Jesus, this argument over whether something is “crippled” or merely “harmed” is so pedantic, even for this board. Why not focus on his overall argument instead of getting so upset about one word?
ETA: And by “word,” I mean to include ideas such as term, concept, turn of phrase, idiom, utterance, concept, remark, mention, phraseology, and/or articulation. You know, just in case there is a nit to be picked in my post.
I thought post #18 was “focus[ing] on his overall argument”. It actually seemed like you were the one that was nitpicking by complaining about the metric I used (1997 “total receipts” vs 2017), but I wanted to hear you out anyways.
Why don’t you just try responding to this, which is I think, the main thrust of our discussion about raw “total receipts” vs “as a percentage of GDP”:
Why do you think comparing tax revenue “as a percentage of GDP” is a “better measurement”? TimeWinder’s assertion was that “the GOP has crippled the revenue side of the government finance equation”. But “the revenue side of the government finance equation” isn’t really measured “better” as a percentage of GDP. They either have more money to buy things with … or have less money to buy things with… Which is it in this case? Do they have more money or less than they did 20 years ago?
There are a few reasons for this. First, in 1997, ss took in 539 billion, and in 2016, took in 1115 billion, so there’s a good part there.
GDP in 1997 was 8.6 trillion, 2016, 18.6 so, an increase of 2.2x, same as increase in revenue.
Military spending has held steady at around 16%, not including “supplemental spending” for actions in iraq and afghanistan, which drained our coffers a bit.
So, really, it does appear as though government revenue, largely has remained about the same over the last 20 years compared to gd and other relevant factors.
The problem is is that spending has increased more than inflation on non-discretionary items. SS has gone from $365b in 1997 to $892b in 2015 (the most recent year I could find numbers on), a 2.4x increase. One of the biggest changes has been interest on the debt, which historically has been 5-6%, but is currently over 7%, and is supposed to grow to over 10% of the budget by 2020.
Between non-discretionary increasing, as well as semi-discretionary stuff like veterans healthcare for all the soldiers who fought in our wars, the amount of money that the govt is responsible for paying out is increasing faster than the revenues are, which shrinks the discretionary budget as a percent of GDP.
So, ultimately, I agree with Timewinder’s point. Govt discretionary spending has decreased as a percentage of GDP, and will continue to decrease given the current budget proposals, and this is caused at least partly by the republicans cutting taxes, which does cripple the revenue stream.
k9bfriender, respectfully, this doesn’t make any sense to me. TimeWinder’s point was that the problem isn’t on the spending side it’s on the revenue side. I think he’s wrong, but you seem to concede that point when you said “So, really, it does appear as though government revenue, largely has remained about the same over the last 20 years compared to gd and other relevant factors.” Your argument seems to be that the problem is on the spending side (not what TimeWinder was arguing at all), but that certain kinds of spending (Medicare, SS, interest on the debt, VA, etc) have been crowding out the discretionary spending. All of that sounds like the problem is occurring on the spending side.
Babe Ruth’s annual salary was $80,000. Alex Rodriguez was paid $20 million. Was Rodriguez as valuable a player as Ruth? I don’t think so.
The Yankees overpaid A-Rod by a factor of more than 200.
Similarly, GWB, who was part of the “let’s drown government in the bathtub” crowd raised far FAR more in taxes than the bugaboo FDR ever did.
Some Dopers will detect a flaw in my analysis above. But not all.
Yes, tax revenue measured intelligently (and without cherry-picking whichever approach would support one’s prejudice) is almost 1% of GDP less than it was 20 years ago. Hurricane has it backwards.
Thoughtful analysis will also consider the spending side of the equation. Just Medicare, all by itself, is consuming 1% of GDP more than it did 20 years ago. Unless we want to “send seniors to the death camps” we needed 1% more in taxes, not 1% less.
The point was that govt spending increases. It has to increase to cover non-discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, everything from stuff like disaster relief and to programs like nasa comes out of the other side of that. Non Discretionary spending is increasing faster than gdp and faster than revenues, leaving less for discretionary spending.
In order to keep discretionary spending the same, revenue needs to increase faster than gdp, and instead, due to republican fiscal decisions, it is increasing substantially lower, and in fact, has gone negative, in that revenue is a smaller percentage of gdp than it was 20 years ago.
So, our mandated spending goes up and our revenue goes down, that leaves less money for discretionary stuff without increasing the debt.
IOW, he’s not wrong, it’s just that there are two sides of the problem, both of which need addressed. He was only addressing one part of the problem. That there is another part of the problem does not mean that the first part does not exist.
And by the revenue largely remaining the same, I meant had not been changed by large amounts, like orders of magnitude. Small amounts, yes, it has gone down.
This argument is irrelevant. The Republicans control the House and Senate and White House. They can cut spending any minute they decided to cut spending. Why don’t they do this? Because it turns out that cutting spending is unpopular, especially when those spending cuts are coupled with tax cuts for the rich.
The time to cut spending is when you are voting on spending bills. The debt ceiling is not a real vote, because it pretends that there are three numbers we can vote on–taxes, spending and debt. But in fact there are only two numbers we can vote on, taxes and spending.
If we vote to spend a trillion dollars, and vote to collect 800 billion dollars, we can’t vote to take on zero debt, because we already decided to take on 200 billion dollars in debt when we decided to spend 1000 billion and collect 800 billion, because 1000 minus 800 is always 200, we can’t vote for it to be a different number.
Or to put in another way, if your household makes $5000 every month in income, and you spend $6000 every month, refusing to accept that your credit card balance is going to show $1000 is preposterous. The amount of your debt is not an independent variable, it is decided by the other two numbers. If you don’t want to take on another $1000 in debt, the time to do that is not when you get your credit card bill showing how much you spent, the time to do it is before you spend the money. You don’t get to vote that you’re only going to take on another $500 in debt this month and then bring in $5000 and spend $6000.
Well, you can do that. If you do not mind destroying the faith and credit of your country.
You realize that’s not the ONLY way to keep discretionary spending the same, right? In fact, what you’re saying “needs” to happen is the very definition of “unsustainable”.
Ravenman didn’t offer a source for his GDP % figures. I’ll offer one here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2022
It gives slightly different figures for total receipts as a % of GDP, but doesn’t really affect his overall point. Here’s what it shows, for every year since WWII:
1946 = 17.2%
1947 = 16.1%
1948 = 15.8%
1949 = 14.2%
1950 = 14.1%
1951 = 15.8%
1952 = 18.5%
1953 = 18.2%
1954 = 18%
1955 = 16.1%
1956 = 17%
1957 = 17.2%
1958 = 16.8%
1959 = 15.7%
1960 = 17.3%
1961 = 17.2%
1962 = 17%
1963 = 17.2%
1964 = 17%
1965 = 16.4%
1966 = 16.7%
1967 = 17.8%
1968 = 17%
1969 = 19%
1970 = 18.4%
1971 = 16.7%
1972 = 17%
1973 = 17%
1974 = 17.7%
1975 = 17.3%
1976 = 16.6%
1977 = 17.5%
1978 = 17.5%
1979 = 18%
1980 = 18.5%
1981 = 19.1%
1982 = 18.6%
1983 = 17%
1984 = 16.9%
1985 = 17.2%
1986 = 17%
1987 = 17.9%
1988 = 17.6%
1989 = 17.8%
1990 = 17.4%
1991 = 17.3%
1992 = 17%
1993 = 17%
1994 = 17.5%
1995 = 17.8%
1996 = 18.2%
1997 = 18.6%
1998 = 19.2%
1999 = 19.2%
2000 = 20%
2001 = 18.8%
2002 = 17%
2003 = 15.7%
2004 = 15.6%
2005 = 16.7%
2006 = 17.6%
2007 = 17.9%
2008 = 17.1%
2009 = 14.6%
2010 = 14.6%
2011 = 15%
2012 = 15.3%
2013 = 16.8%
2014 = 17.5%
2015 = 18.2%
2016 = 17.8%
2017 = 18.1% (estimated)
Yes, in 1997 it was 18.6%. This year it’s estimated to be 18.1%. That is technically “lower”, but if you can look back at the last 70-odd years of data and think that that variation is something more significant than statistical noise or routine variation, I think you need to have your eyes checked.
Fair point. I admit that I didn’t consider it.
That said, I’m not sure that I would buy it. Even if the Democrats really do intend to pay for the programs that they endorse, they also lean towards democracy and populism more than the Republican party, so you end up with the people vetoing taxes even when the Democratic party is in power (e.g., California). And, fundamentally, I’m not super convinced that the Democrats are more fiscally honest than the Republicans. I’d expect both of them to kick the can down the road and blame the other side, regardless of anything.
I agree, we should raise taxes to balance the budget. That’s what you were saying, right?
You think emergency funds should be separate? You should have a conversation with the Republicans who voted against Sandy aid.
Technically, I think that we should move to a less costly health care solution, but that would derail the thread, and my post wasn’t about what I would recommend, but I would say that the Democrats should want to raise taxes not raise the debt ceiling.
I’m not 100% clear on something. The narrative is that Trump and the Democrats cemented a deal that the Republicans hate. But the Republicans control most of Congress. So, they could stop this if they wanted to. Why did they (largely) vote in favor of it?
As I understand it there are two things at play here. First, voting against hurricane relief is a sure loser come 2018. Most of the GOP realize this, particularly since in this case most of the terrible damage is in states that tend to vote strongly for the GOP. Second, the GOP knows they probably can’t pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling without some support from the Democrats. There are too many Freedom Caucus types who will vote against raising the debt ceiling every single time because they really want to push us into default.
So basically, they got trapped by Trump, Schumer and Pelosi and have to go along with it. That’s why Ryan and McConnell were so pissed.
Thanks. That makes sense.
I just hope the Democrats aren’t expecting too much out of this rare moment of “if you can’t beat em, join em.” Yes Democrats, you have managed to pick up a turd from the clean end. Good work. Do not expect similar results to manifest in the future.
You realize that Dems have a lot to overcome taking the moral high ground historically. Do you remember when Bush I reached an agreement with the Dems to raise taxes and that the Dems would lower spending to reduce the deficit? Do you also recall how the Dems broke their promise in 1991 raising spending by $70B which raised the deficit almost $45B?
Saint Cad, no offense, but you’re bringing up stuff that’s 25 years+ old. When does the statute of limitations run out?
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding about statistics in this statement - the amount of money collected in taxes and the amount of money spent by the government is not random (i.e. “statistical noise”) but influenced by policy decisions.
Even though the numerator is a number (GDP) that cannot be controlled by policy, since the numerator is, you can’t assume variations in the value of the ratio are random, especially if policy changes in the numerator are influenced by variations in the denominator.
I remember “Read my lips: No. New. Taxes.”
Is that the broken pledge to which you refer?