scatting around the same level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
As for your assertion that I'm flying by your point, that's nonsense. The government does have the ability to raise taxes significantly, as even 2 to 3% of GDP is significant.
Please look at the chart and point to a period where the Dems were able to raise taxes significantly and sustainably.

Quote:
If we had actually averaged 19% over the last 74 years, as you originally incorrectly asserted, we would have a significantly lower debt load today, which the Tea Party lyingly pretends to want. And this idea that "the people" rise up to lower taxes is mostly astroturf groups supporting Republicans who are targeting tax cuts to a certain group of donors who make millions, based on nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Ok, the point still stands whether or not you believe in this conspiracy. Just instead of me saying that the "American people buck" I could say "the Bilderbergers and Kochs buck". In either situation there has been no ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably for over 7 decades, Taxes as a percentage of GDP has remained constant for 70 years while spending as percentage of GDP has increased drastically over the same period. Therefore, taxes are a red herring and spending is the driver of US government debt.


Quote:
Marginal rates do matter, but they're often offset by loopholes.
Marginal rates do not matter because the pols just play with loopholes. Taxes as a percentage of GDP have not decreased over the long term since Reagan. Reagan did not really cut taxes in any significant way.


Quote:
There is not law of physics that makes marginal rates irrelevant. But there are tax laws that are passed to offset marginal rates, which matter greatly, or said tax laws with loopholes wouldn't exist to begin with.
You can explain it however you wish, the bare fact remains that the sum total of 70 years of tax policy has not made a significant impact on the government's revenue as a percentage of GDP. Yes taxes will continually be shuffled around by this or that interest group, but ultimately the productive sector is taxed today at the same rate as it was in the good old days that Trump and Elizabeth Warren would have us return to

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-18-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #96  
Old 08-18-2019, 02:27 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
In 2014, taxes on capital gains totaled almost $1.4T with an average effective rate of 19.4% so I suppose you could tax capital gains as ordinary income as long as you don't mind fucking the economy up.

Regards,
Shodan
Why do you think it would tank the economy (I'm assuming for the sake of reasonableness that it would be a gradual increase)?

I have a lot of money in the stock market, but am under no illusion that I am actually 'investing' in a company. Beyond an IPO or secondary offering, none of the money that Wall Street flings about actually goes to a corporation. They do use their stock to pay people and I guess back bond issues, but beyond that - the market is as much a Ponzi scheme as the GOP likes to tar Social Security as being.

On a little further thought, I guess buying another company for stock qualifies as a 'real' economic activity, although my progressive leanings suspect those are mostly just a way to get money to the industry titans.
  #97  
Old 08-18-2019, 03:12 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No. Look at the chart again and this time cross-reference it with the chart I posted showing control of government. There is no such correlation between Dem congresses and increased tax revenues.
Because the correlation between Democratic Congress and higher tax rates is weak, as you ignored in my last post.

Quote:
When I say the marginal rates are irrelevant, those that are following would realize that I mean high marginal rates do not correlate with higher taxes as a percentage of GDP. Look at the chart please. There were high marginal rates in the 50s and 60s, and low marginal rates in the 2000s and today, yet the taxes as a percentage of GDP remains bebopping and scatting around the same level.
First, talk about cherry picking a bad argument. You pick and choose whether high marginal rates correlate with anything, then you say high marginal rates didnít produce higher taxes during the period before the AMT. Talk about a gaping hole in your argument.

Quote:
Please look at the chart and point to a period where the Dems were able to raise taxes significantly and sustainably.
The 1991 and 1993 tax increases started off a decade of prosperity and deficit elimination. That ended with the tax cuts and recession of 2001. The tax cuts of the early 2000s led to an okay economy that crashed, and the recent tax cut happened during an economic boom and tax receipts have tanked.

Let me just point out two things you canít explain away:

1. Variations between 15-ish percent of the economy and 20-ish percent of the economy arenít trifling differences, they are HUGE swings to our deficit. We are currently in the 16.5%-ish range for receipts, meaning that if receipts were actually in the 19% range you keep babbling about, that would be half a trillion dollars more in receipts. Thatís a big deal, and would cut out deficit in half! No serious person could dismiss such a huge swing in our deficit.

2. If you want to chalk things up to economic realities rather than fiscal policies, we are currently in a very strong economy and revenues by this measure are falling. Thatís because of fiscal policies.

And a bonus number three: this silly 19% figure has about the same amount of analytic basis as horoscopes. Some investment banker - not even an economist - noticed a chart one day and started yammering about it, and the discredited fringes of some political/economic cults decided to back into an explanation of the significance of this guyís observations. Itís a total joke.
  #98  
Old 08-18-2019, 04:52 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because the correlation between Democratic Congress and higher tax rates is weak, as you ignored in my last post.
Yes I ignored it. It was neither here nor there and has no bearing on my argument.

Quote:
First, talk about cherry picking a bad argument. You pick and choose whether high marginal rates correlate with anything, then you say high marginal rates didn’t produce higher taxes during the period before the AMT. Talk about a gaping hole in your argument.
Did higher marginal rates raise more taxes than today’s lower rates? Yes or no?

Quote:
The 1991 and 1993 tax increases started off a decade of prosperity and deficit elimination. That ended with the tax cuts and recession of 2001. The tax cuts of the early 2000s led to an okay economy that crashed, and the recent tax cut happened during an economic boom and tax receipts have tanked.
So no period when Dems raised taxes significantly and sustainably? I rest my case. The poster claimed that Dems could increase taxes significantly and sustainably.

Quote:
Let me just point out two things you can’t explain away:

1. Variations between 15-ish percent of the economy and 20-ish percent of the economy aren’t trifling differences, they are HUGE swings to our deficit. We are currently in the 16.5%-ish range for receipts, meaning that if receipts were actually in the 19% range you keep babbling about, that would be half a trillion dollars more in receipts. That’s a big deal, and would cut out deficit in half! No serious person could dismiss such a huge swing in our deficit.
They are huge swings that are caused by economic booms and busts not changes in marginal tax rates.

Quote:
2. If you want to chalk things up to economic realities rather than fiscal policies, we are currently in a very strong economy and revenues by this measure are falling. That’s because of fiscal policies.
I’m talking long term trends. 70 years tells us the Feds cants milk more than a certain percentage out of us productive types.

Quote:
And a bonus number three: this silly 19% figure has about the same amount of analytic basis as horoscopes. Some investment banker - not even an economist - noticed a chart one day and started yammering about it, and the discredited fringes of some political/economic cults decided to back into an explanation of the significance of this guy’s observations. It’s a total joke.
It’s an observation that holds water. Look at the chart please. No significant and sustainable increase in taxes for 70 years.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-18-2019 at 04:54 PM.
  #99  
Old 08-18-2019, 06:00 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes I ignored it. It was neither here nor there and has no bearing on my argument.
Yes, because when youíre cherry picking, you discard things you donít want to deal with.

Quote:
Did higher marginal rates raise more taxes than todayís lower rates? Yes or no?
The tax rates in effect before Trumpís tax cuts certainly did.

Quote:
So no period when Dems raised taxes significantly and sustainably? I rest my case.
What a pointless question that proves nothing other than that you need to read up on fiscal history.

Quote:
They are huge swings that are caused by economic booms and busts not changes in marginal tax rates.
Again, we are in a boom now, marginal rates are down, and revenue/GDP is down. Explain that.

Quote:
70 years tells us the Feds cants milk more than a certain percentage out of us productive types.
Do you believe in the Laffer Curve?
  #100  
Old 08-18-2019, 06:50 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post


Taxes as a percentage of GDP has remained constant for 70 years while spending as percentage of GDP has increased drastically over the same period. Therefore, taxes are a red herring and spending is the driver of US government debt.

Taxes have not remained constant and spending has not gone up drastically. Both of those statements are incorrect.

First, taxes have come down by a full 1% on average since the end of Clinton's 8-years. During the same time, spending has increased by an average of about 1.3%. This has included the period of the great recession. Both spending and taxes, not spending alone, are driving the debt.

As a recent example, in 2018, spending was 20.3% of GDP, and it was in the 20's back in the 40's, and has averaged about 19.5% since the end of WW2. Spending as a % of GDP is up, but not drastically, as you allege.

Second, taxes aren't constant, and have come down, not only due to the Great Recession, but also due to Republican efforts to cut taxes. At the end of the Clinton era, taxes were around 19% of GDP, and are now down in the mid 16's.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017