Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I find myself completely unable to follow your lack of logic. Taxes have consistently run at 20% of GDP no matter what the rates have been, debt has consistently gone up since Eisenhower. Combining those two factual statements leads logical people to believe you are full of shit.
You didn't bother to look at the chart I linked to. The numbers I used are factual data. Your '20% of GDP no matter what' is nonsensical.
You provided a chart that proved how delusional you are and I missed it? Do you understand the difference between gross receipts and percent of GDP? If you don't, tell me which years you think prove your point and I will use your chart, and the specific years you are talking about, to prove mine.
Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.
9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com
You didn't bother to look at the chart I linked to. The numbers I used are factual data. Your '20% of GDP no matter what' is nonsensical.
You provided a chart that proved how delusional you are and I missed it? Do you understand the difference between gross receipts and percent of GDP? If you don't, tell me which years you think prove your point and I will use your chart, and the specific years you are talking about, to prove mine.
You can start by proving your claim that taxes consistently run at 20% of GDP.
Prove it with historical data from a reliable source, or we'll consider it retracted and out of the conversation.
My figures are all in the link I provided.
Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.
9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Your title does not match your post. The CBO said no such thing. You quoted a political blog using CBO data to draw an conclusion CBO did not make. I'll be charitable and assume you never bothered to look up the CBO report and were unaware that the blog drew a false conclusion.
So do you agree with my characterization of what you did, or are you going to attempt to parse the CBO report to support a statement CBO did not make and never would have made?
Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.
9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.
9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com
intereting and honest...to economists, deficits are simply the difference between revenues and outlays. A large deficit could be a good thing if it's going toward a productive investment. A small deficit can be a bad thing if the economy needs more support. So if you're worried about deficits, you need to say why.
Simply pointing out that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion a year lately, and that that is a really big number, isn't much of an economic argument
From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.
Revenue as Share of GDP is the thing, the historical share has been if I recall, 18.0%(?), the key is to grow the pie not the slice...if you get 18% of 120, you're better off than getting 18.5 of 100...tax reform gets us there, smart tax reform.
From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.
I am sorry but I just don't buy the 'logic' that when a decision is made to let people keep more of their money, and, the gov. continues to spend at levels that incur debt. that the issue is taxes......imho, thats a lazy way to look at it, yes the issue is taxes only in that they are not adjusting spending according to revenue.
I have been looking for that tax payer credit card. There must be a history of taxpayers paying off that credit card, but you can't document it. Instead, we have the lowest taxes since the very early 50's or before. Someone seems a whole lot confused.From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.
I am sorry but I just don't buy the 'logic' that when a decision is made to let people keep more of their money, and, the gov. continues to spend at levels that incur debt. that the issue is taxes......imho, thats a lazy way to look at it, yes the issue is taxes only in that they are not adjusting spending according to revenue.
It is lazy move to raise spending & cut taxes on tax payers credit card to buy votes. It takes balls to balance the budget. Borrowing from future taxes to cut current taxes is not a tax cut. It is a tax & inflation increase.
From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.
I am sorry but I just don't buy the 'logic' that when a decision is made to let people keep more of their money, and, the gov. continues to spend at levels that incur debt. that the issue is taxes......imho, thats a lazy way to look at it, yes the issue is taxes only in that they are not adjusting spending according to revenue.
It is lazy move to raise spending & cut taxes on tax payers credit card to buy votes. It takes balls to balance the budget. Borrowing from future taxes to cut current taxes is not a tax cut. It is a tax & inflation increase.
Oh and what happened to the Pay As You Go Democrats in congress and President Obama? Why do they not pay for anything as they go? Why do we never hear anything about that from the left?
Revenue as Share of GDP is the thing, the historical share has been if I recall, 18.0%(?), the key is to grow the pie not the slice...
Your title does not match your post. The CBO said no such thing. You quoted a political blog using CBO data to draw an conclusion CBO did not make. I'll be charitable and assume you never bothered to look up the CBO report and were unaware that the blog drew a false conclusion.
So do you agree with my characterization of what you did, or are you going to attempt to parse the CBO report to support a statement CBO did not make and never would have made?
Don't be charitable, show me what the CBO said that contradicts their summary of the report, which I agree with.
CBO said:If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending
do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to
$642 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative
to the size of the economy, the deficit this yearat
4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)will be
less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was
10.1 percent of GDP.
Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise
more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits
in CBOs baseline projections continue to shrink, falling
to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015 (see Table 1 on page 8).
However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later
in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in
2023, because of the pressures of an aging population,
rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies
for health insurance, and growing interest payments on
federal debt.
Revenue as Share of GDP is the thing, the historical share has been if I recall, 18.0%(?), the key is to grow the pie not the slice...
Growing inflation & debt is not growing the pie.
From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.
I am sorry but I just don't buy the 'logic' that when a decision is made to let people keep more of their money, and, the gov. continues to spend at levels that incur debt. that the issue is taxes......imho, thats a lazy way to look at it, yes the issue is taxes only in that they are not adjusting spending according to revenue.
It is lazy move to raise spending & cut taxes on tax payers credit card to buy votes. It takes balls to balance the budget. Borrowing from future taxes to cut current taxes is not a tax cut. It is a tax & inflation increase.
How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.
We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.
Your title does not match your post. The CBO said no such thing. You quoted a political blog using CBO data to draw an conclusion CBO did not make. I'll be charitable and assume you never bothered to look up the CBO report and were unaware that the blog drew a false conclusion.
So do you agree with my characterization of what you did, or are you going to attempt to parse the CBO report to support a statement CBO did not make and never would have made?
Don't be charitable, show me what the CBO said that contradicts their summary of the report, which I agree with.
Your source was not the CBO. The CBO report is here:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf
You might want to read it.
CBO said:If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending
do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to
$642 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative
to the size of the economy, the deficit this yearat
4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)will be
less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was
10.1 percent of GDP.
Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise
more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits
in CBOs baseline projections continue to shrink, falling
to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015 (see Table 1 on page 8).
However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later
in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in
2023, because of the pressures of an aging population,
rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies
for health insurance, and growing interest payments on
federal debt.
1. Over the next few years, debt levels are expected to be stableand even decline slightly. Todays federal debt is equal to 73 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Thats expected to drop to 68 percent of GDP by 2018. But thats still historically high, and a huge increase from just a few years ago: Debt was just 39 percent of GDP in 2008, about where its been, on average, for forty years. And even these slightly lower debt levels wont last for long.
How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.
We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.
Historical federal tax revenues have averaged 19% of GDP. Then the ultra rich have loopholes so they don't pay federal taxes or pay low 13% like Mitt Romney. The rest of us get saddled with payroll & income taxes costing us 33% with an effective federal tax rate of 22% after deductions. The middle class is subsidizing the rich who are driving up the deficit & stealing the SS surplus. Middle Class payroll taxes are carrying the Rich & the country. It's time the Rich got off the back or the Middle Class & carried their own fat ass.
