Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zinsncabs. Show zinsncabs's posts

    Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    Interesting column written by George Will the other day:

    http://www.corson.org/columnists/will.htm

    He raises the question of what is precisely to blame for the massive deficits we're running on an annual basis - tax revenue, the recession or spending?  His answer?  All of the above.  He then compares current tax receipts and spending with tax receipts and spending during the final year of the Clinton administration - corrected of course for inflation and population trends.  Surely you remember that administration - balanced budgets and a $230 B surplus.  Seems that tax receipts are now down by a $100 B.  It also appears as though spending is UP by $987 B.

    I submit that the primary culprit might just be spending after all.  Who'd of thunk?

    I know, I fully anticipate hearing about the Bush administration and two wars yadda, yadda, yadda.  But let me ask this question - the current administration has been in power for four years now.  At what point does this adminstration and its lackeys - Reid and Pelosi - begin to accept responsibility?  But I guess they don't have to because they enjoy a "mandate" now.  Just goes to show, you say it enough times and people will begin to believe anything.

    So what's the upshot of this little diatribe?  I say let's go to the mats.  To He** with this president and the Dems and to He** with the fiscal cliff.  Bring it on like Thelma and Louise.  If I'm Boehner, I call the president out and I give him his increase in marginal income tax rates for the wealthiest 2%.  You know, the one that will generate a nominal $82 B?  I say nominal because when you're running deficits of $1.1 T, one has to ask, where is the other 1.016 T coming from?  So bring it on Mr. Obama.  Here's your 39.6% rate increase and, incidentally, the only way you get it is if:

    - you agree to no new spending

    - no increase in the debt ceiling

    - you work with us to introduce massive, substantive, verifiable entitlement reform

    - all by year end

    So there's your new tax revenue.  You can use that along the tax code reform measures proposed by Republicans.  You remember those - the very same ones you recently ridiculed (but also proposed in September 2011 - truly, this would make for great comedy if it wasn't so disheartening).  Use it to finance existing spending as opposed to simply spending it and borrowing more to fund new spending.  Oh, and some advice Mr. Obama - it might help if you appointed a permanent Budget Director.  Just sayin~

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from zinsncabs. Show zinsncabs's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What a load of pure, unadulterated ignoran bullshiat.

    Hey spanky, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with what the PotUS spends. Here's a hint. Congress controls the purse strings. PotUS can only spend what Congress appropriates. That's the way the Founding Fathers set this thing up. Or are you ignorant of basic civics as well.

    The debt ceiling is based on previous spending commitments made by Congress. The US gov't isn't on a net-30 pay schedule, dummy. Most of these are recurring bills, like the clusterfvck-of-a-war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the whacko wingnut Medicare part D.

    Let me ask you spanky, when the wingnuts said that the two wars and part D was "unfunded", did you think that meant it didn''t have to be paid? That sounds about your style.

    Here's another question; If Obama hasn't passed a budget in 3 yrs then how the heck is he spending money that he hasn't passed? That should be an easy question for someone like you who fancies him/herself a financial freakin genius. How can any PotUS spend money from a budget that he never passed?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Spanky?  Is that the best you can come up with?  Really?  You disappoint me.

    First, the president doesn't pass budgets - Congress does (7th grade Civics - you must have been out sick that day).  Harry Reid hasn't carried a budget to a vote in what, 3 years?  But that's another story.  God, if there was ever a walking, talking example of why this nation sorely needs term limitations in Congress, Harry's it.  The proof?  See for yourself:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/08/11/today_marks_1200th_day_since_senate_dems_have_passed_a_budget

    And the debt ceiling has everything to do with what's spent.  The president can't borrow beyond it to fund spending (which you need to do when you repeatedly run trillion $+ deficits).  It's controlled by Congress which is why the president proposed (on Wednesday) that Congress cede control of it.  This was done for purely political reasons - the president knows that this will never happen, which is why he proposed it.  He doesn't want a deal, what he wants is to break the Republicans in the House and he will risk a recession to achieve it.

    And yes, our deficits are driven by entitlement - wait for it, wait for it - SPENDING.  Setting aside the issue of taxes and their adverse impact on growth (which perversely is what drives tax revenue), you can't raise enough tax revenue to bridge the gap.  Which is why suggestions of deferring entitlement reform are the height of irresponsibility and the president's whole let's preserve the Bush tax cuts for the 98% and raise marginal income tax rates on the remaining 2% is a mirage (not to mention political pandering of the highest order).

    And incidentally, why is it that liberals always seem to resort to name calling when people disagree with them?  Anyway, I smell a revolution coming.  No, not a get the guns and let's head for the hills kind of revolution, but a Republican revolution in Congress.  What we need is a leader like Newt (without the philandering).  A back-bencher who is not afraid to throw bombs and put forth a bold vision like his Contract with America.  This president doesn't warrant respect, so it's time to get nasty.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zinsncabs. Show zinsncabs's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zinsncabs' comment:

    Spanky?  Is that the best you can come up with?  Really?  You disappoint me. First, the president doesn't pass budgets - Congress does (7th grade Civics - you must have been out sick that day).  Harry Reid hasn't carried a budget to a vote in what, 3 years?  But that's another story.  God, if there was ever a walking, talking example of why this nation sorely needs term limitations in Congress, Harry's it.  The proof?  See for yourself: And the debt ceiling has everything to do with what's spent.  The president can't borrow beyond it to fund spending (which you need to do when you repeatedly run trillion $+ deficits).  It's controlled by Congress which is why the president proposed (on Wednesday) that Congress cede control of it.  This was done for purely political reasons - the president knows that this will never happen, which is why he proposed it.  He doesn't want a deal, what he wants is to break the Republicans in the House and he will risk a recession to achieve it. And yes, our deficits are driven by entitlement - wait for it, wait for it - SPENDING.  Setting aside the issue of taxes and their adverse impact on growth (which perversely is what drives tax revenue), you can't raise enough tax revenue to bridge the gap.  Which is why suggestions of deferring entitlement reform are the height of irresponsibility and the president's whole let's preserve the Bush tax cuts for the 98% and raise marginal income tax rates on the remaining 2% is a mirage (not to mention political pandering of the highest order). And incidentally, why is it that liberals always seem to resort to name calling when people disagree with them?  Anyway, I smell a revolution coming.  No, not a get the guns and let's head for the hills kind of revolution, but a Republican revolution in Congress.  What we need is a leader like Newt (without the philandering).  A back-bencher who is not afraid to throw bombs and put forth a bold vision like his Contract with America.  This president doesn't warrant respect, so it's time to get nasty.




    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Gawd, you really are a delusional nose-to-rectum lemming.

    A wingnut revolution??? I gotta hand it to you ideological imbeciles, nothing can shake your nose from the buttocks of the wingnut in front of you, including reality.

    Hey numbnuts, ya never answered my questions. In fact you just reinforced how fvcking stupid you are.

    If there's no budget then where is Obama getting all this money he's supposed to be spending?

    It's really simple but still way beyond your comprehension.

     

    And that proposal to allow PotUS to raise the debt ceiling and have the Congress vote it down?

    That was a whacko wingnut policy proposed and passed by Droopy-dawg McConnell last year.

    But hey, don't let facts get in the way of you ignorance, ya might burst a blood vessel, or worse have to confront reality.

     

    It's obvious you're just another whacko wingnut who dutifully regurgitates echo chamber bullshiat without actually knowing what the fcuk your babbling about.

     

    See ya at the 'revolution'.

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Gawd, you wingnuts are hilarious.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Over the past couple of years there have been several proposed budgets - for example, Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity.  There's been little agreement.  What has essentially occurred is that various resolutions and appropriations were passed over time to continue funding government spending on a short term basis.


    $4.8 B.  That's the amount we borrow on a daily basis.  Well done Mr. President.  That's a record to be proud of along with annual trillion dollar deficits and a national debt of $16.2 T.  Four years ago today, it was $10.6 T.  And seriously, "numbnuts?"  You're better than that.  And yes, I'm mocking you~

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to zinsncabs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zinsncabs' comment:

    Spanky?  Is that the best you can come up with?  Really?  You disappoint me. First, the president doesn't pass budgets - Congress does (7th grade Civics - you must have been out sick that day).  Harry Reid hasn't carried a budget to a vote in what, 3 years?  But that's another story.  God, if there was ever a walking, talking example of why this nation sorely needs term limitations in Congress, Harry's it.  The proof?  See for yourself: And the debt ceiling has everything to do with what's spent.  The president can't borrow beyond it to fund spending (which you need to do when you repeatedly run trillion $+ deficits).  It's controlled by Congress which is why the president proposed (on Wednesday) that Congress cede control of it.  This was done for purely political reasons - the president knows that this will never happen, which is why he proposed it.  He doesn't want a deal, what he wants is to break the Republicans in the House and he will risk a recession to achieve it. And yes, our deficits are driven by entitlement - wait for it, wait for it - SPENDING.  Setting aside the issue of taxes and their adverse impact on growth (which perversely is what drives tax revenue), you can't raise enough tax revenue to bridge the gap.  Which is why suggestions of deferring entitlement reform are the height of irresponsibility and the president's whole let's preserve the Bush tax cuts for the 98% and raise marginal income tax rates on the remaining 2% is a mirage (not to mention political pandering of the highest order). And incidentally, why is it that liberals always seem to resort to name calling when people disagree with them?  Anyway, I smell a revolution coming.  No, not a get the guns and let's head for the hills kind of revolution, but a Republican revolution in Congress.  What we need is a leader like Newt (without the philandering).  A back-bencher who is not afraid to throw bombs and put forth a bold vision like his Contract with America.  This president doesn't warrant respect, so it's time to get nasty.




    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Gawd, you really are a delusional nose-to-rectum lemming.

    A wingnut revolution??? I gotta hand it to you ideological imbeciles, nothing can shake your nose from the buttocks of the wingnut in front of you, including reality.

    Hey numbnuts, ya never answered my questions. In fact you just reinforced how fvcking stupid you are.

    If there's no budget then where is Obama getting all this money he's supposed to be spending?

    It's really simple but still way beyond your comprehension.

     

    And that proposal to allow PotUS to raise the debt ceiling and have the Congress vote it down?

    That was a whacko wingnut policy proposed and passed by Droopy-dawg McConnell last year.

    But hey, don't let facts get in the way of you ignorance, ya might burst a blood vessel, or worse have to confront reality.

     

    It's obvious you're just another whacko wingnut who dutifully regurgitates echo chamber bullshiat without actually knowing what the fcuk your babbling about.

     

    See ya at the 'revolution'.

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Gawd, you wingnuts are hilarious.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Over the past couple of years there have been several proposed budgets - for example, Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity.  There's been little agreement.  What has essentially occurred is that various resolutions and appropriations were passed over time to continue funding government spending on a short term basis.


    $4.8 B.  That's the amount we borrow on a daily basis.  Well done Mr. President.  That's a record to be proud of along with annual trillion dollar deficits and a national debt of $16.2 T.  Four years ago today, it was $10.6 T.  And seriously, "numbnuts?"  You're better than that.  And yes, I'm mocking you~

    [/QUOTE]

    The fallacy is that Obama spent this money.  If the deficit is 1.2 trillion when he walked through the door, status quo would bring us to a $15.4 T debt over four years.  Obama has actually reduced the deficit slightly in his first term.  The last president to do so was Clinton.  The last president before him was Carter.  Any way you slice it, this lies at the feet of the presidents with Rs after their names.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to zinsncabs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting column written by George Will the other day:

    http://www.corson.org/columnists/will.htm

    He raises the question of what is precisely to blame for the massive deficits we're running on an annual basis - tax revenue, the recession or spending?  His answer?  All of the above.  He then compares current tax receipts and spending with tax receipts and spending during the final year of the Clinton administration - corrected of course for inflation and population trends.  Surely you remember that administration - balanced budgets and a $230 B surplus.  Seems that tax receipts are now down by a $100 B.  It also appears as though spending is UP by $987 B.

    I submit that the primary culprit might just be spending after all.  Who'd of thunk?

    I know, I fully anticipate hearing about the Bush administration and two wars yadda, yadda, yadda.  But let me ask this question - the current administration has been in power for four years now.  At what point does this adminstration and its lackeys - Reid and Pelosi - begin to accept responsibility?  But I guess they don't have to because they enjoy a "mandate" now.  Just goes to show, you say it enough times and people will begin to believe anything.

    So what's the upshot of this little diatribe?  I say let's go to the mats.  To He** with this president and the Dems and to He** with the fiscal cliff.  Bring it on like Thelma and Louise.  If I'm Boehner, I call the president out and I give him his increase in marginal income tax rates for the wealthiest 2%.  You know, the one that will generate a nominal $82 B?  I say nominal because when you're running deficits of $1.1 T, one has to ask, where is the other 1.016 T coming from?  So bring it on Mr. Obama.  Here's your 39.6% rate increase and, incidentally, the only way you get it is if:

    - you agree to no new spending

    - no increase in the debt ceiling

    - you work with us to introduce massive, substantive, verifiable entitlement reform

    - all by year end

    So there's your new tax revenue.  You can use that along the tax code reform measures proposed by Republicans.  You remember those - the very same ones you recently ridiculed (but also proposed in September 2011 - truly, this would make for great comedy if it wasn't so disheartening).  Use it to finance existing spending as opposed to simply spending it and borrowing more to fund new spending.  Oh, and some advice Mr. Obama - it might help if you appointed a permanent Budget Director.  Just sayin~

    [/QUOTE]

    GDP in 2000 was $10 trillion.  in 2011 it was $15 trillion, for a growth of 50%.  Direct tax revenue in 2000 was $2 trillion, in 2011 $2.5 trillion, for a growth of 25%.  Doesn't that suggest that any debt or deficits amassed within that time would be about half what they are now if we had simply maintained the tax rates and policies of 2000?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zinsncabs. Show zinsncabs's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zinsncabs' comment:

    What has essentially occurred is that various resolutions and appropriations were passed over time to continue funding government spending on a short term basis.




    Soooo spanky, who proposed and passed these 'resolutions'?

     

     

    I don't recall Obama touting any 'resolutions' or submitting any 'resolutions' to Congress.

    But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your mind-numbingly stupid rant.

    [/QUOTE]

    Too funny.  The point is that a comprehensive budget has not been passed.  In the end, what Congress managed to do was cobble together various piecemeal appropriation bills.  This isn't the way things are supposed to work.  The president is required by law to submit a comprehensive budget (I want to say in January).  This president has routinely missed budget deadlines.  Passing the budget, however, is the responsibility of Congress. 

    Anyway, $4.8 B per day.  Per the Congressional Budget Office, deficits in October and November totaled $292 B alone.  At this pace, we're approaching an annual deficit of $1.6 T.  But I guess that's Bush's fault too (he's been out of office for four years now, but no matter).  And no, I don't place all of the blame for the debt on this president, much of the responsiblity is the prior administration's as well as the responsbility of Congress - both then and now.  The point is that you can't tax your way out of this mess.  Spending is the primary problem and you can't reign in spending by ignoring entitlements - which is precisely what this administration has done.  Republicans, on the other hand, have broached the topic of entitlement spending - most recently this week when they proposed raising the eligibility for Medicare benefits and lowering COLAs for Social Security.  It's a substantive start which is a lot more than I can say for Obama's fixation on raising the marginal income tax rate on the wealthiest 2% to 39.6% (which will raise a paltry $82 B).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tax Revenue, the Recession, Spending and the Fiscal Cliff

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The president doesn't hold the federal government's purse strings.

    The Founding Fathers placed all the power over taxes, appropriations and entitlements squarely in the hands of Congress.

    The executive branch can't spend a dime that Congress doesn't appropriate.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know you are correct in terms of the consitution, which both sides are treating like toilet paper, so, let me propose this:

    Congress determine  the 2013 budget and tax rates and Obama shuts his pie-hole and administers the country according to this budget. No whinnign about needing more, stuimulus programs, or new unfunded mandates originating from the executive branch.

    Fair enough?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share