Election 2012: More of the same

[mrsleeve]

So why didn't we have a MASSIVE surplus during GWB and the 6 years of republican controlled congress from 2000-2006? lol...

mostly as a result of this

[BraveUlysses]

Bush's tax cuts reduced revenue and spending increased. The recession from 9/11 didn't help.

[mrsleeve]

Bushes tax cuts increased revenue, by a lot, just like when Regan did it. The resulting overspending was on WARs in retaliation to the pic I posted above.

[joshh]

Bushes tax cuts increased revenue, by a lot, just like when Regan did it. The resulting overspending was on WARs in retaliation to the pic I posted above.

They just keep repeating the rhetoric.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Obama even extended the cuts.

[mrsleeve]

I know


The old mantra, if you repeat it enough times it will make it true.

[joshh]

I know


The old mantra, if you repeat it enough times it will make it true.

I know you already know.

Yes exactly.

[herbivor]

Just so that I understand, the revenue increase in the 90s was due to GOP control of congress, not anything Clinton did or the tech bubble from the Internet boom ? And the revenue increase in mid 2000 was due to Bush tax cuts and not the over inflated housing bubble? So since Obama has extended the tax cuts since taking office why has revenue fallen? Your logic seems very flawed. The only correlation I can find between any sitting President and the economy is that there is a definite lag of about 5 to 10 years in timing between a decision and it's effect on the economy.

[BraveUlysses]

Herb, You just need to dumb down every discussion so that you can make correlation equal causation. Then you'll get it.

[joshh]

Just so that I understand, the revenue increase in the 90s was due to GOP control of congress, not anything Clinton did or the tech bubble from the Internet boom ? And the revenue increase in mid 2000 was due to Bush tax cuts and not the over inflated housing bubble? So since Obama has extended the tax cuts since taking office why has revenue fallen? Your logic seems very flawed. The only correlation I can find between any sitting President and the economy is that there is a definite lag of about 5 to 10 years in timing between a decision and it's effect on the economy.

The Housing bubble was all done in one year now eh?
All depends on what the change is and under the circumstances. Some changes are fast others are not is what seems to happen. Like when Bush gave people more money to spend, pretty much immediate. Or like Obama who's fucking with deflation right now and allowing so much spending (borrowing) and will keep this economy fucked up for some time. And thanks in part to the FED.

No, Clinton deserves some credit for the budget itself. At least not for fucking up the economy (at the time). The boom started right about then though. And much of our problems with the housing market did as well. And now we're paying for it. And no it wasn't entirely Clinton's fault for that either. But then again what President doesn't get blamed for what he deals with while in office? Or what he passed while there.

It was a culmination of bad decisions starting with FDR.

[mrsleeve]

^

Started mostly with Wilson, FDR was his protege so to speak.

[gwb72tii]

Just so that I understand, the revenue increase in the 90s was due to GOP control of congress, not anything Clinton did or the tech bubble from the Internet boom ? And the revenue increase in mid 2000 was due to Bush tax cuts and not the over inflated housing bubble? So since Obama has extended the tax cuts since taking office why has revenue fallen? Your logic seems very flawed. The only correlation I can find between any sitting President and the economy is that there is a definite lag of about 5 to 10 years in timing between a decision and it's effect on the economy.

come on herb
so now you agree revenues increased during the tenure of GWB?
and pray tell exactly what contribution did the internet bubble blowing up and crashing contribute to revenue increase? other, that is, to creating a recession that led GWB to propose a tax cut. how old were you in 2000?

revenue has fallen because keynesian economics is a scam. it has never worked, ever. and the spending has caused so much concern people are scared when they look to the future. plus the extension of the bush tax rates are temporary, just like every thing the messiah has tried. there's no certainty with tax rates, policy, only the messiah demonizing success. there is no way for business to plan for the future when everything is temporary.

[herbivor]

revenue has fallen because keynesian economics is a scam. it has never worked, ever. and the spending has caused so much concern people are scared when they look to the future. plus the extension of the bush tax rates are temporary, just like every thing the messiah has tried. there's no certainty with tax rates, policy, only the messiah demonizing success. there is no way for business to plan for the future when everything is temporary.

So the reason we are in a depressed economy is because of Obama not making the tax cuts permanent? And the spending by the Obama administration? But has nothing to do with the trillions we spent on 2 wars Bush started or the deregulation of the banks and housing market starting in the late 90s ? That has to be the dumbest reasoning I've heard yet. You really should stop contributing to these debates. You make Sleeve and Joshhh look like economic geniuses in comparison to your own posts.

[Morrison]

They just keep repeating the rhetoric.

There is some cold hard logic behind what you see as rhetoric. For the past 50 years, revenue collected by government has been within a couple percent of 18%, no? And we've seen tax rates all over the map during that time frame, yes? Therefore any regression analysis on the numbers results in a pretty piss poor correlation coeficient, statistically speaking.

But wait, what does have a 20% stake in contributing to GDP? Government spending does. It's a fact - its part of the formula. What went up under both Reagan and Bush? Yes, that's right, spending, and it created annual deficits because their "revenue increases" couldn't keep up - meaning that their policies were unsustainable.

This article will be an eye opener for some of you: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...a-about-taxes/

[joshh]

There is some cold hard logic behind what you see as rhetoric. For the past 50 years, revenue collected by government has been within a couple percent of 18%, no? And we've seen tax rates all over the map during that time frame, yes? Therefore any regression analysis on the numbers results in a pretty piss poor correlation coeficient, statistically speaking.

But wait, what does have a 20% stake in contributing to GDP? Government spending does. It's a fact - its part of the formula. What went up under both Reagan and Bush? Yes, that's right, spending, and it created annual deficits because their "revenue increases" couldn't keep up - meaning that their policies were unsustainable.

This article will be an eye opener for some of you: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...a-about-taxes/

What percentage does the GDP rely on consumer spending? It's approximately 70%. Yet you want to focus on Government spending (not enough of it) as to why things are in bad shape? How much more money does Government need to pump into this economy for you to see it's a failing idea?



Spending is clearly the problem with Government. And is the fact that they are their worst enemy. How do you allow the people and corporations enough money to do well but yet keep spending on defense and social programs (demand for more revenue) and expect things to do well? The entire point is our Government is spending on so many things that were never intended, we're working against ourselves. And you're promoting that Government needs more of our money to spend with?

The more this country slips toward Socialism the worse it gets. That's exactly what's been happening.

And while Government makes it easier for large corporations to do business they keep making it harder for the small business. Great fucking recipe for disaster. But that's what you get when politicians protect campaign donation derivation.

[Morrison]

Exactly - because its UNSUSTAINABLE. (deficit government spending, that is). Still, it is good when used out of necessity. Sort of like if you have a credit card and 0 cash, but you know that your timing belt will break next week, then financing a new time belt to save the cost of a future head replacement makes sense. Or like a powerful medicinal drug - bad for you if taken everyday, but will save your life if taken immediately and then discontinued once well.

And for what it's worth, I was aware of what percentages of gdp historically comes from each component, as I've looked into it. And that is the reason I generally support policies that will result in more money going into lower and middle class pockets - because they will spend it.