They dont want to pay for what they got!

Closing some tax loop holes for large corporations that are making HUGE profits and cutting some spending will do the trick.....

Thats all that needs to be done, but then if they did that they could not call Obama a socialist big spender who has no self control and has gone wild with the national treasury.

You're going to have to provide a few more details than that. We are talking trillions of dollars of debt.
 
Closing some tax loop holes for large corporations that are making HUGE profits and cutting some spending will do the trick.....

Thats all that needs to be done, but then if they did that they could not call Obama a socialist big spender who has no self control and has gone wild with the national treasury.

You think closing tax loopholes will eliminate a $1.5 trillion deficit? Keep in mind total current tax revenues (all federal taxes combined) is around $2.1 trillion.
 
You think closing tax loopholes will eliminate a $1.5 trillion deficit? Keep in mind total current tax revenues (all federal taxes combined) is around $2.1 trillion.

That, spending cuts and an improving economy....
 
The war that Obama promised to end has ended.... Another two conflicts? Are you talking about our supporting role in Lybia? What other conflict did Obama commit us to?

Ended? He sent 30K more troops there, and is talking about returning only those 30K and you think that is ended? WTF?
 
From 2000 to 2001, revenues as a percentage of GDP dropped 1.1%. From 01-02 they dropped another 1.9%. From 02-03 another 1.4%. From 03-04 another 0.1% (cumulatively 4.5%). The numbers improved from there, peaking at 18.5% (still 2.1% less than in 2000), only to drop again in 2008. At first blush these figures may look small, just s few percentage points, but when you're talking about an economy the size of the United States, this is serious money. Pretending that revenue as a percentage of GDP remained fairly consistent throughout the 2000-2008 time period is nonsense.

Of course, Jarod is incorrect as well in insisting that the tax cuts and wars led to the recession, but he is indeed correct that they are the lion's share of the debt problem.

1999 9353.5 35.83
2000 9951.5 36.93
2001 10286.2 34.59
2002 10642.3 31.00
2003 11142.1 30.88
2004 11867.8 32.79
2005 12638.4 33.58
2006 13398.9 35.05
2007 14061.8 36.74
2008 14369.1 32.73
2009 14119 26.49
2010 14508.2 28.95

The above is revenue as a percentage of GDP. For one, it is nowhere near 18%, even now. Second, yes... revenue dips during a recession as we see from above and as you pointed out, it was declining as a result of the recession before Bush's tax cuts. from 2003-2004 revenues INCREASED, not decreased. So as we came out of the recession they began to increase and remained high until the financial implosion took them back down the past couple of years. In 2007, it was almost back to the peak of 2000. So ANY pretense that the tax cuts caused a reduction in revenue is ridiculous.

Jarod and yourself are wrong to state they are the 'lion's share of the debt problem'. No matter what the revenue situation, the idiots in DC continually outspend. You yourself continue to pretend that we 'can't go back to 2006 spending levels'... it is THAT line of 'thinking' that is the lions share of the debt problem.

The lion's share of the debt problem can also be attributed to the unsustainable promises of the never ending entitlements that those on the left continue to proclaim as 'rights'.

You want to end this countries problems.... STOP friggin spending more than we make, get rid of the excess throughout government, PAY down the debt..... all of which will increase the value of the dollar. THAT is how you help the middle and lower class. STOP devaluing the dollar and crushing their buying power. Not only does a cheaper dollar mean they can buy less, but it also means they get hit with the double wammy of commodities increasing as they are all tied inversely to the value of the dollar.

Strengthen the dollar.... leads to lower energy costs... lower gasoline costs.... lower costs for clothing, food.... and increases the buying power for other purchases. It also means we are sending LESS of our money overseas to foreign energy providers.

Side note: Obamacare will add FAR more to our nations debt than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
 
Closing some tax loop holes for large corporations that are making HUGE profits and cutting some spending will do the trick.....

Thats all that needs to be done, but then if they did that they could not call Obama a socialist big spender who has no self control and has gone wild with the national treasury.

I am certainly all for eliminating tax loopholes and deductions (other than the standard for individuals). But do tell us which companies you are referring to when you say they are making 'huge profits'. List some examples for us.

I will let you in on a secret Jarod.... we can CUT the tax RATES and eliminate all the loopholes and deductions and still RAISE revenue.
 
That, spending cuts and an improving economy....

I agree, but I don't think you have any idea how much we'd have to cut spending. Closing tax loopholes and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would increase revenues by only $300 billion or so. We're still going to have to cut spending by at least $600 billion.
 
I think he is referring to the Iraq war when he says 'ended the war'

Ah... That one was easy, if you call it "ended". All he had to do is follow the agreements that Bush had in place before he left. Which is exactly what he did.

He hasn't "ended" any wars..

Vote for Obama, There's more Brown People Being Bombed than ever before!
 
1999 9353.5 35.83
2000 9951.5 36.93
2001 10286.2 34.59
2002 10642.3 31.00
2003 11142.1 30.88
2004 11867.8 32.79
2005 12638.4 33.58
2006 13398.9 35.05
2007 14061.8 36.74
2008 14369.1 32.73
2009 14119 26.49
2010 14508.2 28.95

The above is revenue as a percentage of GDP. For one, it is nowhere near 18%, even now. Second, yes... revenue dips during a recession as we see from above and as you pointed out, it was declining as a result of the recession before Bush's tax cuts. from 2003-2004 revenues INCREASED, not decreased. So as we came out of the recession they began to increase and remained high until the financial implosion took them back down the past couple of years. In 2007, it was almost back to the peak of 2000. So ANY pretense that the tax cuts caused a reduction in revenue is ridiculous.

First, I use the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. You can find them here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml

I'm not certain of the source of your figures and have no inclination to click through to verify the information.

Second, pretending that tax cuts do not cause a decline in revenue is ridiculous. It isn't even debatable.

Third, we were in a recession from March 2001-November 2001. To pretend that this recession is the reason that tax revenues were below 2000 levels as a percentage of GDP from 2002 through the next recession (as opposed to say, the tax cuts enacted during that period) is nonsense.



Jarod and yourself are wrong to state they are the 'lion's share of the debt problem'. No matter what the revenue situation, the idiots in DC continually outspend. You yourself continue to pretend that we 'can't go back to 2006 spending levels'... it is THAT line of 'thinking' that is the lions share of the debt problem.

No, the tax cuts are the lion's share of the debt problem. You can pretend otherwise if you want to (and I know you will since this isn't the first time we've had this discussion) but it doesn't make Jarod and I wrong. It just makes you a dogmatic.


The lion's share of the debt problem can also be attributed to the unsustainable promises of the never ending entitlements that those on the left continue to proclaim as 'rights'.

You want to end this countries problems.... STOP friggin spending more than we make, get rid of the excess throughout government, PAY down the debt..... all of which will increase the value of the dollar. THAT is how you help the middle and lower class. STOP devaluing the dollar and crushing their buying power. Not only does a cheaper dollar mean they can buy less, but it also means they get hit with the double wammy of commodities increasing as they are all tied inversely to the value of the dollar.

Strengthen the dollar.... leads to lower energy costs... lower gasoline costs.... lower costs for clothing, food.... and increases the buying power for other purchases. It also means we are sending LESS of our money overseas to foreign energy providers.

You and your Republican friends should have thought about all of that before you cut revenues and increased spending.


Side note: Obamacare will add FAR more to our nations debt than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Not really. The Affordable Care Act raises more revenues than will be spent and actually decreases the deficit. Go ask the CBO.
 
First, I use the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. You can find them here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml

I'm not certain of the source of your figures and have no inclination to click through to verify the information.

The problem with the CBO and where you are getting the lower percentages is due to "Revenues by Major Source"

It does not include ALL sources of government revenue. While it includes the bulk, the bulk is not the whole.

Second, pretending that tax cuts do not cause a decline in revenue is ridiculous. It isn't even debatable.

Wrong again. Only a fool would proclaim the tax cuts caused a reduction in overall revenue or that the topic isn't 'debatable'. They MAY cause a reduction in revenue derived from INCOME taxes, but that is not looking at the OVERALL picture. What happens when a person KEEPS more of their income? Do they spend it? If so, it is taxed and creates more revenue. Do they invest it? If so, again they are going to be taxed on the gains/dividends.

Obviously other factors will play a part. ie... economic conditions, unemployment rate, global fundamentals, etc.... but it is idiocy to proclaim that tax cuts lower overall revenues as some sort of absolute. It is the exact opposite position ditzie takes when he gives the absolute that 'tax cuts always raise revenues'. Both are equally ignorant in their absolute.

Third, we were in a recession from March 2001-November 2001. To pretend that this recession is the reason that tax revenues were below 2000 levels as a percentage of GDP from 2002 through the next recession (as opposed to say, the tax cuts enacted during that period) is nonsense.

You really need to look at the overall numbers again. While the recession did indeed technically occur during 2001.... tell me genius.... what happened to the stock market in 2000? Do you happen to recall a tech implosion? Rising energy levels that resulted from the lower dollar? Any of this ringing a bell? Add in the further collapse of the market in 2001 and you end up with what genius? Capital losses (which offset gains) ring any bells for you? Think this might have an impact on revenues relative to 2000 which saw high revenues due to gains taken in 1999 and early 2000?

Second.... to compare them to 2000 levels is a bit ridiculous as 2000 was one of the highest years on record (THE highest according to both your site and mine). The recession and market downturn from 2000-2002 most CERTAINLY was a major contributor to the decline in revenue in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I am sure you are going to ignore the fact that revenues as a percentage of GDP ROSE as the economy recovered from 2003-2007????

No, the tax cuts are the lion's share of the debt problem. You can pretend otherwise if you want to (and I know you will since this isn't the first time we've had this discussion) but it doesn't make Jarod and I wrong. It just makes you a dogmatic.

ROFLMAO... so even with increasing revenue for the majority of the time both in real dollars and as a percent of GDP, it is not the insane SPENDING that is causing the debt, but the fact that the public keeps a bit more of their wages?

You are an idiot. The only dogma here is coming from you and Jarod.


You and your Republican friends should have thought about all of that before you cut revenues and increased spending.

Ah, so now we get back to you trying to lump me in with the irresponsible habits of Bush? Pathetic on your part. Reeks of desperation.

I have stated all along that Bush's spending was fiscally irresponsible. As for cutting revenues, I again point you to the FACT that revenues INCREASED from 2003-2007. As a percent of GDP they were almost back to the highs of 2000 (which was the HIGHEST of the past 40 years) in 2007. So tell us genius... HOW exactly did they CUT REVENUES????

Not really. The Affordable Care Act raises more revenues than will be spent and actually decreases the deficit. Go ask the CBO.

Thank you for once again demonstrating what a complete party hack you are. Tell us genius... how is that Medicare fix going? You really believe they are going to do it?

You really believe that for the FIRST time the government will correctly estimate the COST of an entitlement program?

You really expect us to all ignore the FACT that the 10 year outlook as 10 years of benefits and only six years of expenses in order to 'show' that it decreases the deficit?

How is that unfunded status of Medicare again?
 
The problem with the CBO and where you are getting the lower percentages is due to "Revenues by Major Source"

It does not include ALL sources of government revenue. While it includes the bulk, the bulk is not the whole.

I don't believe you are correct. It includes "miscellaneous receipts" and is the whole. Moreover, the differences between our number (15% of GDP or so) cannot reasonably be explained as the sum total of minor sources of revenue. 15% of GDP is not a minor figure at all and would be roughly half of the government's take.


Wrong again. Only a fool would proclaim the tax cuts caused a reduction in overall revenue or that the topic isn't 'debatable'. They MAY cause a reduction in revenue derived from INCOME taxes, but that is not looking at the OVERALL picture. What happens when a person KEEPS more of their income? Do they spend it? If so, it is taxed and creates more revenue. Do they invest it? If so, again they are going to be taxed on the gains/dividends.

Nonsense. It has caused a reduction in revenues. Period.


Obviously other factors will play a part. ie... economic conditions, unemployment rate, global fundamentals, etc.... but it is idiocy to proclaim that tax cuts lower overall revenues as some sort of absolute. It is the exact opposite position ditzie takes when he gives the absolute that 'tax cuts always raise revenues'. Both are equally ignorant in their absolute.

I didn't mean it as an absolute, I meant it in the context of the Bush tax cuts.


You really need to look at the overall numbers again. While the recession did indeed technically occur during 2001.... tell me genius.... what happened to the stock market in 2000? Do you happen to recall a tech implosion? Rising energy levels that resulted from the lower dollar? Any of this ringing a bell? Add in the further collapse of the market in 2001 and you end up with what genius? Capital losses (which offset gains) ring any bells for you? Think this might have an impact on revenues relative to 2000 which saw high revenues due to gains taken in 1999 and early 2000?

That's plausible. Any support for it actually happening and being the real reason revenues dried up as opposed to revenues just happening to shrink because tax rates were cut?

I also love that we started with you claiming that revenues remained constant from 2000 through 2008 and how you're coming up with the complex reasons why revenues declined over that period but that these declines have nothing to do with the tax cuts you supported.

Second.... to compare them to 2000 levels is a bit ridiculous as 2000 was one of the highest years on record (THE highest according to both your site and mine). The recession and market downturn from 2000-2002 most CERTAINLY was a major contributor to the decline in revenue in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I am sure you are going to ignore the fact that revenues as a percentage of GDP ROSE as the economy recovered from 2003-2007????

You picked the years, not me. And I've already acknowledged that revenues increased as a percentage of GDP from 2004 through 2007, so despite you being sure that I am going to ignore it, I haven't.


ROFLMAO... so even with increasing revenue for the majority of the time both in real dollars and as a percent of GDP, it is not the insane SPENDING that is causing the debt, but the fact that the public keeps a bit more of their wages?

I didn't say that at all. I said that the lion's share of the problem is cutting revenues.


You are an idiot. The only dogma here is coming from you and Jarod.

FARGLE BARGLE.


Ah, so now we get back to you trying to lump me in with the irresponsible habits of Bush? Pathetic on your part. Reeks of desperation.

I'm not trying to lump you in with anything. You supported the tax cuts. Live with it. Everyone with a pulse knew that the hard part, the spending cuts, would never materialize but you supported the tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts nevertheless.


I have stated all along that Bush's spending was fiscally irresponsible. As for cutting revenues, I again point you to the FACT that revenues INCREASED from 2003-2007. As a percent of GDP they were almost back to the highs of 2000 (which was the HIGHEST of the past 40 years) in 2007. So tell us genius... HOW exactly did they CUT REVENUES????

You can state all you want. The fact of the matter is that Bush cut taxes without offsetting the predicted lost revenues. If you really gave a shit about debt and deficits, you would not have supported cutting taxes (the easy part) before offsetting the lost revenues with spending cuts (the hard part). That's just the way it is.

And You cannot just pretend that 2000-2007 never happened.


Thank you for once again demonstrating what a complete party hack you are. Tell us genius... how is that Medicare fix going? You really believe they are going to do it?

What does that have to do with the Affordable Care Act?


You really believe that for the FIRST time the government will correctly estimate the COST of an entitlement program?

You know what, you're right. Maybe it will be like Medicare Part D and end up being much cheaper than initially expected.

You really expect us to all ignore the FACT that the 10 year outlook as 10 years of benefits and only six years of expenses in order to 'show' that it decreases the deficit?

Actually, the CBO did an longer term assessment and the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and it's beneficial impact on deficits increases beyond the 10 year window.


How is that unfunded status of Medicare again?

What?
 
I don't believe you are correct. It includes "miscellaneous receipts" and is the whole. Moreover, the differences between our number (15% of GDP or so) cannot reasonably be explained as the sum total of minor sources of revenue. 15% of GDP is not a minor figure at all and would be roughly half of the government's take.

Maybe we are looking at different tables... which are you referring to?

Nonsense. It has caused a reduction in revenues. Period.

ROFLMAO... oh, because YOU say so????? give me a fucking break. If TOTAL revenues INCREASE, then you can't sit there and say it 'definitely' lowered revenue you dolt.

PERIOD.
I didn't mean it as an absolute, I meant it in the context of the Bush tax cuts.

In the context of the Bush tax cuts, you are wrong. Revenue both in real dollars and as a percent of GDP INCREASED after the recession and market downturn of 2000-2002's impact subsided.
That's plausible. Any support for it actually happening and being the real reason revenues dried up as opposed to revenues just happening to shrink because tax rates were cut?

I also love that we started with you claiming that revenues remained constant from 2000 through 2008 and how you're coming up with the complex reasons why revenues declined over that period but that these declines have nothing to do with the tax cuts you supported.

Go talk to ANY CPA. Ask them what happened to their clients taxes in those years as a result of the market downturn.

1960 526.4 29.08
1961 544.8 29.14
1962 585.7 27.54
1963 617.8 27.89
1964 663.6 27.74
1965 719.1 26.92
1966 787.7 27.34
1967 832.4 28.84
1968 909.8 27.85 a
1969 984.4 30.46 a
1970 1038.3 30.92 a
1971 1126.8 28.91 a
1972 1237.9 29.55 a
1973 1382.3 29.63 a
1974 1499.5 30.63 a
1975 1637.7 30.14 a
1976 1824.6 29.99 a
1977 2030.1 31.07 a
1978 2293.8 30.59 a
1979 2562.2 30.95 a
1980 2788.1 31.76 a
1981 3126.8 32.48 a
1982 3253.2 33.10 a
1983 3534.6 31.23 a
1984 3930.9 31.07 a
1985 4217.5 31.95 a
1986 4460.1 32.27 a
1987 4736.4 33.40 a
1988 5100.4 32.86 a
1989 5482.1 33.24 i
1990 5800.5 33.23 a
1991 5992.1 33.07 a
1992 6342.3 33.07 a
1993 6667.4 33.39 a
1994 7085.2 33.51 a
1995 7414.7 34.27 a
1996 7838.5 34.85 a
1997 8332.4 35.40 a
1998 8793.5 36.25 a
1999 9353.5 35.83 a
2000 9951.5 36.93 a
2001 10286.2 34.59 a
2002 10642.3 31.00 a
2003 11142.1 30.88 a
2004 11867.8 32.79 a
2005 12638.4 33.58 a
2006 13398.9 35.05 a
2007 14061.8 36.74 a
2008 14369.1 32.73 a
2009 14119 26.49 e
2010 14508.2 28.95

yeah... taking a look at the above, it was indeed fairly consistent from 2000-2008. It dipped with recessions and bounced back as the market and economy did. The REDUCTIONS in terms of GDP that we are talking about are due to the financial market imploding which led to high unemployment.... THAT is what is causing the reduction in revenues (as estimated) for 2009 and 2010. It has little to due with the tax cuts that your messiah just extended.

You picked the years, not me. And I've already acknowledged that revenues increased as a percentage of GDP from 2004 through 2007, so despite you being sure that I am going to ignore it, I haven't.

I showed where the PEAK was in 2000, you then proclaimed 'how can you say it didn't cut revenues when it never got back to the PEAK'.... ignoring all other factors, you simply proclaim it was due to the tax cuts. If the tax cuts were the cause of a decline in revenue as you proclaim then do tell us what made them go up as a percent of GDP from 2004-2007 since you acknowledge they did indeed INCREASE.

I didn't say that at all. I said that the lion's share of the problem is cutting revenues.

Again... revenues were INCREASING... they were NOT being cut. So your statement is obviously false.

I'm not trying to lump you in with anything. You supported the tax cuts. Live with it. Everyone with a pulse knew that the hard part, the spending cuts, would never materialize but you supported the tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts nevertheless.

Wrong, you most certainly are trying to lump me in with Bush/Republicans.... you have done it many times on this thread alone.

I support proper stimulus packages in recessionary times. I have stated that many times. With a Rep President and Rep control of both houses and the fiscal constraint shown by the Rep led Congress in the late 90's... yes, I did expect them to reign in spending.

And You cannot just pretend that 2000-2007 never happened.

ROFLMAO... show me genius.... WHERE did I pretend they never happened????????????????????


What does that have to do with the Affordable Care Act?

Wasn't a $500b decrease in Medicare/Medicaid waste part of the 'benefits' of the ACA?


You know what, you're right. Maybe it will be like Medicare Part D and end up being much cheaper than initially expected.

So the Republican pill bill is the one you point to? The one that has been around a whole FIVE years? ROFLMAO..... ok... that one has been below the original estimates.... you got me. Didn't realize you were such a Bush supporter.

Actually, the CBO did an longer term assessment and the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and it's beneficial impact on deficits increases beyond the 10 year window.

fargle bargle
 
Back
Top