60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

[Faldur]

From the NYT. We're raising the debt ceiling to pay for past expenses, most of which were brought on by Georgie Boy. I don't remember conservatives complaining then. In fact, the response from conservatives was "Deficits don't matter." Whatever happened to that?

& Faldur where is this magical example where raising taxes led to lower revenue?

I love your graph, the accuracy is spot on how it shows how much the obama surge in Afghanistan cost us. Likewise I was shocked at the cost of the "days not weeks" war in Libya. (We've been there 5 months now and It hasn't cost us a cent???) obama has added more to the US debt in 30 months than Bush did in his entire 8 years. I gotta get me one of those NYT's, (my bird cage needs changing).

Someone here thought the CBO was a reputable organization, lets see what they had to say.
Total Deficit or Surplus (Percentage of gross domestic product)


Raising taxes does not guarantee higher revenues as higher taxes lead to lower economic growth. If you want to increase revenue you need to produce economic growth. In the last 50+ years regardless of the tax rates - tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained between 16 and 21%. If you want to increase revenue create jobs.

[BluegrassCat]

If you want to increase revenue you need to produce economic growth. In the last 50+ years regardless of the tax rates - tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained between 16 and 21%. If you want to increase revenue create jobs.

This is obviously true, but this was not your prior position. You said that tax increases DECREASE revenue. I asked for an example and you changed your tune. The graphs you present all show increasing revenues after the Reagan and Clinton tax increases, supporting the obvious result that tax increases RAISE revenue.

If you want to argue about what the optimal tax rate should be, that's one thing, but let's not dick around with black is white, up is down nonsense.

[BluegrassCat]

obama has added more to the US debt in 30 months than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

If you just go by where the debt is when the office switches hands then this is technically true as the first graph shows. But if you actually want to assign blame for the deficit it has to fall squarely on Bush as the second graph shows. Aside from cleaning up Georgie's mess, Obama is responsible for roughly 2% of the deficit.

Take away George's tax cuts, wars and financial crisis and the deficit is miniscule.

[Faldur]

If you just go by where the debt is when the office switches hands then this is technically true as the first graph shows. But if you actually want to assign blame for the deficit it has to fall squarely on Bush as the second graph shows. Aside from cleaning up Georgie's mess, Obama is responsible for roughly 2% of the deficit.

Take away George's tax cuts, wars and financial crisis and the deficit is miniscule.

Not going to even bother looking the second graphs BG, the first one was so inaccurate if these come from the same source seriously question there validity. The NYT Times graph you posted shows the bush tax cuts with a cost value, but conveniently leaves off the obama tax cuts, shows the bush war costs but conveniently leaves off the obama costs. Really?

To consider a tax cut as a static base line is wrong. For every tax cut there is a economic "stimulus" for lack of a better word. So to place a static value on either the obama or bush tax cut is incorrect. Just as with every tax increase there is an economic negative impact. You cannot say were going to raise taxes by x and think your going to have a simple sum value of income.

The graphs I posted showed that every time taxes were reduced revenues increased.

A good article to read if you have any interest.. The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

[BluegrassCat]

Not going to even bother looking the second graphs BG, the first one was so inaccurate if these come from the same source seriously question there validity.

Wow. I always wondered how conservatives came by such out-there claims, and now I see why. When you confront data that don't match your ideology just deny deny deny.

It's funny that you tout the authority of the CBO in your posts and denigrate it in mine but whatever.

[Faldur]

Wow. I always wondered how conservatives came by such out-there claims, and now I see why. When you confront data that don't match your ideology just deny deny deny.

It's funny that you tout the authority of the CBO in your posts and denigrate it in mine but whatever.

BG I mean no disrespect, but can you explain why the NYT chart omitted so many cost items on the obama side? That doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

And for the record, i have previously stated IMHO the cbo is worthless. It was the reason for the "someone on this board" comment when I posted it.

[BluegrassCat]

BG I mean no disrespect, but can you explain why the NYT chart omitted so many cost items on the obama side? That doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

And for the record, i have previously stated IMHO the cbo is worthless. It was the reason for the "someone on this board" comment when I posted it.

Faldur, while you and I probably disagree on just about everything, you debate without hurling insults so it's clear you're a respectful guy worthy of that in return.

But looking at the NYT graph, the main problem I see with it is its reliance on future estimates. You want to know why Libya isn't listed on there? It's because compared to the other items it's peanuts, less than 750 million so far. That's a drop in the bucket of our deficit. The cost of the Afghan surge is in there but it's offset by the savings from getting out of Iraq.

The numbers in the other two graphs are also perfectly legit and, even better, not based on future estimates.

Btw it's tough to take a graph seriously that has such partisan prose as "if it doesn't move throw money at it." Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the objectivity of the author.

[BluegrassCat]

To consider a tax cut as a static base line is wrong. For every tax cut there is a economic "stimulus" for lack of a better word. So to place a static value on either the obama or bush tax cut is incorrect. Just as with every tax increase there is an economic negative impact. You cannot say were going to raise taxes by x and think your going to have a simple sum value of income.

This is basically all true but it's also true that while you can't predict the exact increase in revenues you'll get from a tax hike because of some decrease in productivity, you will still get an overall revenue increase.

Maybe you're thinking of the Laffer curve but there's no evidence we're near there in the U.S. While the Bush tax cuts had a somewhat stimulative effect on the economy, the overall effect hugely increased the deficit.

So again, claiming that tax increases drives down revenues is just flat wrong in the current U.S. context.

[Stavros]

In the interests of balance, I reproduce another article by Tim Stanley -the blogger whose article on atheists objecting to the Cross at Ground Zero is in the God Bless America...well, maybe thread. Here he defends the Tea Party faction in the House. Its odd that he refers to people at the Heritage Foundation meeting he attended The blessed homeschoolers wore suits in one hundred degree heat -do they have meetings outside or indoors where its air conditioned? It is probably an unfortunate faux pas that he refers to one Representative as James Lankford...an elf of a man with pointy ears and neat red hair. Sounds scary to me.
For the record, Mr Stanley is writing a biography of Pat Buchanan, life doesn't get more challenging. Enjoy.

They may have just wounded their own Republican leadership, but the Tea Party deficit strategy still makes sense


By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: July 29th, 2011



Republican Speaker John Boehner failed last night to muster enough votes to pass his plan to lift the debt ceiling. The press expected passage, especially after a handful of Tea Party favourites came out in support. Poor Mr Boehner – who looks permanently on the verge of tears – is politically wounded. Momentum could pass to the Democratic Senate leadership as Washington scrambles to cut a deal before the default deadline next Tuesday.
The mainstream media will deduce that the Tea Party freshmen, elected in that Apocalyptic 2010 landslide, have gone Kamikaze. They’ve hurt the GOP leadership and passed up on a deal that would probably be better than one dictated by the Democrats. But one man’s “crazy” is another man’s “determined”. The Tea Party freshmen might look a little unhinged, but it’s worth taking their motivations seriously. When one weighs up their sense of honour against Obama’s liberalism, what they are doing starts to make sense.
On Tuesday, I visited the Heritage Foundation weekly “bloggers briefing” summit in Washington DC. It was a fairly representative crowd from the conservative blogosphere. The Libertarians were all fat jolly men in colourful waistcoats. The blessed homeschoolers wore suits in one hundred degree heat. The Southerners interning for the summer with their uncle in the Senate had names like “Brick” or “John C Calhoun III”. Someone stole my sunglasses and I’m pretty sure it was the Man from Cato.
The speaker was a freshman Tea Party congressman from Oklahoma called James Lankford. Lankford was an elf of a man with pointy ears and neat red hair. Before being elected, he ran a youth Christian camp for thirteen years – not a typical profession for one from the party of greed. He was as sharp as a tack and often funny. What he had to say about the budget negotiations was a revelation.
Lankford explained that he and the other freshmen feel that they have been elected on one issue alone: debt. They are divided over many other things (abortion, unions, Libya) but united in their revulsion at Obama’s deficit. They probably came across as ideologues, he conceded, because they are so focused on this single, high-profile issue. Once it is resolved and they move on to something new, it will be obvious that they are thinking people capable of reaching consensus elsewhere. But on that one matter, they will not yield. And why should they? It was what they were elected on.
The congressman compared his freshman class with the Republican intake of 2002, elected in response to 9/11. Those congressmen were obsessed with national defence and still are. Again, they disagree on much else and are probably the Republicans most likely in 2011 to want to cut a deal on the deficit. But they came into the House as hawks and they would damn well leave that way too.
Lankford’s point is persuasive. When a freshman class is elevated in a landslide, revolutionary election year then they tend to be defined by the subject they ran on. Seen that way, the Tea Party people who are torpedoing their own party’s deficit deal look a lot more rational. One might disagree with their analysis, but balancing the budget is what got them into politics in the first place and it’s therefore unreasonable to expect them to U-turn at this hour. When the debt has passed as an issue, we might find that the Tea Party representatives are far more accommodating on other policies than we expected.
Seen from the freshmen’s point of view, Lankford continued, the problem isn’t them – it’s a President committed to a damaging liberal agenda. He offered an example that was, admittedly, galling. The White House has stalled on deciding whether or not to green-light an oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas. It would create millions of barrels of oil, around 20,000 high-paid jobs and slash fuel prices. It seems likely that the Obama administration is stonewalling because of pressure from environmental groups (the oil is extracted from tar sands, is toxic and looks a bit like strip mining). The House Republicans, who see this as a must-have investment to stimulate the economy, voted on Tuesday to demand that Obama move forward with the project. From their perspective, the President is impeding the growth of the free market while simultaneously propping up big government programmes with deficit spending. These two issues go right to the heart of the Tea Party’s conservative agenda.
John Boehner may yet whip the Tea Party into line: even Lankford came out in support of his compromise package on Thursday afternoon and more are sure to follow. But whether Boehner succeeds or not, these freshmen should not be dismissed as reckless ideologues. As far as they are concerned, they are doing what they were elected to do: balance the budget, free the market and eviscerate the President’s liberal agenda. It’s a high-risk gamble, but holding firm is probably the best way to get what they and their constituents asked for in 2010.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...l-makes-sense/

[Faldur]

$478.2 billion in new debt in the 106 days this thread has existed.

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on, La de da de de, la de da de da..