You mean this little table Gbaji that perfectly illustrates my point.
You mean the table I produced? This should be good!
As revenue Decrease (as a % of GDP) The deficit and Debt increased.
Ok. Quick math lesson: Deficit = Spending - Revenue
Deficit (and its effect on debt) will increase identically whether revenue drops *or* spending increases. A dollar of extra spending has the exact same effect as a dollar less revenue. That's because it's a simple subtraction problem. You seem to think there is magic involved or something. Revenue is not the only determinant of deficit and it's amazing that you would make that statement.
Culminating in a total of 21% increase to Debt over Bush's 8 year Term. Obama has had 1 year of a 9% increase to Debt. Which is smaller than the year Bush left on. (the 2009 Budget which was a 13.2% increase to debt.)
That's not how you calculate debt deltas btw. And even if it was, you're basically admitting that Obama generated 9% in one year, while Bush generated 21% in 8 years. So... Bush's average debt increase was 2.6% per year, while Obama's was 9% per year. So you just proved to me that Obama is increasing the debt at 3.5 times the rate as Bush!
Was that what you meant to say? I mean, you're wrong anyway, but even when you're wrong you're making my point for me, so that's just kinda sad... :(
Obama has decreased spending, and decreased the annual deficit. Yet until he is able to increase Revenue the debt will never drop back to normal levels. He can cut a further 6% to return to early bush era spending levels, but if revenue does not increase that is still a 3-4% rise in Debt a year.
I already addressed this. These are historical budget data, not projected budget data. This is not how much the previous year's government wanted to spend, but what we actually spent. So all those emergency spending bills passed in 2009 by the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress are included in that 2009 spending level. You do understand that the projected budget deficit for 2009 back when Bush was finalizing that budget with Congress (and let me remind you that the Dems were in control of congress in 2008, so it's unfair to call the whole thing "Bush's budget") was about $450B.
How do you suppose we went from a projected budget deficit of $450B to an actual budget deficit of 1.5 Trillion dollars? Sure. Revenue dropped $400B, but that only accounts for less than half of the difference in projected deficit. Spending increases accounted for the remainder.
Try doing some actual math sometime. It might help.
In order to increase Revenue the Government must raise taxes
No, it doesn't. I've explained this about 10 times across two different threads now. We did not lower taxes to cause that revenue to drop. So why do you assume we must raise taxes to make it increase? Please tell me that you understand that the reason revenue has dropped is because of the slower economy? Not as many people are employed. People aren't buying as much stuff. Businesses aren't investing as much. That's why revenue is down. We don't need to raise taxes. We need to recover the economy.
And while this is clearly my own economic ideology, I believe that the best way to do that is to stop constantly talking about raising taxes. You do get that when you tell big business and the rich that you're going to raise their taxes "any day now", they're not going to sink money into the economy as much as they might otherwise? Why would I invest in some new venture in the US if I suspect that my return on that investment will be hampered by higher tax rates? I'm going to wait and see what happens and invest in gold or something in the meantime.
Some of us argue that it's the talk about raising taxes (and the spending which makes those tax increases more likely in the first place) that has kept the economy from recovering in the first place. Had we not spent all that money on "recovery" and then said we'd pay for it by raising taxes on those greedy rich people, it's entirely possible we'd be recovered by now. At least that's the economic theory that I subscribe to. You're free to disagree, but at least try to have a reason for why you think your position is better. So far, I'm just seeing you spout rhetoric.
...and must Invest money into the economy to promote Job Creation.
Which isn't going to happen if you're taxing the money that would be spent doing this. Sheesh!
The US government must reign in spending, and attract foreign investment again to reach the same ends. All of these things have to happen to heal the Debt Crisis. You can't just cut spending and call it a day, and you can jut cut spending and start 2 wars, and build the country on a phantom bubble.
Lol! And yet, I have repeatedly shown how neither the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the Bush tax cuts had anything at all to do with our current economic situation
. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's a bogus talking point the left uses to deflect the discussion away from the real problem.
Both parties need to adopt some realistic solutions. Bickering at one because they want to increase revenue, and bickering at the other because they want to decrease spending is stupid. At the moment Obama's plan of action supports both methods. While keeping investment in emerging job markets to promote job creation which furthers growth revenue, and deficit reduction.
Except that the Dems keep saying this, then refuse to give any of their spending up. They'll push for tax increases. They'll promise spending cuts "after we raise taxes to deal with the immediate crisis". But when the time comes, they wont cut any of their precious programs. And they certainly wont allow them to be changed in any way which might actually make them more cost effective in the long run. Nope. Can't allow the other side to "win" anything at all.
The left talks about compromise, but they never ever do it. So forgive me for not taking Obama at his word here.
It is the exact same sh*t that Clinton had to go through in the first term he had after Bush Sr. It is republican economics, built on the faulty premise of trickle down economics.
No. It's a dogmatic ideology which cannot acknowledge that trickle down effects do work which requires that Democrats ignore the correct solutions and instead promise BS that wont work. I've been saying for years that the problem with the Dems and economics is that once they find themselves in a negative economic situation, they can't use the best tools for climbing out of it because those tools are identified with the "supply side" economic theories. Since using those would undermine their social agenda, they usually just sit there and spin until eventually conservative economic ideas are adopted and we recover. We saw this in the 70s and we're seeing it again now.
Fat Cats don't give a sh*t about investing in America, the give a sh*t about investing in Money. Which right now, is leaving America in boat loads.
Lol! But if there were money to be made investing in America, wouldn't they invest in America? Shouldn't the correct response be to make investing in domestic things profitable? At the very least, can't you see how by making it unprofitable (by say raising taxes), you're making those fat cats take their money elsewhere? It's like you know what's wrong, but just can't make that final mental connection to see the whole picture.
You can't stop rich people from moving their money. Raising taxes isn't the right idea. Edited, Apr 14th 2011 6:58pm by gbaji