Peace Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
DaveinElma Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 It's this one, from yesterday's New York Times. Click for a more detailed view, though it's pretty clear as is. I stopped reading after that. I'm sure it's not slanted in anyway at all.
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. And yet it includes the Afghanistan War and TARP. That right there tells me the chart is a load of ****. As though the rest of it didn't - last I checked, for example, the Democrats renewed the Bush tax cuts under the Obama Administration. So what nitwit decides to allocate that ALL to the Bush Administration under some sort of half-assed "Well, it was their policy!" judgement? But it's not meant to assign partisan blame at all, no... I can't believe you, of all people, got suckered by something so transparent. I stopped reading after that. I'm sure it's not slanted in anyway at all. You're an idiot.
Magox Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Wow! I never knew Bush pushed through the Afghanistan Surge. Amazing! And he gets credit for the stimulus spending of 08.
Doc Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Wow! I never knew Bush pushed through the Afghanistan Surge. Amazing! And he gets credit for the stimulus spending of 08. Dubya turned me into a newt! I got better.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 But those tax cuts paid for themselves! And they created a jobs paradise! Interesting that Bush's drug benefits program cost more than Obamacare. Funny, don't remember any protests over that
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 But those tax cuts paid for themselves! And they created a jobs paradise! And at a third the cost of the 2009 stimulus, at that! Interesting that Bush's drug benefits program cost more than Obamacare. Funny, don't remember any protests over that Probably because you were still in diapers then.
Rob's House Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Interesting that Bush's drug benefits program cost more than Obamacare. Funny, don't remember any protests over that had the Dems run ANY other ticket than Kerry/Edwards (and conservatives weren't so put out by the loony shrill mania that was Bush Derangement Syndrome) it would have cost him reelection. And how the !@#$ could you possibly know what Obamacare will cost? Edited July 26, 2011 by Rob's House
Peace Posted July 26, 2011 Author Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) And yet it includes the Afghanistan War and TARP. That right there tells me the chart is a load of ****. As though the rest of it didn't - last I checked, for example, the Democrats renewed the Bush tax cuts under the Obama Administration. So what nitwit decides to allocate that ALL to the Bush Administration under some sort of half-assed "Well, it was their policy!" judgement? But it's not meant to assign partisan blame at all, no... I can't believe you, of all people, got suckered by something so transparent. Moron. I wasn't advocating this chart--I am annoyed by its viral idiocy. Edited July 26, 2011 by Peace
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Moron. I wasn't advocating this chart--I am annoyed by its viral idiocy. My bad...the "viral Facebook joy" was for some reason barely visible on my monitor.
Peace Posted July 26, 2011 Author Posted July 26, 2011 My bad...the "viral Facebook joy" was for some reason barely visible on my monitor. This chart is truly a sign of a lack of thought. Pretty chart equals supporting argument.
erynthered Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Moron. I wasn't advocating this chart--I am annoyed by its viral idiocy. Put him on your ignore list, young man. Its what you do when you dont know how to scroll.
Gary M Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 But those tax cuts paid for themselves! And they created a jobs paradise! Interesting that Bush's drug benefits program cost more than Obamacare. Funny, don't remember any protests over that Tax cuts do not cause deficits, overspending does!!!!
birdog1960 Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Tax cuts do not cause deficits, overspending does!!!! taking your argument to it's natural conclusion, we could balance the budget with no taxes at all. but then we could all do without sewers and roads and police and... brilliant! why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
GG Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Tax cuts do not cause deficits, overspending does!!!! They both do. The difference is in the duration. Tax cuts lead to increased economic output, which should raise revenue over long term. But in the interim, tax cuts reduce revenues. Overspending is a binge that is harder to control, and when coupled with low economic growth & high unemployment, leads to ever escalating deficits.
birdog1960 Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 T Tax cuts lead to increased economic output, which should raise revenue over long term. ah, but do they really? any compelling data to support this contention?
Gary M Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 taking your argument to it's natural conclusion, we could balance the budget with no taxes at all. but then we could all do without sewers and roads and police and... brilliant! why hasn't anyone thought of this before? JUST PLAIN DUMB!!! ah, but do they really? any compelling data to support this contention? http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Magox Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 It depends, if the tax cuts are too much, then yes at some point revenues wont be enough to cover the differences in the debt. Think about it, if you had the tax rate at 0%, how would that affect the national debt? Sure, business would prosper but the country would be bankrupt. If you had taxes at 100% what would that do to the debt? Same result, businesses would be decimated therefore the debt would also explode. So there has to be that proper medium. Unfortunately, I think its pretty obvious that the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE, not just those greedy rich, falls on the wrong side of the laffer curve, I believe its pretty conclusive that the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the national debt. Withdrawing it right now probably wouldnt be the best move, but as Greenspan says regarding the Bush Tax cuts and whether not we should withdraw them for everyone, there is no good choice right now.
GG Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 ah, but do they really? any compelling data to support this contention? A lot of it is the chicken & egg, but data is pretty conclusive that countries with lower tax rates on average have higher growth rates. Look at the effect on capital gains taxes when Clinton lowered them in the '90s. Same phenomenon when Bush II temporarily lowered the foreign receipts tax. Rtaes wdent down, but total tax revenues increased. The big quedstion now is what to do with Bush II tax cuts. The choice should be whether to roll them back for everybody or revamp the tax code to flatten out the rates. There's not enough intellectual capital in DC right now for the latter, and nobody wants to touch raising taxes on the entire base. Raising marginal rates on the wealthy may get the votes, but will be fiscally and politically self-defeating. Also (queue TPS) the risk is that the increased incomes will lead to mis-investments and stoke asset bubbles. But those should be the natural byproduct of the private sector hanging itself and not at a direction of some bureaucrat in DC who thinks he knows better than you or I do.
Peace Posted July 26, 2011 Author Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Put him on your ignore list, young man. Its what you do when you dont know how to scroll. Obsess much about me? Isn't it time for you to send me private notes by PM again? Unlike you, I don't find DaveinElma/WisconsonBillsfan's posts worth considering. Edited July 26, 2011 by Peace
Recommended Posts