What's causing rising debt?

"Liar; you've never been a conservative." TD

"So $#@! what?" TD #277
Click to expand...
Conservatives like me are too mature to squabble.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to quote ONE example of me taking a non-conservative position.
You haven't.
You can't.
"So $#@! what?" TD #277
Click to expand...
Seriously?
So that gives you literally years of posts, literally thousands of posts to refer to.
If I'm not conservative among these thousands, there should be one among them that is not conservative.
Quote it.
You won't.
You can't.
I'm not.
Happy Halloween.

PS
"when SPENDING outpaces REVENUE increases, you will have a deficit. Therefore, you need to REDUCE spending. It's obvious you don't know what the Laffer curve is or means." TD #278
Click to expand...
At least I'm fluent in English.
I invite you to edit your above quoted comment, to impart to it comprehensible syntax.
So far, nope.
 
Truth Detector said:
Another strawman scarecrow; Republicans most certainly care more about deficit spending
Click to expand...

Why is it, then, that deficits tend to rise more under Republican presidents? Perhaps it's because of the narrow-mindedness of right-wingers, who can only think of deficit spending with a focus on the spending. That makes them prey, again and again, to those who would jack deficits with upper-class tax cuts, then insist that this requires spending to be cut.
 
lol grinds mad said:
The laffer curve only comes into play at *very* high rates. Like 50%-70%+. We are no where near those rates. If someone wants to cut taxes, they must also accept the necessary reality of lower revenue. But they don't want to do that. They claim it will cause economic growth, but of course pumping debt money into the economy has an inflationary and growth causing effect in the short term! It would be the same if you increased spending without without increasing taxes!
Click to expand...

It's not even clear it comes into play in that range -- it could well be still higher.
 
sear said:
PS

Perhaps.
But the Laffer curve is not "basic math". Cutting tax rates can indeed increase tax revenue. But only down to the Laffer curve peak. Below that, and tax cuts cut revenue.
Click to expand...

Well since revenue is at record levels looks like we have not exceeded Laffers peak.
This assumes that the theory works. Laffer himself noted that there are aspects of his theory that are generally misunderstood.
 
Some may think the Laffer curve peak is a specific, invariant #number.

But it's a mistaken notion, for it static-models a dynamic system.

But we could probably define a 3 sigma range for it, to pin it down to useful quantification.
 
"Well since revenue is at record levels looks like we have not exceeded Laffers peak." Cg #285
Click to expand...
Revenue has more to do with tax base than tax rate.
"Laffer himself noted that there are aspects of his theory that are generally misunderstood." Cg
Click to expand...
No doubt.
Half the people you know are below average.
 
The damn Laffler curve was written on the back of a bar napkin. The rightys were trying to manufacture an excuse for their avowed policies of moving more wealth to the top. I remember when he farted it out and immediately the Repubs in congress and the senate started offering it as proof of policy. One after another they made speeches about the proof that an economist had found. It is crap. It is a dress for supply side. The Repubs have stated for many years that cutting taxes to the top and corporations will ooze down through the economy and enrich us all. 50 years of evidence disproving it was refuted by laffler. Only it wasn't. The fact remains , it is wrong.
 
Again. Its not rocket science or advanced mathematics. DEBT IS INCURED when you SPEND MORE MONEY than you earn. End of story. Its clear that "Keynesian" economics (left wing progressive economics"....where you attempt to spend your way out of debt DOES NOT WORK.
 
"The damn Laffler curve was written on the back of a bar napkin." Nb #289
Click to expand...
That doesn't negate it. It merely elevates its provenance. Didn't Lincoln's Gettysburg Address have similar history?
"Again. Its not rocket science or advanced mathematics. DEBT IS INCURED when you SPEND MORE MONEY than you earn. End of story." R #290
Click to expand...
Spending vs revenue is simple arithmetic, except that the numbers exceed 3 & 4 digits.

The Laffer curve is not that simple. For one thing, it's a dynamic system. Changing the tax rate alters behavior. So a changed tax rate in a dynamic system can have consequences unanticipated by those accustomed to analysis of static systems.
"Its clear that "Keynesian" economics (left wing progressive economics"....where you attempt to spend your way out of debt DOES NOT WORK." R #290
Click to expand...
False.
It's SURELY not a viable long-term economic strategy. But in the short term, to perk up a sluggish economy, it does indeed work.
 
reagansghost said:
and when your revenue is outpaced by your spending

tell that your local GOP corporate boot licker
Click to expand...

Again....why don't you ask Cry Baby Chuckie who sold out the Dreamers for a few KEYNESISAN crumbs? ;) And really.....you are attempting to compare a few billions with the 10 Trillion the democrats spend in less than 8 years? LMAO:bigthink: Just where do you think the money is coming from to send a Battalion of troops to the border? Thanks "chucky", Its either a literal wall or a GREEN WALL you choose.
 
Ralph said:
Again....why don't you ask Cry Baby Chuckie who sold out the Dreamers for a few KEYNESISAN crumbs? ;) And really.....you are attempting to compare a few billions with the 10 Trillion the democrats spend in less than 8 years? LMAO:bigthink: Just where do you think the money is coming from to sent a Battalion of troops to the border? Its either a literal wall or a GREEN WALL you choose.
Click to expand...

Trump just ran a Trillion dollar deficit......you were sayiing?
 
".....you are attempting to compare a few billions with the 10 Trillion the democrats spend in less than 8 years? " R #293
Click to expand...
The most recent U.S. president to balance consecutive balanced budgets was President William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR) *.

The least of Bush's (younger) failings was his $700 $Billion $TARP.
But the Bush (younger) administration is reportedly the first in U.S. history to both wage War, AND cut taxes.

Republicans simply aren't political conservatives.

* Yeah. SS.
I know.
No Republican since ??? has come close.
 
sear said:
The most recent U.S. president to balance consecutive balanced budgets was President William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR) *.

The least of Bush's (younger) failings was his $700 $Billion $TARP.
But the Bush (younger) administration is reportedly the first in U.S. history to both wage War, AND cut taxes.

Republicans simply aren't political conservatives.

* Yeah. SS.
I know.
No Republican since ??? has come close.
Click to expand...

Who ballooned the debt "scientist"?
 
sear said:
The most recent U.S. president to balance consecutive balanced budgets was President William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR) *.

The least of Bush's (younger) failings was his $700 $Billion $TARP.
But the Bush (younger) administration is reportedly the first in U.S. history to both wage War, AND cut taxes.

Republicans simply aren't political conservatives.

* Yeah. SS.
I know.
No Republican since ??? has come close.
Click to expand...

Hardly......YOU MEAN THE LAST balanced budget came under the privy of a RIGHT WING CONGRESS and its CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. ;) As any real Budget (not a continuing resolution, kick the can down the road spending package) is the sole duty of the US CONGRESS. But in historic REALITY......the budget was never BALANCED as Clinton's supposed budget was supposedly secured with worthless IOU notes drawn against the people's tax bank accounts. In other words......HE GOT TO SPEND THE MONEY while claiming it still existed in the form of US TREASURY NOTES.


Just think and reason correctly. If any chief executive officer of any private corporate structure ever attempted to cook the books the way our politicians do......ENRON would look like a picnic.
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
Why is it, then, that deficits tend to rise more under Republican presidents?
Click to expand...

That's an outright lie. Why do you lie constantly. The record holder for deficit and debt will ALWAYS be Obama.

From 1950 until 1993 Democrats ruled the House and, for the most part, the Senate. Deficits climbed from $3.1 billion to over $290 billion.

Republicans came into power in the Congress during BillyBob Clinton's Presidency and for the first time in over 40 years, until the 2000 recession, managed to stop spending more than they took in.

That reversed in 2007 when Democrats got back in and ballooned the deficit to $1.412 TRILLION.

Oneuli said:
Perhaps it's because of the narrow-mindedness of right-wingers, who can only think of deficit spending with a focus on the spending. That makes them prey, again and again, to those who would jack deficits with upper-class tax cuts, then insist that this requires spending to be cut.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's your low IQ and small mindedness that prevents you from being honest and is why you are such a massive hypocritical partisan dumbass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top