Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Dad2three]

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?

Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues.

Besides his "peace dividend" defense cuts, where did he cut spending?

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."




The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves.

I guess it's a good thing that I never claimed they did.

No, you only asked

"Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?"

I showed you right?

 

[Dad2three]

So Apple creates no $$$$ when you buy their stock or products?

Really?

Is the money spent on Apple sock or products somehow different than money spent to buy T Bonds?

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

So, you got nothing.

OK

Companies can go bankrupt, and many do every day. ... But countries like the US that 100% controls it's money supply, can NOT go bankrupt




Reviving Economics: The US CANNOT Go Bankrupt

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."




The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves.

I guess it's a good thing that I never claimed they did.

No, you only asked

"Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?"

I showed you right?

de·prived
adjective

: not having the things that are needed for a good or healthy life

Not so much.

 

[Dad2three]

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves.

I guess it's a good thing that I never claimed they did.

No, you only asked

"Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?"

I showed you right?

de·prived
adjective

: not having the things that are needed for a good or healthy life

Not so much.

I guess the CBO saying it lost $1.7 trillion BECAUSE of Dubya's UNFUNDED tax cuts doesn't matter... Your grandkids can pay it back....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, you only asked

"Which tax cuts deprived the government of revenue?"

I showed you right?

de·prived
adjective

: not having the things that are needed for a good or healthy life

Not so much.

I guess the CBO saying it lost $1.7 trillion BECAUSE of Dubya's UNFUNDED tax cuts doesn't matter... Your grandkids can pay it back....

I'm all for funding the tax cuts. I'm willing to start cutting $1.7 trillion in spending, today!

 

[Dad2three]

de·prived
adjective

: not having the things that are needed for a good or healthy life

Not so much.

I guess the CBO saying it lost $1.7 trillion BECAUSE of Dubya's UNFUNDED tax cuts doesn't matter... Your grandkids can pay it back....

I'm all for funding the tax cuts. I'm willing to start cutting $1.7 trillion in spending, today!

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works. When Ronnie cut revenues he should have cut spending, instead he ramped it up. That's how he got out of the recession he got in after he passed his tax cuts...


Same with Dubya, AS he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created an UNFUNDED Medicare expansion that costs as much as Obamacares this decade, which is 100%+ funded

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess the CBO saying it lost $1.7 trillion BECAUSE of Dubya's UNFUNDED tax cuts doesn't matter... Your grandkids can pay it back....

I'm all for funding the tax cuts. I'm willing to start cutting $1.7 trillion in spending, today!

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works. When Ronnie cut revenues he should have cut spending, instead he ramped it up. That's how he got out of the recession he got in after he passed his tax cuts...


Same with Dubya, AS he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created an UNFUNDED Medicare expansion that costs as much as Obamacares this decade, which is 100%+ funded

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years....

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works.

Why doesn't cutting spending work?

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years.

Obviously, just look at Obama's $7 trillion addition to the debt.

Practically penurious.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm all for funding the tax cuts. I'm willing to start cutting $1.7 trillion in spending, today!

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works. When Ronnie cut revenues he should have cut spending, instead he ramped it up. That's how he got out of the recession he got in after he passed his tax cuts...


Same with Dubya, AS he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created an UNFUNDED Medicare expansion that costs as much as Obamacares this decade, which is 100%+ funded

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years....

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works.

Why doesn't cutting spending work?

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years.

Obviously, just look at Obama's $7 trillion addition to the debt.

Practically penurious.

Yeah, because policies Bush put in place ended the day he left office *shaking head*


How Austerity Has Failed


How Austerity Has Failed by Martin Wolf | The New York Review of Books


The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart

The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart




Austerity has not worked as advertised. It's been a huge failure and and depressed many economies to slower growth and slower future revenues. These revenues compound over the years and makes the picture even worse.



The International Monetary Fund admitted it had failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece | Business | The Guardian



The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed
While the human cost of economic stupidity is all too visible, the world's leaders are paralysed by their dogma


The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer




It's Official: Austerity Economics Doesn't Work

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Apple isn't a monopoly issuer of the currency, it's a currency user. Both government and private assets are denominated in dollars. The fluctuation of stocks and valuations are a different matter entirely.

So, you got nothing.

OK

Companies can go bankrupt, and many do every day. ... But countries like the US that 100% controls it's money supply, can NOT go bankrupt


Reviving Economics: The US CANNOT Go Bankrupt

Ka-Ching! The Koch Brothers have to pay Dad2 a "Libs R Tards" Bonus

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works. When Ronnie cut revenues he should have cut spending, instead he ramped it up. That's how he got out of the recession he got in after he passed his tax cuts...


Same with Dubya, AS he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars and created an UNFUNDED Medicare expansion that costs as much as Obamacares this decade, which is 100%+ funded

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years....

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works.

Why doesn't cutting spending work?

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years.

Obviously, just look at Obama's $7 trillion addition to the debt.

Practically penurious.

Yeah, because policies Bush put in place ended the day he left office *shaking head*


How Austerity Has Failed


How Austerity Has Failed by Martin Wolf | The New York Review of Books


The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart

The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart




Austerity has not worked as advertised. It's been a huge failure and and depressed many economies to slower growth and slower future revenues. These revenues compound over the years and makes the picture even worse.



The International Monetary Fund admitted it had failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece | Business | The Guardian



The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed
While the human cost of economic stupidity is all too visible, the world's leaders are paralysed by their dogma


The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer




It's Official: Austerity Economics Doesn't Work

Yeah, because policies Bush put in place ended the day he left office *shaking head*

Bush magically paralyzed the smartest president in history *pointing and laughing*

Austerity has not worked as advertised.

Cutting government spending doesn't reduce spending? Really?

The International Monetary Fund admitted it had failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

Eventually, you run out of other people's money to spend.

 

[itfitzme]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

Like you can count. The debt figures are available, to the penny. At

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The CPI is available at

Consumer Price Index (CPI)

The GDP can be found at

BEA National Economic Accounts

I'm sure everyone would enjoy seeing how you manipulate those figures. By all means, show us how it's done.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sure you are, but that's not how it works.

Why doesn't cutting spending work?

Anyone with a brain recognizes the Dems as the fiscally responsible party the past 40+ years.

Obviously, just look at Obama's $7 trillion addition to the debt.

Practically penurious.

Yeah, because policies Bush put in place ended the day he left office *shaking head*


How Austerity Has Failed


How Austerity Has Failed by Martin Wolf | The New York Review of Books


The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart

The Complete Failure Of Austerity, In 1 Chart




Austerity has not worked as advertised. It's been a huge failure and and depressed many economies to slower growth and slower future revenues. These revenues compound over the years and makes the picture even worse.



The International Monetary Fund admitted it had failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece | Business | The Guardian



The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed
While the human cost of economic stupidity is all too visible, the world's leaders are paralysed by their dogma


The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer




It's Official: Austerity Economics Doesn't Work

Yeah, because policies Bush put in place ended the day he left office *shaking head*

Bush magically paralyzed the smartest president in history *pointing and laughing*

Austerity has not worked as advertised.

Cutting government spending doesn't reduce spending? Really?

The International Monetary Fund admitted it had failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

Eventually, you run out of other people's money to spend.

Never in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................

 

[Kimura]

They clearly do. They don't have to, but they do.

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Back to your claim.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

Government deficits add exactly that amount of $$$$ to global net savings:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They clearly do. They don't have to, but they do.

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Back to your claim.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

Government deficits add exactly that amount of $$$$ to global net savings:

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Since I never said that they can go broke or run out of fiat, I'm not sure what your point is here.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

You said, "US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy", are you admitting your error?

 

[Kimura]

They clearly do. They don't have to, but they do.

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Back to your claim.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy.

Can you prove it?

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

Government deficits add exactly that amount of $$$$ to global net savings:

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Since I never said that they can go broke or run out of fiat, I'm not sure what your point is here.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

You said, "US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy", are you admitting your error?

I'm saying, when we think about it, we have to include dollar savings of the foreign sector as well, not just our domestic private sector. I worded it incorrectly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.



US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

Government deficits add exactly that amount of $$$$ to global net savings:

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Since I never said that they can go broke or run out of fiat, I'm not sure what your point is here.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

You said, "US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy", are you admitting your error?

I'm saying, when we think about it, we have to include dollar savings of the foreign sector as well, not just our domestic private sector. I worded it incorrectly.

You did more than word it incorrectly, you excluded non-government debt from savings for some reason.

 

[Shanty]

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Had Gore been elected in 2000, we would have likely seen the surpluses go away for a short time, as the early 2000s recession would have come. But, if Gore made it to a second term, we'd have seen far smaller deficits, with the debt falling relative to GDP.

Conservatives only know how to run up the bills and keep the US in long recessions when it isn't necessary.

 

[Dad2three]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

Here's how President Obama put it during a recent White House event with a group of middle-class Americans: Unless Congress acts, he said, "starting Jan. 1, every family in America will see their taxes automatically go up."


He went on: "A typical middle-class family of four would see its income taxes go up by $2,200. That's $2,200 out of people's pockets. That means less money for buying groceries, less money for filling prescriptions, less money for buying diapers. It means a tougher choice between paying the rent and paying tuition. And middle-class families just can't afford that now."

To emphasize that these cuts are a big deal, he asked people to "tell members of Congress what a $2,000 tax hike would mean to you." He is now taking his message on the road, telling a group of Michigan auto workers on Monday that the end of the Bush cut would be "a hit you cannot afford to take."

McGurn: Obama's Middle-Class Tax Flip - WSJ

Damn that Bush, cutting taxes on the middle class.