Cain Follow

Except that at the federal level, it's two different groups of people doing those two things, and one of them happened before the other. Yet, amazingly, the second group wants to blame the deficits caused by their spending on the first group not raising enough taxes to allow them to do it. 10 years ago.

What's the expectation from the left here? That the GOP is all ready to lower tax rates because the economy is doing well and we've even got a surplus, right? But wait! At some point 10 years from now, the Dems might want to massively increase spending, so instead of cutting taxes and giving that surplus back to the people, let's just keep on collecting taxes so we can afford that future spending increase!

Yeah... No. That's kinda moronic, isn't it? But that's the required scenario to blame any of our current deficit on the Bush tax cuts.

FTFY, since you apparently fail at reading charts.

Edited, Jun 7th 2011 3:45pm by Demea

So forget the majority of the Clinton years where he didn't either.

Selective reading works well when you don't care that the full results might make you look like an idiot. Works for varus all the time.

Now read that chart paying attention to not just who's in the Oval Office, but which party is in control of congress. And actually look at the data. All of it.

Expenses "went up under Bush #2", but not up to the levels they'd been in the early 90s. Revenues went down (duh, they lowered tax rates and we had a recession), but then came back up. The trend from the mid 90s to 2007 is pretty good compared to the rest of that chart, isn't it? Too much revenue at first, then an adjustment, and what starts to look like a nice balance.

Then we hit another recession and revenues drop. Then there's an abnormal revenue drop in 2009/2010. That's the extra drop from the tax credits in the stimulus bill btw. Then revenues come back up. Take a look at reveues 2008 through 2012 (estimated I guess). Then look at revenues during the 2002-2005 recession. Pretty similar, aren't they? What's different?


Spending is different. Notice the massive spending increase in 2009/2010. Nowhere else on this chart do we see deficits even close to what we see in those two years. Notice that spending is projected downward. That's not because it would decrease if the Dems were still in power, that's an estimate based on what the GOP is likely to do (I'm not a fan of estimates and projections, so take that for what it's worth).


The point being that the chart shows exactly what I've been saying all along. It was not revenue that created our current debt problem. It was spending. Absent the stimulus tax credits, revenue would have dipped in more or less exactly the same pattern as it did in the early 2000s. Why did one recession recover so easily and one didn't? Look at the spending difference. One is a gentle slope, the other is a freaking cliff. That's why we're in trouble right now. It has nothing to do with the economic downturn, the housing bubble, or the financial markets. It has everything to do with overspending by the Dems, using those things as an excuse.

Raise taxes, illiterate one.

Your contention that it's always the fault of Democrats is pretty amusing, as it paints the GOP as complete and utter pussies every time. What, your boy W couldn't veto stuff that he didn't like?

If you want to spend money, you should have it. That goes for any administration, and I wish Obama had the balls to step up & get taxes to higher levels.

Wow, read 1/2 my posts again. I said I'm not happy with how Obama is dealing with it. If he wants to raise spending, he should raise taxes.

And "trending" towards a balanced budget... Of course, he could have just, you know, CUT spending when he cut taxes. (You know, your hero).

I realize we will never think the same, and I thank Bob every day for that.

One last post, because arguing with Gbaji gives me hives.

- IF you are going to cut taxes, cut spending
- If you are going to raise spending, raise taxes.

Is that simple enough for you?

It's too simple for me. I already said that balancing the budget isn't the only consideration.


So. Hypothetically, if I increased the budget to equal the entire US GDP, it would be fine as long as I increased the taxes to 100% on everything? If not, then isn't your "simple" rule not really enough?


And if we follow that logic and accept that there is some value to keeping both of those values "low", then can't we also say that there's a huge difference between running a deficit because you lowered taxes without cutting spending, and running a deficit because you raised spending without raising taxes? One trends us "lower", while the other trends us "higher", right? So what Bush did resulted in a deficit, but had no other harmful effects in terms of the government footprint on the total US economy. What Obama has done not only hurts us by running a deficit, but increases that footprint as well.


And that's without pointing out the significantly different size of those deficits.

Answer the question. It should be self-evident why it's relevant. Do you agree that there would be a problem if both government spending and revenue were equal to 100% of GDP? Think it through.



It trends the footprint of the government on the economy "lower" (or smaller if you prefer). Maybe you just aren't getting what I'm talking about. Imagine two economies:


1. Government spending and revenue is 20% of GDP.

2. Government spending and revenue is 25% of GDP.


In both cases, the budget is balanced. However, in the second case, the government is consuming more of our economic resources than in the first. For those who care about this, it's kinda important. Assuming you agree that there is a point at which government is "too big" (that's why the hypothetical question is important), then you should care about it as well. This is why I keep saying that it's not just about balancing the budget, nor is it just about running a deficit.


Bush ran a deficit because he lowered taxes, which temporarily decreased revenue. Spending was already "low". It had been made low because the GOP in congress had been cutting and holding back spending for 6+ years. He didn't need to cut spending. But by cutting revenue, he trended both "lower". Get it? Obama, on the other hand, is doing the exact opposite. He has massively increased spending, creating a deficit. And he's attempting to raise taxes (and thus revenue) to match. Thus, his economy is trending "higher". Get it?


I didn't think I needed to explain simple lines on a graph.

Yes, but you're an academic imbecile, so your opinion really doesn't hold much water.

An imbecile's an imbecile. Educated or not.