# Climate change denialism is not a winning position **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939 "2014-06-03T17:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/121 "2014-07-09T21:36:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, it does, if you think about it, if you can. Please explain ? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/122 "2014-07-09T22:37:19Z")
If the political will isn’t there to reduce spending to a level below revenue (and it’s not), then the problem isn’t just spending. Conversely, if the political will isn’t there to increase revenues to a level greater than spending (and it’s not), then the problem isn’t solely a revenue problem. The government has a budget problem. Calling it a “spending problem” (or a “revenue problem”) is neither useful nor true. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/123 "2014-07-10T00:29:36Z")
Political will or not, spending is the one thing that has to be changed, if the revenue stream was fixed, we would still take in more and more money as the GDP grows, the only affected thing is spending. Spending has risin at a rate greater than income for years, by definition that is a spending problem. > [@](#): > > .[http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-government-have-revenue-or-spending-problem/](http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-government-have-revenue-or-spending-problem/) > > tax revenue today is significantly greater than it was in the 1950s. Even adjusted for inflation and population growth, the federal government collects three times more tax revenue per person than it did 50 years ago. > Ultimately, the data suggest that the debt problem is really a spending problem: No matter how robustly our tax revenue grows, government finds a way to spend everything it collects and more. Professor Davies concludes that the root cause of the government debt is spending, not a lack of tax revenue. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/124 "2014-07-10T05:34:09Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > If the political will isn’t there to reduce spending to a level below revenue (and it’s not), then the problem isn’t just spending. Conversely, if the political will isn’t there to increase revenues to a level greater than spending (and it’s not), then the problem isn’t solely a revenue problem. > > The government has a budget problem. Calling it a “spending problem” (or a “revenue problem”) is neither useful nor true. The we conservatives call it a spending problem is because there is no revenue policy that can cover spending that increases at 8% per year. Spending and revenue over the long term can grow no faster than the economy. Now of course the entire budget isn’t growing at 8% per year, but some programs have seen such growth over the long term, like Medicare and Medicaid, so they are taking up an increasingly large portion of the budget. That’s part of what ACA was designed to fix, because Democrats recognize that the result of Medicare and Medicaid cost increases isn’t going to be political support for more revenues. It’s going to mean a shrinking discretionary budget. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/125 "2014-07-10T14:41:03Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Please explain ? Public spending results from political pressure. Political pressure sometimes results from cronyist-capitalism lobbyists, but it also results from grassroots pressure. What it comes down to is, people genuinely **need** public goods and public services, things the market cannot adequately provide, only government can provide them effectively. The problem is not that tax money is spent on those things, it **should** be spent; the problem is in lack of political will to adequately tax to generate revenue. **That** is what leads to budget deficits. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/126 "2014-07-10T15:06:00Z")
That and lack of political will to spend efficiently, crack down on waste and fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/127 "2014-07-10T19:27:57Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Political will or not, spending is the one thing that has to be changed, if the revenue stream was fixed, we would still take in more and more money as the GDP grows, the only affected thing is spending. Spending has risin at a rate greater than income for years, by definition that is a spending problem. When your source talks about adjusting a per-capita number for population growth, you should suspect that something is wrong. While adjusting for inflation is more reasonable, in those glorious pre-Reagan days income grew faster than inflation, and thus so would tax revenues. GDP is clearly the right metric, and you can find those numbers [here](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205). In 1963 individual income taxes were 7.7% of GDP and corporate taxes were 3.5%. In 2013 they were 7.9% and 1.6% respectively. (Due to the recovery, I’d guess - in 2012 personal income taxes were 7% of GDP.) All revenue was 17.2% in 1963 and 16.7% in 2013. And our economy was better in 1963 and required less stimulus. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/128 "2014-07-10T21:04:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That and lack of political will to spend efficiently, crack down on waste and fraud. If a pol promises to pay down the budget deficit by eliminating waste, ask him if he means to solve our energy problems by eliminating friction. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/129 "2014-07-10T23:25:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If a pol promises to pay down the budget deficit by eliminating waste, ask him if he means to solve our energy problems by eliminating friction. I’m sure the Indiana legislature will pass a law … I’ve been hearing people say that the budget can be cut by eliminating waste for over 50 years, and it certainly has gone on before that. Not that all “waste” is waste. Remember how wasteful that expensive coffee was in that government conference. I know a good many meeting planners, and they all laugh their asses off about people getting offended. Those prices were actually very reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/130 "2014-07-10T23:41:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > When your source talks about adjusting a per-capita number for population growth, you should suspect that something is wrong. > While adjusting for inflation is more reasonable, in those glorious pre-Reagan days income grew faster than inflation, and thus so would tax revenues. > GDP is clearly the right metric, and you can find those numbers [here](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205). > In 1963 individual income taxes were 7.7% of GDP and corporate taxes were 3.5%. In 2013 they were 7.9% and 1.6% respectively. (Due to the recovery, I’d guess - in 2012 personal income taxes were 7% of GDP.) > All revenue was 17.2% in 1963 and 16.7% in 2013. > > And our economy was better in 1963 and required less stimulus. ## Your talking about revenue,I don’t see we’re you addressed spending. 1963 GDP was 3.59 trillion 2013 GDP was 15.94 trillion From this source. [US Real GDP by Year - Multpl](http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table) The economic report of the president 1963 says different tho at around 530 million From. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/economic\_reports/1963.pdf](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/economic_reports/1963.pdf) Either way, revenue as a whole grew, we also know spending grew, if spending grows at a higher rate than revenue, you eventually run out of money , so you borrow for a while, so include debt interest in your spending problem and you have a new problem, All Tax Revenue Will Go Toward Entitlements and Net Interest by 2030 In less than two decades, all projected tax revenues would be consumed by three federal programs (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which includes CHIP and Obamacare) and interest on the debt. Entitlement reform is a must. Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget. And not at a slow rate of growth either ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/131 "2014-07-11T00:24:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If a pol promises to pay down the budget deficit by eliminating waste, ask him if he means to solve our energy problems by eliminating friction. YOu can’t solve it all, but you can definitely make government more efficient, freeing up money for other things. Since a lot of the things government does is not all that costly, this can make a huge difference. Almost anything non-entitlement that you want the government to do can be done just by cutting in half the number of improper payments the government made last year-$100 billion. You can do even more simply by eliminating all the duplicative programs: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/12/is-there-200-billion-in-duplicative-federal-spending/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/12/is-there-200-billion-in-duplicative-federal-spending/) Tens of billions of dollars. Of course, one reason we have duplicative programs is because the government is so big, legislators write legislation, and the PResident signs legislation, without having any idea that the government is already doing what the legislation instructs it to do, only under a different agency name. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/132 "2014-07-11T17:36:38Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > ## Your talking about revenue,I don’t see we’re you addressed spending. 1963 GDP was 3.59 trillion 2013 GDP was 15.94 trillion From this source. [US Real GDP by Year - Multpl](http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table) The economic report of the president 1963 says different tho at around 530 million From. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/economic\_reports/1963.pdf](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/economic_reports/1963.pdf) Either way, revenue as a whole grew, we also know spending grew, if spending grows at a higher rate than revenue, you eventually run out of money , so you borrow for a while, so include debt interest in your spending problem and you have a new problem, > > All Tax Revenue Will Go Toward Entitlements and Net Interest by 2030 > In less than two decades, all projected tax revenues would be consumed by three federal programs (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which includes CHIP and Obamacare) and interest on the debt. Entitlement reform is a must. > > Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget. > > And not at a slow rate of growth either [Here is the source](http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/entitlements-historical-tax-levels) for that last statement for anyone interested - the Heritage Foundation. They claim sources from OMB, but who knows hos they spliced stuff together. Interest which has been flat or declining as a percentage of GDP suddenly rockets up. Perhaps this doesn’t take into account the decline in the deficit? Perhaps it assumes runaway inflation which has been due any time now for the past 6 years? Now, if I decide to work for 30 hours a week where I can easily work 40, I can say that not having enough money to feed my kids is a spending problem - but it really is a revenue problem. One that can easily be solved. If we had the revenue we did 50 years ago the budget would almost be balanced. If we hadn’t increased revenue we’d be in even worse shape. The Bush recession cost both the federal and state governments plenty of revenue, of course. All spending has been approved by Congress. Lots of people want to cut things they don’t like, and increase stuff they do like. That’'s not a spending problem, that’s democracy. Now some of us prefer to spend the money on guns and tanks, while others would like to supply food and healthcare to those who can’t afford it themselves. That’s not a spending problem either. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/133 "2014-07-11T21:15:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > [Here is the source](http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/entitlements-historical-tax-levels) > > All spending has been approved by Congress. . When was this budget approved by congress? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/134 "2014-07-11T23:58:16Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > When was this budget approved by congress? Which budget? The one they’re using now? They’re all stopgap bills approved between 10/1/2013 and last month. Passed by both the GOP and the Democrats. So…? ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/135 "2014-07-13T14:12:33Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Which budget? The one they’re using now? They’re all stopgap bills approved between 10/1/2013 and last month. Passed by both the GOP and the Democrats. So…? So no budget since when? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=6)