Bronco has won a can of worms

[mistermack]

We have a SPENDING problem.

Believe it or not, I also think the problem is more on the spending side than the revenue side (though we also do have a revenue problem).

However, as much as entitlement spending bloats the budget, it wasn't anybody in government who invented the notion of perpetually aging demographics thanks to medical science. And it certainly wasn't liberals who championed the idea of reducing the federal government to its smallest size (relative to GDP) since the 1920s. But that's the direction we've put Uncle Sam on over the last few decades. For all the talk of Big Government, it used to be a helluva lot bigger.

I might be a financial flea, but there is something wrong here.
If the problem is a lack of spending, then who the fuck is doing all the borrowing?
And why?

[Ian]

Um, it's not a lack of spending problem. It's an excess of spending problem.

[Gerald McGrew]

There was a recession in 2000-2001. The tax cuts were a remedy to that.

Once again, you attempt to re-write history. The Bush tax cuts were sold to the American public as a solution to a federal surplus. W. Bush specifically campaigned on the idea of "giving that money back". In Feb. 2001, he addressed a joint session of Congress and said, "The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund".

Once again, the conservative version of reality just isn't true at all.

They worked. And, they helped increase revenue.

The Wall Street Journal found that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

See, now I would think someone who claims to be a member of the skeptical movement would understand the difference between correlation and causation. If we were to go merely with correlation, we would also have to conclude that the Bush tax cuts crashed our GDP...



Of course reality is much more nuanced that simple correlation analyses, isn't it? The Bush tax cuts definitely put more money into the hands of the wealthy. They in turn used that money to generate more money through increasingly complex investments (e.g. credit default swaps, derivatives) and mortgage backed securities that were a reflection of the emerging housing bubble. The second round of Bush tax cuts included cuts to capital gains and dividends, further exacerbating the issue.

But perhaps the biggest effect of the Bush tax cuts was a dramatic rise in inequality between the very wealthy and the middle class. As the wealthy made increasing amounts of money off their new money, middle class wages stagnated.

A Washington Post article discussed data that showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

We have a SPENDING problem.

The article you cite states, "The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent."

Once again you exhibit black/white thinking, despite what your own source states. That quote makes it very clear that we have a revenue and spending problem, not just one or the other. And that stands to reason, as a budget deficit is the gap between revenue and expenditures.

So the solution to this problem is to figure out were spending cuts need to come from, and where new revenues need to come from. Gee....two things? But that's so....nuanced!!!

[Gerald McGrew]

Then you'll get what you wish for with the fiscal cliff.

Nah. Both sides have a clear incentive to avoid it, even if it means kicking the can down the road until after the midterms.

I posted, above, the reductions in tax rates which applied across the board to all taxpayers from top to bottom. The greater percentage reductions in tax rates went to lower income tax brackets. And, the ultimate result was that the share of the total tax burden paid by "the rich" went way up, and the total number of dollars paid by the upper tax bracket went up.

The CBO found otherwise: "President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-636398.html

Data...the conservatives' kryptonite.

[Coito ergo sum]

There was a recession in 2000-2001. The tax cuts were a remedy to that.

Once again, you attempt to re-write history. The Bush tax cuts were sold to the American public as a solution to a federal surplus.

That is utter nonsense. There was a recession. The tax cuts were sold as a means to help stimulate the economy.

Moreover, technically, there was no surplus, anyway. It was an accounting gimmick. But, in fairness, it was damn close to breaking even, which was really, really good.

W. Bush specifically campaigned on the idea of "giving that money back". In Feb. 2001, he addressed a joint session of Congress and said, "The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund".

Once again, the conservative version of reality just isn't true at all.

But, the reason was to stimulate the economy.

They worked. And, they helped increase revenue.

The Wall Street Journal found that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

See, now I would think someone who claims to be a member of the skeptical movement would understand the difference between correlation and causation. If we were to go merely with correlation, we would also have to conclude that the Bush tax cuts crashed our GDP...

Sure, but it's not mere correlation based on the sources I gave.

Of course reality is much more nuanced that simple correlation analyses, isn't it? The Bush tax cuts definitely put more money into the hands of the wealthy. They in turn used that money to generate more money through increasingly complex investments (e.g. credit default swaps, derivatives) and mortgage backed securities that were a reflection of the emerging housing bubble. The second round of Bush tax cuts included cuts to capital gains and dividends, further exacerbating the issue.

But perhaps the biggest effect of the Bush tax cuts was a dramatic rise in inequality between the very wealthy and the middle class. As the wealthy made increasing amounts of money off their new money, middle class wages stagnated.

There are many more factors that enter into income inequality than the Bush tax cuts.

But thanks for admitting that the tax cuts did stimulate the economy.

A Washington Post article discussed data that showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

We have a SPENDING problem.

The article you cite states, "The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent."

Once again you exhibit black/white thinking, despite what your own source states. That quote makes it very clear that we have a revenue and spending problem, not just one or the other. And that stands to reason, as a budget deficit is the gap between revenue and expenditures.

Sure, somewhat -- but, the main part of the problem is spending. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them when it comes to agreeing to spending cuts. I don't blame the Republicans for holding tax increases back while demanding spending cuts. We saw in 1991 with Bush the Elder that if you give the Democrats tax increases and rely on their good faith to give you spending cuts later, it won't happen.

So the solution to this problem is to figure out were spending cuts need to come from, and where new revenues need to come from. Gee....two things? But that's so....nuanced!!!

Fuck off you snarky little shit.

I don't have a problem at all with figuring ways to increase revenue collection.

[Gerald McGrew]

That is utter nonsense. There was a recession. The tax cuts were sold as a means to help stimulate the economy.

*sigh*

Once again, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to debate someone who ignores the reality staring them in the face and sticks to their talking points no matter what. I might as well go back to trying to argue genetic data with creationists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That is utter nonsense. There was a recession. The tax cuts were sold as a means to help stimulate the economy.

*sigh*

Once again, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to debate someone who ignores the reality staring them in the face and sticks to their talking points no matter what. I might as well go back to trying to argue genetic data with creationists.

That's why I don't bother.

[Gerald McGrew]

A Theory About Conservative Crapola

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... apola.html

Forget a nickel; I'd a sixpence for every piece of conservative crapola spin I heard in the last two months. In retrospect, it's very revealing about they try to game the system to get places like Politico and other mainstream outfits to assume they're correct and accept their assumptions.

There was no way on Earth, for example, that young people were going to turn out this time. They were a higher percentage this time than last. Higher! Gallup, for one, bought into this in a huge way.

There was also no way Obama voters were as enthusiastic as Romney voters. Just no way. The enthusiasm gap. Everyone bought it. Again, the opposite was true.

Americans were going to be outraged by Benghazi. Chicago made up jobs numbers. Florida was a done deal. Romney had momentum until Sandy. And on and on.

Conservatives say these things with such conviction. I think they believe them to be true. And there's a reason for that. Not so long ago, when conservatives said these things en bloc, they would come true. They'd happen. Back in Clinton's day, say. Or Bush's, before the debacles really hit home.

But then at some point, the majority of Americans stopped buying conservative bullshit. It must have been after Iraq. And Katrina. But now, conservatives can't make surrealities come true just by saying so.

But that wont stop them from trying.

[mistermack]

Um, it's not a lack of spending problem. It's an excess of spending problem.

And it certainly wasn't liberals who championed the idea of reducing the federal government to its smallest size (relative to GDP) since the 1920s. But that's the direction we've put Uncle Sam on over the last few decades. For all the talk of Big Government, it used to be a helluva lot bigger.

I'm now totally mystified. It's an excess of spending problem, even though it's been shrinking in real terms over the last few decades?

It's a lack-of-spending problem NOW. Lack of private spending anyway.
That's the problem with any recession. Caused by lack of confidence in the future, lack of stability, and too much previous spending on credit. ( like overvalued houses ).

Basically, the whole thing is a lack of STABILITY problem. Bubbles of any kind, whether stock market or houses, need stamping on when they start. Not years later.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Bush tax cuts prompted a surge in employment --



Whatever you folks have been smoking, the Bush tax cuts were in response to a recession. And, they worked to spur on growth and employment.

[Jason]

[Gallstones]

"Bronco"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Our President, Bronco Bamma.

[mistermack]

"Bronco"?

[Pappa]

There was a recession in 2000-2001. The tax cuts were a remedy to that.

Once again, you attempt to re-write history. The Bush tax cuts were sold to the American public as a solution to a federal surplus.

That is utter nonsense. There was a recession. The tax cuts were sold as a means to help stimulate the economy.

Moreover, technically, there was no surplus, anyway. It was an accounting gimmick. But, in fairness, it was damn close to breaking even, which was really, really good.

W. Bush specifically campaigned on the idea of "giving that money back". In Feb. 2001, he addressed a joint session of Congress and said, "The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund".

Once again, the conservative version of reality just isn't true at all.

But, the reason was to stimulate the economy.

They worked. And, they helped increase revenue.

The Wall Street Journal found that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

See, now I would think someone who claims to be a member of the skeptical movement would understand the difference between correlation and causation. If we were to go merely with correlation, we would also have to conclude that the Bush tax cuts crashed our GDP...

Sure, but it's not mere correlation based on the sources I gave.

Of course reality is much more nuanced that simple correlation analyses, isn't it? The Bush tax cuts definitely put more money into the hands of the wealthy. They in turn used that money to generate more money through increasingly complex investments (e.g. credit default swaps, derivatives) and mortgage backed securities that were a reflection of the emerging housing bubble. The second round of Bush tax cuts included cuts to capital gains and dividends, further exacerbating the issue.

But perhaps the biggest effect of the Bush tax cuts was a dramatic rise in inequality between the very wealthy and the middle class. As the wealthy made increasing amounts of money off their new money, middle class wages stagnated.

There are many more factors that enter into income inequality than the Bush tax cuts.

But thanks for admitting that the tax cuts did stimulate the economy.

A Washington Post article discussed data that showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

We have a SPENDING problem.

The article you cite states, "The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent."

Once again you exhibit black/white thinking, despite what your own source states. That quote makes it very clear that we have a revenue and spending problem, not just one or the other. And that stands to reason, as a budget deficit is the gap between revenue and expenditures.

Sure, somewhat -- but, the main part of the problem is spending. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them when it comes to agreeing to spending cuts. I don't blame the Republicans for holding tax increases back while demanding spending cuts. We saw in 1991 with Bush the Elder that if you give the Democrats tax increases and rely on their good faith to give you spending cuts later, it won't happen.

So the solution to this problem is to figure out were spending cuts need to come from, and where new revenues need to come from. Gee....two things? But that's so....nuanced!!!

Fuck off you snarky little shit.

I don't have a problem at all with figuring ways to increase revenue collection.

Coito, this is a reminder to please play nice and that personal attacks are against the rules.