The Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility
NYT Opinion: By now, nobody should be surprised when the Republican Party violates its claims of fiscal rectitude. Increasing the deficit — through big tax cuts, mostly for the rich — has been the defining feature of the party’s economic policy for decades. When Paul Ryan and other Republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives, they’re basically doing a version of the old Marx Brothers bit: “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
Ever so slowly, conventional wisdom has started to recognize this reality. After Ryan’s retirement announcement last week, only a few headlines called him a deficit hawk. People are catching on to the con.
But there is still a major way that the conventional wisdom is wrong: It doesn’t give the Democratic Party enough credit for its actual fiscal conservatism.
By The New York Times | Note: Data through 2016 is deficit as a share of potential gross domestic product, excluding automatic stabilizers. Data for 2017 through 2020 is a projection of the deficit as a share of gross domestic product including automatic stabilizers.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Over the last few decades, Democrats have repeatedly reduced the deficit. They have raised taxes. They have cut military spending and corporate welfare. Some of them have even tried to hold down the cost of cherished social programs. Obamacare, for example, included enough cost controls and tax increases that it’s cut the deficit on net.
The charts here tell the story, and I’ll get into the details in a moment. But I first want to spend a few moments on the perception gap, because it highlights a problem that’s bigger than budget policy.
The country’s political impressions are heavily influenced by people who are supposed to be neutral observers — reporters, television anchors, think-tank experts and the like. They’re not perfectly neutral, of course. They have their biases. But most aspire to partisan neutrality. It’s an honorable aspiration.
And it’s not easy to achieve. For one thing, they’re inundated by partisan advocates. If your job involved listening to people claim that, say, the Obama administration’s Syria policy was a success or that George W. Bush’s economic record was underrated, you too would develop a robust skepticism.
The problem is this skepticism often morphs into a formulaic approach that can itself become untethered from reality. Whatever the facts, many journalists and Washington experts revert to familiar storylines: Both sides are hypocritical. The parties care more about scoring partisan points than getting anything done. The extremists have taken over, and there are no moderates left.
All of these storylines have at least some truth to them. Like a stopped clock, they sometimes have a lot of truth. But they are indeed like a stopped clock. They never change.
I’ve spent 25 years as a journalist and have repeatedly seen the discomfort that journalists feel about proclaiming one political party to be more successful than the other on virtually any substantive issue. We journalists are much more comfortable holding up the imperfections of each and casting ourselves as the sophisticated skeptic.
Sometimes, though, one party really is doing a better job than the other. To refuse to admit it is to miss the story.
So it is with budget policy. Get this: Since 1977, the three presidential administrations that have overseen the deficit increases are the three Republican ones. President Trump’s tax cut is virtually assured to make him the fourth of four. And the three administrations that have overseen deficit reductions are the three Democratic ones, including a small decline under Barack Obama. If you want to know whether a post-1976 president increased or reduced the deficit, the only thing you need to know is his party.
The trend holds under a wide variety of deficit statistics, too. The ones here focus on a president’s policies by, among other things, removing “automatic stabilizers” — spending that kicks in when the economy weakens. If anything, a simpler analysis, using just the topline numbers, would make Republican presidents (especially the Nixon/Ford administration) look even worse. Meanwhile, an even more sophisticated approach would change the ranking a bit — hurting Bill Clinton and helping Obama — but not the partisan pattern.
The caveat, of course, is that presidents must work with Congress. Some of the most important deficit-reduction packages have been bipartisan. The elder George Bush, in particular, deserves credit for his courage to raise taxes. Some of the biggest deficit-ballooning laws, like George W. Bush’s Medicare expansion, have also been bipartisan. In fact, the Democrats’ biggest recent deficit sins have come when they are in the minority, and have enough power only to make an already expensive Republican bill more so. The budget Trump signed last month is the latest example.
So it would certainly be false to claim that Democrats are perfect fiscal stewards and that Republicans are all profligates. Yet it’s just as false to claim that the parties aren’t fundamentally different. One party has now spent almost 40 years cutting taxes and expanding government programs without paying for them. The other party has raised taxes and usually been careful to pay for its new programs.
It’s a fascinating story — all the more so because it does not fit preconceptions. I understand why the story makes many people uncomfortable. It makes me a little uncomfortable. But it’s the truth.
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
128 visitors
I’ve spent 25 years as a journalist and have repeatedly seen the discomfort that journalists feel about proclaiming one political party to be more successful than the other on virtually any substantive issue. We journalists are much more comfortable holding up the imperfections of each and casting ourselves as the sophisticated skeptic.
Sometimes, though, one party really is doing a better job than the other. To refuse to admit it is to miss the story.
This is a real problem for the Unthinking Faithful TM, like the many we have here on NT. For many, many years, they have identified themselves with the Republican Party, because they are, in their personal lives, fiscal conservatives. Having been told by the media, especially Fox News, that the GOP is fiscally conservative while the Democrats are profligate... they have declared themselves Republicans for life!
Now they are told... with tons of data to prove it... that for decades the Republican Party has in fact been profligate, while the Democrats have in fact been fiscally responsible.
What are the Unthinking Faithful TM to do? It's really, really hard to admit to having been bamboozled for decades... as they have been.
So... I'll bet on denial.
While the Establishment Republicans love Marxist statism as much as Democrats, it’s still important to correct the myths put out by the left
Liberals. Lie about deficits. Obama left with a higher deficit than when he took office and a CBO projection of rising deficits because of Obamacare and entitlements
The Bush deficit was 481 Billion as of January 2009. At the end of FY 2008 the deficit was 454.8 Billion according to CBO.
Per the US Treasury's month to month data, the deficit as of January 31, 2009 was 481.84 Billion
U.S. Deficit Increases to $587 Billion, Ending Downward Trend
By JACKIE CALMES OCT. 14, 2016
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration confirmed on Friday that a six-year run of declining annual budget deficits had halted: The shortfall for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was $587 billion, an increase over last year in dollars and as a percentage of the economy.
Rising Deficits After 2018 Are Projected to Gradually Boost Debt Relative to GDP
In CBO’s baseline projections, the budget shortfall declines to $414 billion next year but then rises substantially, to $1.0 trillion in 2025. By those estimates, which incorporate the assumption that current laws will generally remain the same, the combination of significant growth in spending on health care and retirement programs and rising interest payments on federal debt would outpace growth in revenues.
The outlook for the 10-year projection period does not differ substantially from the one CBO described in March. As in the previous projections, deficits as a percentage of GDP are estimated to remain below this year’s level for the next three years but then begin to rise. In CBO’s current baseline, the deficit falls to 2.1 percent of GDP in 2017, but in the latter half of the decade, deficits average 3.5 percent of GDP. The cumulative deficit between 2016 and 2025 is $7.0 trillion.
Wow. Bob was right there's a lot of denial there.
It's a natural human reaction.
The folks who have believed the "GOP is fiscally responsible" claptrap for years and years... cannot now just turn around and say, "Hey! I was a stupid fool for all those years! Now I'm going to recognize the truth..."
They must persist, or recognize their own foolishness. Of course they persist!
Nowhere did I say the GOP is fiscally responsible. In fact I'll remind you of my opening line
"While the Establishment Republicans love Marxist statism as much as Democrats"
The GWB ’deficit’ left out major items, like the two wars, which we were borrowing money to fund. This ‘deficit’ is fake. Fortunately, since the US has never defaulted on its debt, the deficit is easy to calculate. You simply take the amount owed in a year (the debt) and subtract from it the amount owed the previous year. This is how much was borrowed, i.e. the deficit.
The US fiscal year ends on 9/30. The deficit for the FY ending 9/30/08 was $1.1T. The debt in a year that a president takes office is normally attributed to the previous president because the current president was only president for a portion of the FY, and it’s too little time for the policies of the new president to have an effect on the juggernaut which is the US economy.
FY 2009’s deficit was $1.9T, attributed to GWB. FY 2017’s was $671B, attributed to Obama. At best you could say Republicans obfuscate, but really, they’re just lying.
These numbers obtained from www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
Obama's Deficit Dodge - FactCheck.org
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge
Sep 28, 2012 · FactCheck.org ® A Project of The ... Obama on Deficits. ... on the two wars — each more than the $140 billion that was authorized in 2009, which was Bush’s last ...
Irrelevant. GWB handed a cratering economy borrowing $1.8T/year to Obama. Obama handed a strong economy borrowing $671B/year to Trump. Gov’t borrowing fell by 2/3 under Obama, which coincidentally, is exactly what happened under Clinton.
Obama "inherited" his deficits from his OWN party.
Democrats controlled Congress and would not approve Bush's last budget.
And actually, Obama signed the fiscal year 2009 budget, not Bush.
Nonsense. The bush administration gave two tax cuts, started two wars, added a Medicare drug benefit, and built the huge Dept of HomeLand Security. Borrowing for all these things and more; no spending cuts or new taxes to pay for any of these things. The lion’s share of the deficit handed to Obama was directly caused by Republican policies.
That's all he's got.
Dubya kept all the wars 'off the books'
You're cheating!
You're using facts! That's totally unfair. You're risk provoking cognitive overload among the Unthinking Faithful TM!
Oh, wait... On second thought... "cognitive" doesn't apply...
Nope.
Yup
Do you know what the difference between off the books and off budget is?
Bob, everyone knows that all the free money and services go to lazy socialists, communists , hippies, freeloaders, bums , and coloreds. None of those people are Republicans, therefore the Republican Party is the fiscally responsible.
Oh.
I see.
Well...
And yet, no one on this thread has said any of that.
Projecting?
Please tell us in intense detail how the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Show all those charts and graph and stuff.
When Reagan took office, the government was borrowing $90B/year (the deficit).
When Bush I took office, the gov’t was borrowing $255B/year. So, Reagan increased borrowing by 180%.
When Clinton took office, the gov’t was borrowing $347B/year. So, Bush I increased borrowing by another 36%.
When Bush II took office, the gov’t was borrowing $133B/year. So, Clinton DECREASED borrowing by 62%.
When Obama took office, the gov’t was borrowing $1,885B/year. So, Bush II increased borrowing by 1300%.
When Trump took office, the gov’t was borrowing $671B/year. So, Obama DECREASED borrowing by 65%.
Cool dataset! VERY cool...
Nice try but Presidents do not control the purse strings, Congress (HOR to be specific). Let's take a look down memory lane to see who controlled the House of Representatives from Carter to today..
76-80 (Carter) Democratic control...deficits all on Democrats
80-88 (Reagan) Democratic control....So, Democrats increased borrowing by 180%.
88-92 (Bush 1) Democratic control...So, Democrats increased borrowing by another 36%.
92-2000 (Clinton) first term Democratic control, second term, Republican...So, Republicans mostly DECREASED borrowing by 62%.
2000-2009 (Bush II) first 6 years Republican control, last 2 Democrat...so mostly Republicans, but both parties increased borrowing by 1300%.
2010 to 2016 (Obama) first 2 years democratic control, last 6 Republican...So, mostly Republicans DECREASED borrowing by 65%.
You're welcome. Let me know if you need more free education.
Actually, the Presidents have very little control over spending. They can shift the budgets around in the Executive Agencies that actually spend the money; but all spending is set aside by Congress and specifically the House of Representatives. Reagan and Bush I never had a Republican House of Representatives. Clinton had both the House and Senate as being Democratic when he took office and then Republicans got control over both in 1995. Those Republicans went on to create the spending policies that created a surplus, not Clinton. Bush II had as surplus until 9/11 and then because of the recession that followed then the real estate bubble bursting along with unethical securities bundling by AIG and Democrats in control of both the House and Senate ended up with a major deficit. Until 2011, Obama had both the House and Senate being Democratic, then in 2013, had the Sequester which froze spending. That above all else actually is what caused Obama to have a deficit reduction. So, if you go by an actual and factual history of spending since 1980, you will find that the Democrats spend like sailors on a drunken weekend in port and until this Omnibus, Republicans had been spendthrifts. This Omnibus has Republicans really upset as Ryan and, in particular, McConnell have seem to lost their principles. McConnell keeps blaming Democrats when he should be willing to change the rules back to the original Senate set-up of "Move the previous question" instead of filibuster, which wasn't set up until the late 1800s.
If the Democrats were really the Party of fiscal responsibility, they would have told the public to get their own damn health insurance or die, to find their own way to pay for their shelter and food or go hungry in the cold. Those things are not the responsibility of government. Taking care of such things are matters for private charities and should never be a matter of legislation.
That is not what "FISCAL responsibility" means.
Fiscal responsibility means, over the long run, ensuring that revenues cover disbursements. In practical terms, in modern economies, it would mean running budget deficits when the economy is weak (to prime the pump), and then running budget surpluses when the economy is humming, to pay down the debt incurred during the bad side of the cycle.
In other words... It was right to run deficits to pull the country out of the post-2008 recession, but now we should be running surpluses.
No Bob, it was not all right. The job of the Federal Government is to defend the coastline, deliver the mail and ensure that contracts are followed. It is most certainly NOT the job of the Federal Government to run the economy.
That's a matter of opinion. You are entitled to yours, of course.
OTOH, every country in the world has a central bank, and every government in the world is charged with maintaining a healthy economy. (Some are more assiduous than others, and some are more successful than others...
Please
- READ the seed,
- Reply with pertinence.
Neither party is fiscally responsible.
Pretending otherwise is senseless.
Both parties complain about deficits----when the other party is in power.
Both parties have no problems with deficits and debt once they are in power.
been like this for DECADES.
Deficit spending and increasing the national debt are facts of life and nothing either party does is going to change that. That doesn't mean that the two parties aren't different in their approach to deficits and debt. Republicans have cutting taxes while increasing military spending and corporate welfare as primary concerns. Studies have shown that these drive up the deficit and national debt as much as any democratic proposal. Democrats, on the other hand budget money on social programs, health and education programs, and expansion of vital services. Each party is playing to their base. In addition, both parties are intent on trying to rebuild infrastructure and maintain foreign investments.
Taking each party's spending and the current debt service into account, there will be no deficit reduction or decrease in the national debt in the foreseeable future. Many economists don't view this as negatively as they have in the past. As long as the economy thrives, debt doesn't appear to be the monster it used to be.
So we agree---both parties are far from fiscally responsible.
absolutely.... with the debt we've already amassed, it is impossible to be fiscally responsible. Both sides are equally at fault.
No. Look at the data.
Bob wants to assign blame--not solve the problem.
"We did it, too, but they did it more!!!!!"
How do you know what I want? Kinda presumptuous of you, hmmm??
Your posts speak for themselves.
I merely pointed it out.
You are talking to yourself. Don't expect me to Reply any more. 'Bye!
Yeah, I kind of figured you run rather than answer me in post 4.3.4.
Adios, amigo.
And you can only change what your own party does. What are you doing? Oh yeah, cutting taxes and building a wall.
that is better than using the money to pay for BS carbon taxes
Cheers
Which is a Republican idea.
I have as much influence on the GOP as you do on the Democratic Party.
get real.
that was REJECTED by the same republicans... only the left would be stupid enough to actually do it
have you heard of hillarycare?
To achieve this, the Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan on his or her own or through programs mandated to be offered by businesses with more than 5,000 full-time employees. Subsidies were to be provided to those too poor to afford coverage,
so.. just curious... did the heritage foundation look at the idea and then REJECT the plan before or after hillary tried it in 1993?
chances are I thought we were on another subject... LOL
oops. back on track
as for carbon taxes being a republican idea?
I do agree carbon taxes are a globalist idea... with both republican globalist, and democrat globalist support. however most of that support comes from the left.
Cheers
Then why do they keep bringing it out every year?
Other than Hillary, who cares?
It was a Republican Governor who pushed for and signed into law the Heritage Foundation plan for his state in 2006.
We live on a globe. With other people. The left would support any plan that might be pushed through even though most of them feel it's probably not enough as long as it actually helps.
and?
I will make you a deal...
when the weather people can accurately predict the weather next week... I will buy into the global warming, cooling, or change theory.
all we have at the moment is al gore types who said florida would be under water by now.
obviously, al gore was mistaken
here is the funny thing...
excuse me for being a skeptic
the question was...
the answer was...
the assertion was.... it was a republican idea.
yet hillary tried it in 1993 while you say it was used at the state level in 2006 by a republican.
unless time travel is real, your problem is... according to you, hillary tried to pass that crap before a republican did.
so let me rephrase my question
what came first, the hillary plan or the heritage foundation plan?
if you say the heritage foundation looked at the plan before 1993 bring a link from a reputable source.
I would not be surprised if hillary copied out of the heritage foundations trash can any more than I am that governor tried it in his state.
I am also not surprised the supreme court shot down the notion that power came from the commerce clause and made it a tax (which is why that law is currently burnt toast by simple majority)
Cheers
When you actually know the difference between weather and climate you'll find out how absurd that comment is.
There has been a lot of confusion. Some by accident (words and labels do matter) and some on purpose (corporate profit protection). We continue to spend a lot of tax money on the fossil fuel industry. Money that would have been better spent on R&D in "greener" tech. But partisan politics again got in the way and China now dominates in that market.
I don't buy into everything the Progressives says we should. I'll debate the best ways to deal with it, but to deny it is to close your eyes to what's going on about you.
Tried is the operative word. Mittens did it.
The mandate will be shut down next year. The PPACA is still law and in effect. It now has an automatic base 20% increase (it could be double that in some markets) because the mandate will be shut down in 2019. Any tax savings my elderly mother sees from the tax cut will be more than swallowed up in the increase in health insurance costs because of the mandate shut down.
no...
1993 (is the operative year)
besides... mittens copying hillary is no shock... both are globalist pricks
prove it was a republican idea... BEFORE 1993
Cheers
Why are you fixated on 1993?
In 1993 Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced the bill, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, with 20 co-sponsors. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were only two Democratic co-sponsors. The bill included:
An individual mandate;
Creation of purchasing pools;
Standardized benefits;
Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
Wrong answer. That bill was pushed and passed by the democrat controlled state legislator. The governor vetoed it seven times and the democrats overrode the vets each time .
so they suddenly got it all figured out huh... LOL
was that before or after al gore said florida would be under water by now? im guessing after?
and all the above can be solved with a global tax.
the good news?
no global tax = no global govt to regulate that tax.
I would rather grow gills than help fund a global govt of any kind.
Cheers
A 1993 Republican House bill called the Action Now Health Reform Act 72 co-sponsors , but its scope was limited. Much of it focused on insurance for small businesses and the self-employed. It offered some protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
You're so funny. Some people have it more figured out than you. You can't even tell the difference between weather and climate.
the assertion in question was it was a republican idea.
I do not disagree with that notion I am just curious.
Only one of whom is still in office and he's leaving in 2018. Ever wonder why they were eased out?
Here's what happened in the present deficit. In order to buy votes and remain in power, the Left set up a deficit that wouldn't mature until the next administration. Then they got the public used to getting "free stuff".
NOTE: Free stuff is NOT free. Somebody always has to pay for it. The government, by its very nature since government produces no wealth at all, has only two methods available to pay for it; steal it or borrow it. Since the victims of government extortion (the taxpayers) have only so much available to be stolen, the rest must be borrowed.
The next administration (whether it would be either Left or Right wing) then had a choice to make. They could continue to hand out "free stuff" and borrow to pay for it since, in this case, that administration did not wish to continue governmentally sanctioned theft, which is political cowardice; or they could tell the public that the free ride was over, which is political suicide.
Once the plebs find that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, they will continue to do so until the supply of other people's money runs out or their credit runs out, or both. In this way are republics destroyed, when the voters decide that the government must support them in the manner in which they would like to become accustomed, whether they deserve it or not (usually they do not).
That, by the way, is the ultimate fallacy of Socialism.
So, you see, both parties actually are equally at fault for trying to buy votes by catering to the voters. The voters (of both parties) are, of course, the ones actually at fault for demanding that the government do things which government should not be doing.
Bob, I say that because, although the Democrats have put forward budgets and programs that ultimately are more fiscally responsible than those that have been put forth by republicans, there still has been a philosophy that "we have to get ours while we are in power". I fully understand that in this arena of absolute partisanship. But we also have to realize that we, as democrats are falling into the same obstructionist mode as the republicans have been in for the eight years of the Obama administration.
I will never forget the meeting right after Obama was elected when McConnell told his republican colleagues that they would fight Obama at every turn and try to make him a one term president. At that moment I realized that we were never going to get out of the political mess that had been created. We were no more a nation of competing but cooperating parties....we were truly enemies. Everything one party does is poison in the eyes of the other party. We can never reach fiscal responsibility if we maintain that attitude.
"Both-sides-do-it-ism" is, IMNAAHO, a form of intellectual laziness. Or intellectual cowardice.
The world is almost never binary: yes/no, on/off, black/white... Almost everything we encounter is on a scale from "a teeny tiny tad" to "a whole thumping BUNCH!"
Part of being an adult is learning to navigate all these approximations.
But saying (for example) that both Obama and Trump said things, while in office, that were not true... is profoundly dishonest. The sentence is "strictly true", but "entirely misleading". Obama did indeed say a few things that turned out to be false. But not very many. Trump has lied almost every day since taking office. (I seeded an article documenting the difference between the two, a while back.) So saying "both lied" shows one of three possibilities: ignorance, dishonesty, of cowardice.
Doc,
The alternative to that is for the parties to "cooperate"; to pass bi partisan legislation which makes it much easier for the government to become a totalitarian dictatorship. To quote Ronald Reagan:
Really? So you get involved in party politics? Have you been to many conventions? There are people who actually decide what the parties do. They're called delegates. Go to meetings. Caucus with other Republicans. Make alliances and supporters and run for delegate in their election and you too can influence the policy of your party.
You will never get an argument from me about the concept of "false equivalence". The republicans are masters of that ruse. Trump lies 2500 hundred times but Obama lied 50 times so they're the same. We know it's b.s. for many reasons, not the least of which sometimes the lie is necessary for national security {Obama} and sometimes the lie is pathological {Trump}.
My arguments about the deficit is that both democrats and republicans have gotten us here {perhaps not at the same rate [note Clinton]}. Now that we are here, the debt is so large and the needs of the country are so great {especially from a liberal perspective} that it is going to be impossible to get the debt or the budget under real control. We have to move forward as a nation, but the first thing we have to do is get the nation to understand the problem and join us in what this country really needs {e.g. demonstrate how Trump's attack on welfare and housing hurt the very people in red states who voted for him}.
t
yeah, I know how shit works, but thanks anyways.
weather is the result of climate (the micro to the macro)
if computers can predict the climate 10 or 20yrs in advance they certainly should be able to predict the weather a few days in advance.
the fact you could not figure out that is what I was talking about on your own? priceless.
as for the temp data being used in the bs assertion that the planet is warming out of control?
lets just say crap data put in a computer... equals nothing but crap data coming out of that computer.
lets play again soon k?
Cheers
You seem to complain a lot for someone who leaves the hard work of setting a party platform to others that's all.
And?
What's it to you?
That's the key there I think SteevieGee - hard work. Tex likes to talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.
As usual, you are without a clue.
You aren't still mad because I proved you wrong earlier, are you?
The insurance mandate was *proposed* by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. Search for "Mandate all households" here: www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans
The Heritage plan was soundly rejected by both Democrats AND Republicans.
the Democrats picked it up out of the trash heap of history and voila! we got stuck with Obamacare.
Democrats OWN it--lock, stock and barrel.
The wall will never be built. It's a political scam and crowd rousing cheer.
EXACTLY!
Increase the Tax rates on the rich to where they were in the 1950's. In fact let's return to the entire tax rate of the Eisenhower era until our budget in under control! Bite the fucking bullet!
It is amazing that you bring this tax rate up because, under this tax rate America was pretty prosperous, we built the interstate system and, along with that came the creation of more jobs, the suburbs were created the middle class came into being as a true force economically and, politically.
The fact is that, even with and in fact because of the very high taxes, America was very prosperous in the 1950's. If we the same tax rates today that we had then we could rebuild our highway system providing millions of well paying jobs. We could complete a nationwide high-speed rail system that would reach every major city, also adding then there are the job that would come from providing services to these projects such as the supplier of steel, iron and concrete. Also you have to figure in the huge increases in business in grocers, automobiles, trucks, new housing, new rentals, a new rebuild of our utility system, nationwide high speed internet for everyone, nationwide cable of satellite TV for everyone, new schools for the new families that will be created by the new workers, new teachers and on and on and everyone of these jobs will provide more jobs because what provided the prospered-ed, was not this raw ignore of “Trickle down” lie being sold by the politicians by making the rich richer and hoping they will hire more people when in fact they won't, they just end up spending the money on stock buy backs and socking it away for future purchases of competitors. No, what made America prosperous in the 1950, even with or because of the high taxes, was because the government put the money into the hands of the American people who would spend it and that spending drove the economy into success for all! Hell even the rich did great! Return the the 1950's Tax Rates!
But, but, but, you're talking about Stalinism, Communism and, Socialism here! How could you?!? And, in case you didn't recognize it, that is sarcasm. I'm all for this idea, always have been. I lived as a kid during this time in history and, I remember, in spite of the undercurrents of the social unrest, (civil rights, Vietnam, McCarthyism), it was a pretty good time to live.
The upper tax brackets of the 40s and 50s of 90% + were sustainable for a pretty simple reason, World War 2, all other countries industrial bases were in shambles and couldn't keep up with demand, so US industry pretty much had a monopoly , along with a couple other countries, so the tax rate was sustainable because the industrial base was basically the only "store " on the block. that tax rate also contributed to paying for involvement in the war.
Move to the 60s and 70s when the tax rate started to drop to the 70% range in the upper brackets, more and more countries industrial bases , were coming on line , countries were making more and more of what the US had a pretty good monopoly on for a number of years, and they were making it in just as good a quality as could be made here as far as consumer goods.
In the 80s and 90s , the tax rate dropped again , and has hovered around what it currently is in the 30 and 40 % range, give or take , again more countries developed their industrial bases , creating more competition globally.
Today we live in the industrial equivilant of a 1980s strip mall, more vendors are in the market place so competition is brutal, and tax rates will and do decide if someplace stays or goes out of business , or moves production someplace where taxes are not as high. there are other factors that determine all that as well, but what do I know?
we industrially are not one of the only stores on the block any more , and other nations are on line industrially on an equal level , and can do just as good at making things , usually cheaper.
tax rates have to be sustainable, if they make producers , close or move , it affects the entire tax base to its very core.
return to the upper tax rates of the 40s and 50s is doable , but not much will be collected , the sucking sound we will hear is industry leaving until such time , conditions are more favorable, and now a days , everything we think we need to buy , can be made elsewhere.
some things to keep in mind because we have already seen it happen.
Dems will NEVER go back to the 1950's tax rates. Too many people actually PAID federal income taxes back then. That's one reason why, even with tax cuts for the wealthy, the wealthy now pay a larger share of income taxes collected than they did in the 1950's.
Then why did the lower and middle class pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes collected back then than they do now?
Who knows, and who cares?
The simple FACT is the wealthy today pay a greater share of income taxes collected than they did in the 1950's.
The middle and lower class pay a smaller percentage of income taxes collected today than they did in the 1950's.
Which fact you already know to be insignificant . You continue to post in Bad Faith .
Looks like he’s right.
of course I'm right.
Some can do nothing but yell BAD FAITH when they can't produce ANY evidence to contradict me or even to prove their own point.
Look at the data.
I have.
Please tell me what Congress has not had deficits?
And it would be nice if you could come up with one example from the last 70 years.
Read the seed.
I did.
if my question had been answered in it, I wouldn't be asking now.
Common sense.
if I missed it (doubtful), please enlighten me and tell me in which paragraph it is in and I will reread it a couple of times and then get back to you.
Ummm... that was not the President. That was the Fed.
And what were the consequences, in your opinion?
Ummm...
That doesn't actually mean anything.
You probably shouldn't try to discuss a topic if you know nothing about it.
You probably shouldn't try to discuss a topic if you know nothing about it.
doubling the national debt. And now we have the battle against inflation as the Fed retires Treasury bonds and raises interest rates they kept artificially low under Obama
It was more like 3 trillion and it was pulled back out. They also didn't "just print money". The Fed purchased mortgage bonds instead of the usual treasuries until the stock market returned to pre-crash levels.
I see no reason to repeat the data that you supposedly have already read.
That's a stock answer when you are questioned on your claims and are unable to support those claims.
Yes, it is tantamount to being like the Ostrich that see's a Lion running at it and instead of fleeing, sticks it's head in the ground in denial.
Hint: It doesn't end well for that Ostrich .....
I agree with both Doc and yourself, neither party is fiscally responsible but in a differing manner. At some point in time (I will hopefully be on the other side when it comes), the bill will come due and it will be a twenty trillion dollar plus tab.
I'd want neither holding my purse strings.
20??
I expect it to pass 40 before I die.
If either were truly "Responsible", the deficit wouldn't keep going up, even using the ridicules meme of "slowly" !
That's silly.
Team A adds 5, Team B reduces 1, Team A adds 5, Team B reduces 1. Total? Plus 8, although Team B did -2. So it's very easy for the total to keep growing, despite one team being responsible.
Math...
Now, go back and read the graphs again. The deficit keeps rising because the Republicans blow it up faster than the Dems deflate it.
Highest deficits in history were run with Democrats in charge.
You may wish to dispute that but the facts aren't in doubt.
You have the pertinent data in front of you... but you just keep on denying it. The very worst kind of Bad Faith .
Deleted Skirting {SP}
If you can't answer questions, just say so. No harm, no foul.
But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
You made an assertion that is CERTAINLY not addressed in the article, and when I called you on it, you stammered around and then disappeared.
SHOW ME A DEMOCARTIC CONGRESS THAT DID NOT RY+UN DEFICITS IN THE LAST 70 YEARS.
Is it THAT hard for you to prove after your wild claims?
Deleted Skirting {SP}
Stay classy.
Learn something.
I have.
I've learned you can't defend your positions very well.
Thanks, and y'all have a real nice night, y'hear?
Like I said, Going up "Slower" at times is still going up . Besides, Tax cuts don't add to the deficit, government still spending the same amount, or more, grows the deficit.
Tax cuts make MY wallet fatter. That's a good thing.
Are you saying that, for you, "going up" and "going up slower" mean the same thing? Seriously?
A "deficit" is a negative difference between revenue and expenditures. In the present case, it is primarily created by the Republicans' reduction of revenues.
The "Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I, Me, I" attitude...
There is no denying.....UP is UP....over Spending is OVER SPENDING ! !
Do you always have this "Government, always Government" Attitude ?
How much extra do YOU send the government, and do you take every deduction available?
So, for you, all numbers greater than zero are equal? Up by 1 or up by 100... are the same? 1=100…?
Tribal loyalty is understandable... but I think you're kinda going too far...
Show me 0....and/or a Negative.....and I'll be impressed with government.
Wow! It's been a long time since I have seen such a blatant ad hominum.
So you confirm: in your mathemagical universe, all numbers above zero are equal.
Seems as though you feel we aren't taxed enough, and I just want to make sure you are paying your fair share!
When it comes to Government Dept and Deficits, does it matter what the positive number is ?
It's all UP....right !
I hear ANYONE can contribute more than is required, to help pay off the government indiscretions, ANYTIME THEY WANT TO !
You're talking to yourself again...
H-o-l-y... F!
You persist!
Look... It's amusing to get a peek into your... ummmm... thinking... But once it's clear that you believe that all positive numbers are equal... There's not much else to say.
Be happy.
ALWAYS !
And I apparently made YOU HAPPY too.
Just remember, a deficit is always deficit, no matter how big or small.
You overlook a MAJOR point about tax cuts and revenues.
Revenues are not reduced because of tax cuts.
Here:
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/.../15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue
Oct 14, 2012 · Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.
Well, at least that way I can get an honest answer!
yepp, your damn right about that one.
our money is not, somehow magically your money or even the govts money. we own the govt, we own the money, govt does what we want with the money we allow them to take from us in taxes... not the other way around.
get used to it.
if the fed needs more money? they can start here...
Cheers
Democrats are put in charge after Republicans have screwed it up. Democrats are handed huge deficits and have to institute real economic policies to push those deficits down. Here are some facts:
When Reagan took office, the government was borrowing $90B/year (the deficit).
When Bush I took office, the gov’t was borrowing $255B/year. So, Reagan increased borrowing by 180%.
When Clinton took office, the gov’t was borrowing $347B/year. So, Bush I increased borrowing by another 36%.
When Bush II took office, the gov’t was borrowing $133B/year. So, Clinton DECREASED borrowing by 62%.
When Obama took office, the gov’t was borrowing $1,885B/year. So, Bush II increased borrowing by 1300%.
When Trump took office, the gov’t was borrowing $671B/year. So, Obama DECREASED borrowing by 65%.
Tax cuts don't lead to revenue drops. It is proven again and again over time.
Two possibilities here:
- You are ignorant of the most basic economic reality of recent decades,
- You are perfectly aware that your words are false. You are posting in Pure Bad Faith !
I kinda think it's the second case...
He keeps talking about facts that he provides, which are never to be found. He expects us to take his word.
Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/.../15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue
Oct 15, 2012 · Tax cuts lead to increased government revenue ... Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? ... when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong ...
okay, argue the facts.
I provide links--which you carefully avoid reading.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
You BAD FAITH ranting is getting stale. You need to fixate on something else for a while.
Can you explain why the percentage of income taxes collected from the wealthy has increased when you keep saying that tax cuts reduce revenue?
if that were true, and all the tax cuts benefitted the wealthy, as you claim, why would their share of taxes paid be increasing instead of decreasing?
This is the kind of thing that makes me think that you are constantly posting in Bad Faith .
Either
- you truly do not know that income tax is far less important to the ultra-rich than capital-gains (and you should learn a little bit about the topic before expounding), or
- you do know... and are (once again, as usual, as always... ) posting in Bad Faith .
Please list the last 6 tax cuts and then how much revenue declined in the following years.
In other words, prove your point.
If tax cuts lead to reduced revenues, then the pattern from the last 50 years should have been less income tax revenue, not more of it.
U.S. Tax Revenue by Year
Here's a record of income for each fiscal year since 1960. There are links to more details about the revenue back to the FY 2006 budget. Tax receipts fell off during the recession, but started setting new records by FY 2013.
FY 2019 (est.) - $3.42 trillion
FY 2018 (est.) - $3.34 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
FY 2009 - $2.10 trillion.
FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion.
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion.
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion.
FY 1980 - $517 billion.
FY 1979 - $463 billion.
FY 1978 - $399 billion.
FY 1977 - $356 billion.
FY 1976 - $298 billion.
FY 1975 - $279 billion.
FY 1974 - $263 billion.
FY 1973 - $231 billion.
FY 1972 - $207 billion.
FY 1971 - $187 billion.
FY 1970 - $193 billion.
FY 1969 - $187 billion.
FY 1968 - $153 billion.
FY 1967 - $149 billion.
FY 1966 - $131 billion.
FY 1965 - $117 billion.
FY 1964 - $113 billion.
FY 1963 - $107 billion.
FY 1962 - $100 billion.
FY 1961 - $94 billion.
FY 1960 - $93 billion.
FY 1789 - FY 1959 - $1.1 trillion. (Source: "Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2018," OMB.)
As I said, and will continue to say... READ THE FUCKING SEED!
I initially finished that last sentence with ", you moron!"... but I deleted because it might be construed as a violation of the CoC...
I read it. Why can't you simply point out what you claim is in the article?
Because you can't find it either!
Because if you are too dense to read the seed, there's no point.
So you can't provide any proof.
Figured as much anyways, but was more than willing to let you try.
This article contains a fun graph which purports to show a relationship desired by Republicans between reducing taxes and government revenue. If you actually look at it, the revenue increases steadily unperturbed by the wild moves of the tax rate. He needs to go back to 1913 to get a 50% correlation. Look at the graph from 1988 forward; tax rate is pretty stable, but revenue increases by a much greater amount. The correlation in that part of the graph is essentially zero. Remember, correlation is NOT causation.
Here’s a much better article on the same site:
This article shows the breakeven of a tax cut to be about 26 *years*. Investing the money in infrastructure, education, or healthcare will produce a much greater than breakeven payback much more quickly.
Your one factor ‘analysis’ is simplistic. The US economy is very strong, so revenues almost always increase. But how much more would they have increased without tax cuts? Let’s add the deficit at the end of each presidency. The deficit should not be increasing unless Republicans are spending too much money. Deficits are increasing so Republicans are spending too much money, and they always use tax cuts as one of their main methods of spending money.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion. End of Obama, deficit $671B
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
FY 2009 - $2.10 trillion. End of Bush II, deficit $1.9T
FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
FY 2001 - $1.99 trillion. End of Clinton, deficit $133B
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion. End of Bush II, deficit $347B
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion. End of Reagan, deficit $255B
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion.
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion. End of Carter, deficit $90B
Note that all Republican presidencies dramatically increased the deficit and both Democratic presidencies just as dramatically decreased the deficit. As the Forbes article in my previous post shows, tax cuts can increase revenues, but you have to wait 2 to 3 decades for that to happen; in the mean time, tax revenues are not as high as the could be.
What is posted is revenue.
please show me the dramatic declines in REVENUE because of tax cuts.
Still waiting.
I don’t think you want to understand, but I’ll try. The Republicans stated that their tax plan would cost $1.5T over the next decade. The real number is looking more like $1.8T, but we’ll go with $1.5T. This is $150B per year. So tax revenue will be $150B less per year than it would be without the tax reform. This will require the US to borrow $150B/year to cover that loss. That’s why Republicans have stated it will increase the debt by $1.5T over the next decade.
The US economy is enormous and growing, so tax revenues will increase year to year, but this increase will be less than it could be by $150B/year. This $150B decrease in revenue is the result of the tax cuts.
I dont know how much any of this matters these days, it seems to me That America has recently decided on a huge gambling of the house financially and the outcome will either be a great win or a great loss.
Cutting taxes and raising spending is one hell of a bold move IMO.
I know I wouldn't take a cut in pay and go purchase a new home weeks later. But IMO that is what America just did. All I can figure out is, Billionaire math must be different that mine....lol But then again I've never declared bankruptcy either.
Aw c'mon people. Deficits don't matter, right? Cheney or some other joker said that.
None the less. Mexico will pay for the wall. Trump and the Trumpers said that too.
No, deficits DO matter.'
To whatever party isn't in power.
making some people pay a higher cost for a product, so others can pay less, or get that product free.... is a weird way of paying for its new programs (obamacare)
thank god for the supreme court smack down of forcing people to buy under the commerce clause
trumps bill to lower taxes and end that buy or be taxed scheme? priceless.
I will be the first to admit the Republican party is no longer about reducing the deficit, more about spending money "their way" (military and tax cuts), but to suggest the Democratic party has any fiscal responsibility is ridiculous. They just piss it away on constituent building (illegal immigration, welfare, food stamps) Stop kidding yourself.
Actually, Newt Gingrich Republicans are the Fiscal Responsible party. Moderate Republicans spend like the Democrats did when Tip O'Neill was speaker, ignoring their promises to Reagan to cut spending by the same amount that they cut taxes. Did anyone notice how the author pointed to how it was the Presidents that had all of the deficits due to their policies? He only had 2 paragraphs talked about how Congress influences the budget and the resulting deficits. He even ignored the fact that the main reason we hadn't had a balanced budget or surplus since 2001 was the result of the recessions caused by the 9/11 attacks and then the real estate bubble bursting. He gives Obama credit for cutting the deficit, when in fact it is easy to cut a deficit when it starts at about $1 trillion each year due to bank and auto bailouts as it was for the first several years of Obama's terms. I am quite sad that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have both forgotten the lessons of Newt Gingrich and how to balance a budget as the foundation for all of the surpluses before 9/11 was solely from the actions Newt Gingrich took while Speaker of the House with Bob Dole and Trent Lott being the Senate Majority Leaders. Frankly, Republicans need to re-embrace those policies that Newt had while Speaker.
Not really. It all depends on how one frames "fiscal responsibility." Speaking strictly from a fiscal standpoint, removing all emotion (difficult for some i know) Democrats easily lose the "fiscally responsible" battle. The largest example being social spending and how to pay for it.
Almost all of the massive spending on social programs and "non discretionary" spending was created and/or implemented by Democrats. While i'm not arguing validity of that one way or the other, when one claims Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility they are ignoring almost all of the facts like that which are salient from a purely "fiscal" standpoint.
One can argue that much of that social spending is what a "good" society does for it's people but that does not speak to what a "fiscally responsible" society does for it's people. I know talk like that makes some folks uncomfortable John but you can't change the facts. You can try to spin the conversation another way like this article does but that is all that is.
Spin.
Yes. And you are framing completely beside the point.
"Fiscal responsibility" is about balancing the budget (over a long period). "Fiscal responsibility" has nothing to do with whatever may be in that budget:
- A small, no-social-safety-net budget is "irresponsible"... if revenues do not cover expenditures.
- A huge nanny-state budget is "responsible"... if revenues do cover expenditures.
Either
- you do not understand the meaning of the words you use - "fiscal responsibility", or
- you do know what they mean and are intentionally misusing them. Bad Faith .
Nah, it's right on point but it blows the nonsense you like to push right out of the water. Yours is simply a load of socialist claptrap.
Lol, of course it matters but no worries. I prefer to not take my lessons in Economics for our capitalist system, from a socialist spin doctor. And please, save your sophomoric insults for someone they might work on. I could give a shit what you think.
That said I should know better by now than to get into discussion like this with you. No matter how hard you try to spin it, you have ZERO interest in having a truly GOOD FAITH discussion. So you just claim "bad faith" with anyone who doesn't goose-step in exact unison with your radical narrative and move on to your next socialist crusade.
Sad, since it's the exact opposite of what you claim to be. Good faith from you? Hilarious!
How true!!!
Ummm... It's my seed.
If you should decide to never come to any of my seeds, ever again... well... I'll miss you.
Oh, is there where you say - "It's my ball and I'll take it home if I don't get my way"????
No worries .... i'll leave you to the echo chamberisih nirvana you appear to be working towards here ..... as you were ....
OMG, now you have gone and done it.
You have invoked the wrath of someone in, wait for it-----------BAD FAITH!!
OMG, stop the madness!!!
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
You are hilarious with your bad faith comments!
Oh the humanity!
On the off chance that anyone participating here is actually interested in the topic expressed in the title...
There's a pretty good counter-point up on Vox .
Ooooh, BAD FAITH!!
Thanks to all for participating here. Response times are getting pretty bad, with 250 Replies to load... so I'm going to lock.
For those who would like to continue discussing tax policy, I suggest my most recent seed .