Three Strikes - You're out

[finnbow]

Reagan introduces the nation to Reaganomics. The result: deficit doubled as a percentage of the GDP. Cause: Decreased taxes with increased spending.

Dubya is elected. A 2% (of GDP) budget surplus becomes a 2% deficit. Cause: Decreased taxes with increased spending.

Now, the GOP takes the House and is talking about cutting taxes while not having a serious deficit reduction plan, despite the rhetoric (i.e., it only wants to curtail discretionary spending to 2008 levels).

So, will the GOP succeed where it never has or will it be more of the same old, same old? Unfortunately, I say: Same old, same old. I'd like the GOP to deliver on its fiscal sanity message, but I'm highly skeptical. If I actually believed them, I likely would have voted for them. However, my vote was for punishing the biggest liar, the GOP.

[CarlV]

Like this?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Reagan introduces the nation to Reaganomics. The result: deficit doubled as a percentage of the GDP. Cause: Decreased taxes with increased spending.

Dubya is elected. A 2% (of GDP) budget surplus becomes a 2% deficit. Cause: Decreased taxes with increased spending.

Now, the GOP takes the House and is talking about cutting taxes while not having a serious deficit reduction plan, despite the rhetoric (i.e., it only wants to curtail discretionary spending to 2008 levels).

So, will the GOP succeed where it never has or will it be more of the same old, same old? Unfortunately, I say: Same old, same old. I'd like the GOP to deliver on its fiscal sanity message, but I'm highly skeptical. If I actually believed them, I likely would have voted for them. However, my vote was for punishing the biggest liar, the GOP.

The only element in this post that I might agree with is that government has a voracious appetite for spending money it doesn't have. There's no question that reducing tax rates increases economic activity, thus increasing revenues to the treasury. The question is, what does the government do with the money when it arrives in the Treasury?

The answer - From Carter to Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr and finally Obama, the Federal Budget has increased every year, and has continued to out-pace Treasury revenue. The Clinton budget "surplus" was BS as well. I could run a huge surplus as well if I didn't have to account for my debt, and/or only paid off the interest on my total debt balance while increasing that debt balance year after year.

[finnbow]

Facts are stubborn things:



So you think the GOP is going to reintroduce fiscal discipline (as Clinton did)?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Facts are stubborn things:



So you think the GOP is going to reintroduce fiscal discipline (as Clinton did)?

You're chart simply echos my point above. The Clinton "surplus" scenario was accounting slight of hand. Taking in more than you're spending AND financing with additional debt, and refusing to account for your ballooning actual debt, and suggesting the federal budget was somehow in a "surplus" scenario, is laughable.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

The actual debt position of the Federal government under Clinton went from $4,064,620,655,521.66 to $5,656,270,901,615.43 in the last year of his presidency. Doesn't sound like we were running a surplus does it, unless you want to ignore your increasing debt.

[BlueStreak]

Same old, same old.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

There's no question that reducing tax rates increases economic activity, thus increasing revenues to the treasury. .

you bought that pack of lies
hook line and sinker

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

you bought that pack of lies
hook line and sinker

Yep. Bush's tax cuts sure did work great, didn't they?

[noonereal]

more importantly, why can't the jets score this year?????

10 points in two games. Good God.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

you bought that pack of lies
hook line and sinker

As Finn stated, "Facts are stubborn things":

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-p...rary/ota81.pdf

"First, most of the bills enacted before 1982 were tax cuts. During this period, inflation was relatively high and the individual income tax parameters were not indexed for inflation. Without indexation, inflation can push taxpayers into higher tax brackets without any increase in real income. This phenomenon is called “bracket creep,” and it increases federal revenue as a percentage of GDP without any legislative action. In fact, when inflation is relatively high and bracket creep is particularly intense, as it was through much of the 1970's, policymakers have to cut taxes repeatedly to maintain the desired level of taxes. Of the 9 major tax bills enacted between 1968 and 1981, 6 reduced federal revenue."

"Second, in 1981, ERTA was enacted, which provided for the indexation of the individual income tax parameters. The combination of indexation and relatively large federal budget deficits helped cause 9 of the 11 major tax bills enacted between 1982 and 1993 to increase federal revenue."