Obama should give back his tax refundFollow

Already did it. Several times in several threads in fact. Go back and look.

Edit: Article discussing the Bush policies and 2010 deficits. I could parrot from it but why bother when people can read from the source. The actual Bush impact is deeper since the article doesn't count the Medicare Part D impact since they said they couldn't accurately figure the cost and didn't want to throw random numbers into the mix.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 11:37am by Jophiel

Sorry for the Elnese, but I been trying to grok some very wonky articles.

I just found a new blog to follow through a friend in high school, who happens to be an economist. So far from what I read the only "experts" that agree with Gbaji are people who worship Ayn Rand and the Heritage Foundation.

Sadly any explanations of what happen in 2008 will be fought tooth and nail with cries of how the Democrats want to spend more, when history actually shows that the Repub, are bigger spenders and TARP and the Stimulus, prevented far worst outcomes that would have lead to higher unemployment and tighter credit market.

In other words people who think everyone should be selfless and can't understand simple math.

IF I had my say, the tax rate would go back to the rates from 1960. Even at half of the 1960 tax rate, we could get the deficit pay off and balance the budget without having to cut spending on safety net programs. Old NYTimes article that goes more in deep.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 4:19pm by ElneClare

Well Ayn Rand did idolize psychopath mass murders.

I think deep down they know this, but they've been told for so long that Dems are bad that they just believe it now. They've also built up an immunity to facts.

From what you read on what appears to be a very very liberal source? Forgive me if I apply a huge grain of salt to that. And he predictably has the same faulty definition of fiscal conservative I see all the time. Fiscal conservatism is *not* about balancing the budget. It's about reducing the tax burden. Period. Saying "where are the fiscal conservatives?" and pointing at conservatives opposing tax increases to pay off a deficit shows just how ignorant the person asking the question is.

The numbers I'm using are pretty clear. What's funny is that it seems like people like Joph just keep tossing the kitchen sink at the issue argument wise. "Oh well, what about Bush's Tax cuts? Ok. Well even if that isn't the cause, what about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!? I heard someone on the TV say it, so it must be true!!! Oh. That's not it either. Well, what about Medicare Plan D that Bush spent money on! unfunded entitlements! That must be it."

None of those things add up. I have shown exactly where the deficit increase is coming from. And by far the largest portion of that deficit increase comes from increased spending on social services. Welfare and Medicaid have the largest percentage jumps. Social Security went up significantly. Medicare actually only increased modestly relative to its historical spending trendline (and actually may have declined as a result of the changes Bush made, but I haven't done the full math on that yet).

I'm not presenting just opinion. I'm presenting fact. And while I'm sure there are some economists who are willing to ignore the very clear numbers in front of us for partisan reasons, I'm not going to put any weight on their opinions. I'm looking at those clear numbers. And they're telling us in very clear language that the bulk of the current deficit is the result of spending increases over the last couple years. There's just no way to measure it and not come to that conclusion.



Where is this shown? I'm honestly curious. Are you just saying that because you heard it somewhere? Or do you have any numbers to back it up? Because we heard liberals say this for 8 years straight while Bush was in office, despite relatively flat spending levels and little if any new spending during that time period, and usually by doing silly math tricks (like saying that "we spent more money this year than ever before!!!", when that's true every year and is thus irrelevant). They constantly talked about Bush's deficits/debt even while the actual debt ratio was steady and sustainable.

And within one year of the Dems taking control we've seen spending the likes of which we haven't seen since the 40s. Yet some people still repeat the "The GOP are the big spenders" line as though they just haven't been paying attention the last couple years. How can anyone say that after looking at all the spending we just did? Spending which was opposed nearly universally by the GOP. Amusingly, when the GOP did that they were called obstructionists and the "party of NO" and partisans, and attacked for not working with Democrats more. Yet now, suddenly everyone forgets that it was the Dems who embarked on this spending spree and the GOP who steadfastly opposed every single step of the way.


The crisis we're in right now is the Dems fault. It's just baffling to me how anyone can argue otherwise and not know that they're lying while doing it. It's like watching someone rob someone else, but then trying to come up with excuses for what happened and then going so far as to blame the victim. It's just bizarre.



There's some irony there.



Everyone talks about how much higher the tax rates were "back then", and think that since it didn't hurt us then, it wont hurt us now. But the problem is that there were even more loopholes in the tax code then then there are now. The wealthy paid less taxes as a percentage of their total earnings back then. What has been found to work well tax wise is to lower the rates (flatten them a bit) and eliminate loopholes. But you have to do both.


And that still ignores the larger issue which is that increasing total tax revenue raised by the government is not a good thing. This is also something I just don't understand why people don't get. It's like you think it's good for someone to take more from you. How does that work?

Well, it's not CNS News, the AEI site or LifeNews, if that's what you mean by "very, very liberal".


Translation: "I'm wrong but I'll just say anyone who disagrees with me is 'very, very liberal' and a total partisan and then I can ignore their facts".

Yeah, that should work. No one would ever suspect you of ignoring simple facts for partisan reasons :D

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 6:05pm by Jophiel

I'll give you a hint: it will involve reloading, and likely exclude retreating.

I don't think I've seen anyone here actually refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with how much is being spent. Maybe you're just confused that they're not blindly blaming a single side?

Except for those who've argued that it's because of the Bush tax cuts of course. Or, by implication, those who argue that we should be ok with raising taxes to reduce the deficit (why should we if lowering taxes isn't what caused the problem in the first place?).

No one is saying just raise taxes, either.

Well, except you.

So you refuse to read it?

Ok, your call.

Just finished reading it. They use similar numbers to mine, and come to some initially similar results (economic downturn being about $400B of the deficit for example, although I suspect that they are ignoring the amount of revenue reduction in the form of stimulus "tax credits", but whatever). They also correctly place "increased spending" at 1.1T of deficit over the 2009/2010 time frame (I said $560B/year, so our numbers are pretty much in agreement).

What the article you linked is basically arguing is that had we not spent the money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not passed the Bush tax cuts, we would have extra money today with which to pay for all that increased stimulus-related stuff in 2009/2010. And that's pretty much the extent and entirety of their argument.

But there's a huge gaping flaw with that argument. It attempts to spend money we didn't have. In 2009/2010 we had already committed to and/or spent the money we were and will spend related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, we had already passed the Bush tax cuts. And for the better part of a decade those two things didn't cause a massive and unsustainable deficit. The Democrats choose to spend more money in 2009/2010 years in an environment where those earlier effects already existed. IMO, that's an incredibly bogus argument to make. We can always argue that if only taxes were higher, we'd be able to afford to spend more on our federal budget. But that argument misses the point entirely.


It would be like if you had a monthly budget for your household for 10 years during which time your debt level was stable. Then one day you choose to buy a boat. You can't afford the boat, but you borrow money to buy it anyway. Then the monthly bills come in and you find that you don't have enough money to pay your monthly bills, so you start borrowing more money on your credit cards. Every sane person would say that you are running up your debt because you bought a boat you couldn't afford. Only a really nutty person would go looking at other parts of the household budget and argue "But if only we didn't spend $300 on this car payment, and $200 on entertainment, and $400 on food, we wouldn't be in debt!".


It's a moronic argument on its face. They're cherry picking past effects and blaming them instead of looking at the decisions which were made in 2009/2010 with full knowledge of the effects those things would have on our debt picture in the environment we were in at the time. It was those decisions which pushed us into unsustainable debt levels, not the decisions made 8-10 years ago. You don't get to count up chickens you never had and then buy stuff today based on the assumption that if you had those chickens you could sell them for the money you need. I mean, you can make that argument, but no one with a lick of economic sense would.