What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[RightField]

Actually, spending has been passed year after year as part of a continuing resolution. Actual amounts of money going to any single program has remained stable (or cut) except for the military. What has increased is the interest being paid to fund things that we didn't have the money to pay for, such as wars and tax breaks to the rich.

The military has stayed fairly stable as a percentage of GDP, the increased spending has gone towards entitlement programs and other non-military spending. I'll dig up some charts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's the spending that's gone way up so I say cut the spending first before we start talking about changing the tax structures.

Spending hasn't gone way up. Taxes have gone down. What spending has increased was increases that should have been budgeted for since they mostly involve baby boomers getting older. It's not my fault that people who think like you don't have enough common sense to realize you need a serious pad for an unprecedented group of people.

 

[Dribble]

The military has stayed fairly stable as a percentage of GDP, the increased spending has gone towards entitlement programs and other non-military spending. I'll dig up some charts.

Why? Maybe the military has remained stable. I already admitted the entitlement programs are going out the roof and are unfundable. BUT that is only part of the problem. The other problem is giving tax breaks that CAN"T BE PAID FOR and fighting WARS THAT CAN"T BE PAID FOR. If you can't pay for it, then don't do it.

 

[RightField]

I'll get more...says military spending year to year has been small, 1.2% which is below the level of inflation (meaning that military spending is shrinking). It's from NCPA, but quotes the Wall Street Journal (link reference below).

Federal Spending Continues to Increase
October 21, 2011
National Center for Policy Analysis

Maybe it's a sign of the tumultuous times, but the federal government recently wrapped up its biggest spending year and its second biggest annual budget deficit, and almost nobody noticed, says the Wall Street Journal.

• This is said to be a new age of fiscal austerity, yet the government had its best year ever, spending a cool $3.6 trillion.
• That beat the $3.52 trillion posted in 2009, when the feds famously began their attempt to spend America back to prosperity.

What happened to all of those horrifying spending cuts? Good question.

• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that overall outlays rose 4.2 percent from 2010 (1.8 percent adjusted for timing shifts), when spending fell slightly from 2009.
• Defense spending rose only 1.2 percent on a calendar-adjusted basis and Medicaid only 0.9 percent, but Medicare spending rose 3.9 percent and interest payments by 16.7 percent.
• In somewhat better news, federal receipts grew by 6.5 percent in fiscal 2011, including a 21.6 percent gain in individual income tax revenues.
• The budget deficit increased slightly in fiscal 2011 from a year earlier, to $1.298 trillion.
• That was down slightly as a share of gross domestic product to 8.6 percent, but as CBO notes, this was still "greater than in any other year since 1945."

Some increase in deficits was inevitable given the recession, but to have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn't happened in modern U.S. history.

Source: "A New Spending Record," Wall Street Journal, October 19, 2011.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6637513885592874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

For more on Tax and Spending Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=25

Email

 

[Dribble]

It is odd how the GOP only thinks cuts should happen...yet they claim the Democrats only want to increase taxes.

In reality, the Democrats I hang around are saying let's do both. Simplest solution resulting in potentially fixing the problem the quickest. Oh...that makes too much sense.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Spending hasn't gone way up. Taxes have gone down. What spending has increased was increases that should have been budgeted for since they mostly involve baby boomers getting older. It's not my fault that people who think like you don't have enough common sense to realize you need a serious pad for an unprecedented group of people.

income has gone way down for government because obama is not only killing the economy, but he is preaching and telling other democrats that welfare & unemployment are career options

 

[NeverEndingMe]

It is odd how the GOP only thinks cuts should happen...yet they claim the Democrats only want to increase taxes.

In reality, the Democrats I hang around are saying let's do both. Simplest solution resulting in potentially fixing the problem the quickest. Oh...that makes too much sense.

lets cut taxes
cut # of government workers
cut government spending

 

[NeverEndingMe]

It is odd how the GOP only thinks cuts should happen...yet they claim the Democrats only want to increase taxes.

In reality, the Democrats I hang around are saying let's do both. Simplest solution resulting in potentially fixing the problem the quickest. Oh...that makes too much sense.

obama/democrats are wanting to repeat what Japan did and they are still trying to recover

 

[RightField]

Why? Maybe the military has remained stable. I already admitted the entitlement programs are going out the roof and are unfundable. BUT that is only part of the problem. The other problem is giving tax breaks that CAN"T BE PAID FOR and fighting WARS THAT CAN"T BE PAID FOR. If you can't pay for it, then don't do it.

Tax policy varies tremendously based on what it's for and who gets it. The temporary program called Cash for Clunkers, for example, did nothing to stimulate the economy. Temporary reductions in social security premium payments do nothing either. Marginal tax rate reductions do help...or reductions on cap gains taxes...very positive too. It makes a big difference.

Our deficits were coming down while Bush was President, even with both wars in full effort. The Obama deficits were about 4 to 5 times as high ($300 vs. 1,500) as Bush's while the wars were ramping down. Strange isn't it? The democrats are spending us into penury.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

what has the obama regime done to improve the economy?

oh, obama gave a speech about gas prices going up is the GOP fault.

clearly, obama has no idea what to do

 

[RightField]

It is odd how the GOP only thinks cuts should happen...yet they claim the Democrats only want to increase taxes.

In reality, the Democrats I hang around are saying let's do both. Simplest solution resulting in potentially fixing the problem the quickest. Oh...that makes too much sense.

From the Wall Street Journal. Hopefully, this will clear things up, military spending is down and most everything else is up.

The nearby table shows the budget trend over the last five years, and it underscores the dramatic negative turn since the Obama Presidency began. The budget deficit increased slightly in fiscal 2011 from a year earlier, to $1.298 trillion. That was down slightly as a share of GDP to 8.6%, but as CBO deadpans, this was still "greater than in any other year since 1945."

Mull over that one. The Obama years have racked up the three largest deficits, both in absolute amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe. Some increase in deficits was inevitable given the recession, but to have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn't happened in modern U.S. history. Yet President Obama fiercely resisted even the token spending cuts for fiscal 2011 pressed by House Republicans earlier this year.

The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Those are the numbers to point to the next time someone says that the Bush tax rates are the main cause of our current fiscal woes.

Under those same tax rates in 2007, the government raised $2.57 trillion in revenue but it spent only $2.73 trillion. Four years later, the government raised $265 billion less thanks to the tepid recovery, but it spent nearly $900 billion more thanks to the never-ending Washington stimulus.

 

[Dribble]

Tax policy varies tremendously based on what it's for and who gets it. The temporary program called Cash for Clunkers, for example, did nothing to stimulate the economy. Temporary reductions in social security premium payments do nothing either. Marginal tax rate reductions do help...or reductions on cap gains taxes...very positive too. It makes a big difference.

Our deficits were coming down while Bush was President, even with both wars in full effort. The Obama deficits were about 4 to 5 times as high ($300 vs. 1,500) as Bush's while the wars were ramping down. Strange isn't it? The democrats are spending us into penury.

Deficits were not coming down under GW.

Once again, the solution is twofold:
1) remove the tax cuts
2) cut spending

Who controls the House? And where do all revenue bills originate?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html
Seems like it isn't just a Democrat problem to me.

 

[Dribble]

From the Wall Street Journal. Hopefully, this will clear things up, military spending is down and most everything else is up.

Again...why focus on something I already conceded?

Let's focus on these:

Why fight wars that can't be paid for?
Why give tax cuts that can't be paid for?
Why provide services that can't be paid for?


Why include quotes that have no links?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Deficits were not coming down under GW.

Once again, the solution is twofold:
1) remove the tax cuts
2) cut spending

Who controls the House? And where do all revenue bills originate?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html
Seems like it isn't just a Democrat problem to me.

no no no no no no no no no

we can't tax our way out of it. sorry. this is a classic example of a socialist failure dream

obama has less talent than Bozo the Clown - both are from Chicago

 

[RightField]

Deficits were not coming down under GW.

Once again, the solution is twofold:
1) remove the tax cuts
2) cut spending

Who controls the House? And where do all revenue bills originate?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html
Seems like it isn't just a Democrat problem to me.

(From the Wall Street Journal)
The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP

The House did pass a bill that would reduce spending and tighten tax deductions to raise tax revenues...but the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to even consider it. The Republicans have tried and tried to control spending and every time Harry Reid and the Democrats refuse to bring them up for a vote. Of course, they don't even provide a counter-proposal and instead leave the Government without a budget or spending targets. So it's not a "bi-partisan" problem and it appears that the only way its going to get fixed is that if enough of the Democrats in the Senate are defeated in the up coming elections to cause a change in leadership.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Again...why focus on something I already conceded?

Let's focus on these:

Why fight wars that can't be paid for?
Why give tax cuts that can't be paid for?
Why provide services that can't be paid for?


Why include quotes that have no links?

jimmie carter was a fuck up for a president
and obama will be a bigger fuck up.

the only person smiling about having obama as POTUS is Jimmie Carter
(and of course those that use welfare as a career path)

 

[Dribble]

no no no no no no no no no

we can't tax our way out of it. sorry. this is a classic example of a socialist failure dream

obama has less talent than Bozo the Clown - both are from Chicago

I love alts...they are so predictable. Take the obvious, broken down into simple phrases, ignore what was said and pretend something else was said instead.

 

[RightField]

Again...why focus on something I already conceded?

Let's focus on these:

Why fight wars that can't be paid for?
Why give tax cuts that can't be paid for?
Why provide services that can't be paid for?

Why include quotes that have no links?

I don't want to talk about the war...it was authorized with lots of votes from both parties and not causing an undue strain on the economy (4.6% unemployment and close to budget balance in 2007 just before Pelosi and Reid were put into leadership positions). While I'd rather have had it end quickly like predicted, it's already done and there's nothing we can do about it now.

The tax cuts stimulated the economy (more money was in the hands of the citizens and was spent in such a way that we had strong economic growth and low unemployment) AND increased tax revenue - so tax cuts were good for the country and the economy.

We're going to have to cut down on entitlements and get rid of Obamacare (a huge new unpaid-for liability). It would probably be a good idea to have government pensions changed from defined benefit to 401K-like also similar to most of the rest of America (which was forced away from defined benefit approaches by Government tax policy many years ago).

 

[Dribble]

(From the Wall Street Journal)
The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP

The House did pass a bill that would reduce spending and tighten tax deductions to raise tax revenues...but the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to even consider it. The Republicans have tried and tried to control spending and every time Harry Reid and the Democrats refuse to bring them up for a vote. Of course, they don't even provide a counter-proposal and instead leave the Government without a budget or spending targets. So it's not a "bi-partisan" problem and it appears that the only way its going to get fixed is that if enough the Democrats in the Senate are defeated in the up coming elections to cause a change in leadership.

Then maybe the House should have worked to find a compromise? See, that is how it should work (and did work until Newt started the attacking process against Clinton). Instead, offering somthing that they know will be rejected is obstructionist.

 

[RightField]

Then maybe the House should have worked to find a compromise? See, that is how it should work (and did work until Newt started the attacking process against Clinton). Instead, offering somthing that they know will be rejected is obstructionist.

The Democrats in the Senate never sat down to address it nor did they send back a mark up...they were the "obstruction".

 

[Dribble]

I don't want to talk about the war...it was authorized with lots of votes from both parties and not causing an undue strain on the economy (4.6% unemployment and close to budget balance in 2007 just before Pelosi and Reid were put into leadership positions).

The tax cuts stimulated the economy (more money was in the hands of the citizens and was spent in such a way that we had strong economic growth and low unemployment) AND increased tax revenue - so tax cuts were good for the country and the economy.

We're going to have to cut down on entitlements and get rid of Obamacare (a huge new unpaid-for liability). It would probably be a good idea to have government pensions changed from defined benefit to 401K-like also similar to most of the rest of America (which was forced away from defined benefit approaches by Government tax policy many years ago).

We can't pay for any of them.
But still, you support the ones you want and not talk about the ones you supported and have proven to be a farce and ignore the others that you don't want claiming it was "good for the country". If it was "good for the country" because it put more money in the hands of the taxpayers, why increase some taxpayers taxes by asking one segment to pay for another segment's tax break?

 

[Dribble]

The Democrats in the Senate never sat down to address it nor did they send back a mark up...they were the "obstruction".

I don't see it that way. The House sent something that was a non-starter. They were told it was a non-starter. They chose to pretend to do something that never had a chance of surviving.

This is how it is done...The Senate offers a continuation of the withholding tax break. The House says only if it is paid for. The Senate says OK, pay for it. The House says OK, we don't want to be held responsible in an election year for making these decisions so we will pass your version. The withholding tax break passes with overwhelming support from both parties. Compromise.

 

[RightField]

We can't pay for any of them.
But still, you support the ones you want and not talk about the ones you supported and have proven to be a farce and ignore the others that you don't want claiming it was "good for the country". If it was "good for the country" because it put more money in the hands of the taxpayers, why increase some taxpayers taxes by asking one segment to pay for another segment's tax break?

Why are we asking for so few people to pay most of the taxes? What if 10% of them decide that they don't like having to pay so much in taxes and decide to change their behaviors to legally reduce their tax liabilities?

Warren Buffet, for example, got paid almost no salary. Most of his income was based on capital gains. He sold a lot of investments last year and paid millions upon millions of taxes on them last year. You don't incur capital gains taxes if you don't sell investments and chosing to sell or not sell is an individual's choice. If Obama decides to double the capital gains tax like he's proposing people will simply stop selling unless they need to and tax revenue will shrink by a lot.

On the other side of it, the increase in cap gains taxes will slow buying and selling while people hold onto investments longer (for many reasons - only one of which is larger tax liability). What that means to the economy is that money will be slower to move from bad investments to new and better ones - innovations which will slow our national economic growth.

Obama has already said he doesn't care if we get less revenue because he's more concerned with "fair"...but in this case "fair" makes us all poorer.

 

[RightField]

Too bad for you then. I hope that the makers can defeat the takers in the next election, otherwise we'll end up as a 3rd world nation within a decade.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I don't see it that way. The House sent something that was a non-starter. They were told it was a non-starter. They chose to pretend to do something that never had a chance of surviving.

This is how it is done...The Senate offers a continuation of the withholding tax break. The House says only if it is paid for. The Senate says OK, pay for it. The House says OK, we don't want to be held responsible in an election year for making these decisions so we will pass your version. The withholding tax break passes with overwhelming support from both parties. Compromise.

do you eve live in America?

I don't think you do