And last week Treasury released a report that spending was even higher this year than last year (here).
I also love the editorializing that Reuters does with the main bullet - September deficit widens less than expected. So the September deficit is bigger this year than last, but because some economists predicted a larger one it’s less than was expected.
If this is cutting I can’t wait to see what it’s like when they increase spending on purpose.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy who have had their taxes slashed regularly since Reagan, would put more money in the treasury. That would decrease the deficits. The tax raise would not be a one time thing. Every year it would add money to the treasury. It would impact the debt. That is not economics. It is simpler than that. It is math.
You are also wrong about the debt during Clinton.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia The chart in the middle will show you. Note there are some green numbers, indicating positive and red ones indicating Republicans. Every Repub brought more red.
Income tax share of top 1% followed by share of income (from here):
1986 - 25.75% - 11.30%
1996 - 32.31% - 16.04%
2006 - 39.89% - 22.06%
2009 - 36.73% - 16.93%
The years (obviously) correspond to Reagan - Clinton - Bush (and the last one for the current state of play).
So the “rich” have had their share of taxes increasing faster than their share of income.
So you would be mistaken. It’s that simple. It’s math.
How would it impact the debt? Make it bigger? As long as you run a deficit, the debt gets bigger. It’s that simple. It’s math.
Did you even read the chart for content? In Clinton’s first term the debt increased $1 trillion and in his second term it increased $0.4 trillion.
Did you? The line showing the red and green was in line 4. The increases in debt in % was shown. there are lots of red numbers, some green. Note what party was in control when the green happened. Also note green means good, red means bad.
Here’s a useful graph:
File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia
“Debt as a fraction of GDP” is, arguably, a more useful measure than absolute debt. Eyeballing that graph you can see that Gross U.S. government debt as-a-fraction roughly doubled under the stewardship of Reagan and Bush-41. Under Clinton, it plummeted.
That is the big picture; it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge it. To look for a metric which appears to contradict this is to play partisan politics, or to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Whether “gross debt” or “public debt” is the better measure is moot; partisans will focus on whichever seems to favor their point. What I’d ask for is consistency. But you can be sure the right-wing hypocrites insisting that “gross debt” is the proper metric will insist just as adamantly on “public debt” statistics when SS goes into deficit.
All this is utterly redundant unless there is a significant corresponding cut in spending. You can only soak the “rich” for so much. Eventually that money will move or be spent of trying to shelter income. As somone in the top 1% I am amazed at the childish (but dangerous) rhetoric coming from the protestors.
Regardless, I can see Obama being re-elected and the Republicans taking the Senate so I’m not seeing anything too radical happening.
What policies did he pursue to lower the deb fraction?
was it as a result of a booming economy?
A Republican Congress perhaps?
Genuinely curious.
Since you’re genuinely curious, I’ll tell you. It was an historic event which (almost like the way Trotsky, Kamenev and Khalatov were airbrushed out of Communist Party leadership photos? :dubious: ) seems virtually unknown today.
Clinton era prosperity and fiscal recovery began with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which was signed into law August 10, 1993.
This Bill passed the House of Representatives by a close vote; the conference report passed 218 to 216. Not a single Republican Representative voted “Aye”.
This Bill and the conference report each passed in the Senate by a vote of 50 to 50, with the Vice President of the United States exercising his constitutional prerogative to break the tie. Not a single Republican Senator voted “Aye”.
After the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed, Congress Republicans led by Newt Gingrich appeared on TV, and insisted that only the Democrats were to blame for the impending disaster, that the Deficit Reduction Act would “Kill jobs and lead to a recession, force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” Instead, it ushered in one of the strongest eras of American prosperity.
Does this help?
(Now, certainly party-economy correlation is not as black-and-white as this discussion of the Deficit Reduction Act might suggest. But: There is a fair factual viewpoint, and a nattering snarky partisan viewpoint based on half-truths. Fair observers must agree that for some time, it has been Democrat policies that lead to both lower deficits and lower unemployment.)
Thanks for that. Going through the Wall Street Journal archives they seem to support your position (though they note that cost reduction pushed by the Repblicans deserves some credit as well).
Nah, they went along with Clinton because they felt compelled to. When Bush got in their true colors came out. They were believers of Reagans"deficits don’t matter’ cadre. Presidents can not pass legislation, they can only push their agendas. The Repubs have stopped every move Obama makes. We would not be in this financial mess if they did not have defeating Obama as the only thing that matters.
That’s why I think they need to stop speaking in terms of “class” and just come up with a progressive tax structure that’s fair-ish for everyone at all levels of income. What does it matter if a person is technically “rich” or not at $250,000? I get it. It’s not Mike Bloomberg money. It’s still a shitload more than most households in the country make.
Strictly speaking doctors and lawyers typically are part of the “middle classes”. Basically people who still work for a living but tend to have more managerial or professional jobs and much more freedom over where and how they work. The “working classes” are people who are more closely tied to their employers in what tend to be staff or non-supervisory jobs with less limited upward mobility.
Did that usher in one of the strongest eras of American prosperity? Or was it a combination of corporations spending money to upgrade systems in anticipation of Y2K (around $130 billion dollars by some estimates) in conjunction with the rise of the internet and web economy?
What about when Obama had his supermajority? This President has made some major missteps all on his own.
Clinton and the Democrats must get credit for the 90’s. I think the timing helped as well (coming out of the '91 recession, increasein tech spending, that little thing called the internet. huge jump in IPO’s etc.). Also, they didn’t have to deal with a housing crisis which is what is really stalling a rebound (imo). I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about this.
And the Journal has its faults but overall it is a top class news paper even if you don’t always agree with it.
And even better paper is the Economis who have their own ideas on taxation (that I agree with even if it means I would have to pay more in taxes).
Nice try! You originally tried to refute the assertion by jtgain that the debt had increased under Clinton. So are you revising your refutation to “Clinton increased the national debt, just not as fast as the other guy; that the Clinton ‘balanced’ budgets were just another way of saying let the grankids pay for this?”
I guess you’re simply conceding your errors in the other points you originally made.
This might be intended to sound ludicrous through exaggeration, but it’s not. If we take Warren Buffet’s 17% figure as average, tripling that still only gets you to 51%, which is within historical bounds within living memory. Considering that some portion of that 17% is local, state, sales and everything else and wouldn’t actually be affected by a federal hike, it comes out better still. That’s not too bad for a simplistic one-shot solution.
No. In case you can not understand, Clinton put the government in excellent financial condition. When he got into office the debt was 66.1 % of GDP. When he left, it was 56.5. Can you tell which one is a bigger number. Can you follow that the debt went down in respect to the GDP. But since in 8 years the economy grew like crazy, the actual numbers were greater, but only barely. The percentage was smaller. we spent a smaller share of our income in the debt.
As this graph shows, it was not just the tax cuts that caused the horrible debt. It was a big factor, but the unfunded wars cost zillions, the drug giveaway cost a pile, the crash cost us a pile in tarp and saving the banks.
You can not get the money back from the wars. Nor the TARP. But you can stop the tax cuts which were a huge contributing factor. But since it was not all of the debt, it can not solve it all. But it would help our finances to eliminate the Bush cuts immediately.
Are you guys actually suggesting since the tax cuts can not instantly cover all the debt, it is a bad idea?
You have to get started righting the economy, that would be a huge first step.
Except Buffet’s 17% isn’t average. The top 1% effective rate is 23%. Historically it’s in the mid to upper twenties (everyone’s has been down proportionally during the last few years for some unfathomable reason).
The effective tax rate for the upper-icome brackets (or anyone else) has never been anywhere close to 50%. Why do people quote these 50% and 70% tax rates? Sure they existed, but so did a crap-load of deductions and write-downs.
But that’s not what you said. You said there wasn’t an increase in national debt. There was; and there was an increase in every year of Clinton’s administration.
Specifically:
As you said, the economy grew. Therefore a smaller percentage of debt, could be a bigger number. But the debt was a smaller part of our GDP. Can you really not understand that? Our percent of national debt dropped about 6 percent. DROPPED.
But WB is a small minority of those tax payers who are paying mostly on dividends. He is in favor of, at a minimum, treated that as regular income, at least for the rich, and ending the ability of hedge fund managers from claiming there income is dividend income. You could capture more money by getting rid of that “loop hole”, but not as much you would get by tripling the highest income bracket. And even then you’d have to deal with how these super wealthy folks will find a way to avoid even those taxes. As the old saying goes: Where there’s a ton of money involved, there’s a way.
