What's Really Driving The National Debt? Tax Cuts and Wars

[JBeukema]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | What

 

[Wiseacre]

Hey JB, the Bush era tax cuts are projected to be 3.7 trillion over the next 10 years, with 700 billion of that for the rich guys. You wanna go find a pol on either sde of the aisle that will sponsor a bill to raise taxes on evrybody? Sure, you can do the tax hike on the rich, but you only get 700 billion out of an additional 10 trillion or so of new debt. I an't see how raising taxes is going to cut it.

Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be gettng larger after 2009, maybe you should get with the Obama admin for upping the cost there. Frankly I think that chart is total BS, healthcare and SS are going to go way up over the next 10 years and that doesn't seem to be represented. If you're going to tell me you really think ObamaCare will not greatly increase the nat'l debt, I'm going to tell you to get in touch with reality. Obama is going to cut 500 billion out of medicare? Suuuuure.

 

[sparky]

i don't see anything representative of all those evil welfare queens there JB.....

 

[Trajan]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | What

thank you comrade!!!

now a word from our sponsor;
need to get away? had enough of the dull gray Moscow skyline? then come on down to Gulag 44, hot hip and jam packed with fun activities!!!...ice fishing, logging, railroad building and wild game hunting!

 

[Truthseeker420]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | What

thank you comrade!!!

now a word from our sponsor;
need to get awy? had enough of the dull gray Moscow skyline? then come on down to Gulag 44, hot hip and jam packed with fun activities!!!...ice fishing, logging, railroad building and wild game hunting!

Comrade? Why would you say that?

 

[Trajan]

when folks classify tax cuts as debt. you tell me?

 

[Truthseeker420]

when folks classify tax cuts as debt. you tell me?

Tax cuts mean less income which means more debt. It would be great if no one had to pay taxes and we could run the government on a credit card but that is not the reality.

 

[sparky]

So the current debt cieling debate continues to orbit the two most prevelant elements that would put a dent in it,>

A) taxing those who have the most $$$

B) riening in the war machine

not to mention the profiteering implicating A & B's collusion

Ignoring this to demonize welfare queens as wealth distribution whores really reeks of people who not only can't do the math, but are allegied to a pack of lies prioroties handed down to them

 

[expat_panama]

when folks classify tax cuts as debt. you tell me?

Tax cuts mean less income which means more debt...

That's a leftist fantasy land. The more wealth the bigger the credit line and the more debt. True for both nations and individuals. A lower income can happen with lower debt is when spending is cut.

Debt is like money, it's wonderful but only when it's understood and managed.

 

[expat_panama]

...that chart is total BS, healthcare and SS are going to go way up over the next 10 years and that doesn't seem to be represented...Suuuuure.

That plus the fact that revenue soared after the '03 tax-cuts:

The reality is that spending increases made the debt bigger and tax-cuts made it not as big as it would have been.

 

[editec]

Our American Insiders sort of remind me of a Dickensian character (I think he's in Bleak House)

He was a profligate scion who'd spent down his inheritance, but as he was originally so wealthy, he was still living on credit.

Well, the guy realized that he was broke, and he also realized he needed to stop pissing away so much money on frivolous things.

So he'd decide, as an example, that he really must have a coach-and-four.

And then he'd realize that such a expense was wasteful and elected NOT to buy that coach-and-four.

And then congratulating himself on his good economic sense, he'd reward himself by buying (on credit, of course) a new wardrobe, instead.

Our masters find some small economy (usually by cutting some social services to people who truly need them) and then they reward themselves for their economy by giving their ilk a TAX CUT.

 

[B. Kidd]

When people equate tax cuts with deficits, they erroneously frame revenues as the problem, whereas in reality it is spending that's the problem.

 

[B. Kidd]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | What

And yet, here's a different take. But whatever the perspective, WE IS ALL in a heap o' trouble!

Not Tax Cuts, Not Wars, and Not Bailouts - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online

 

[Jessica Blume]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | What

It's actually a little more complicated than that. What really is to blame is the corrupt federal reserve charging us interest on the money we borrow. They then fund wars, normally both sides, to drive up debt.

Tax cuts do not drive up debt at all. Taxes are theft. In the simplest form, taxes are basically what happens to a farmer who grows a bunch of corn. The government comes in, and takes a percent as tax. A tax break is just saying that the government will take less corn from that farmer than normal. Saying that we have to find a way to pay for a tax break is silly, because that's saying we need to find a way to pay to allow a farmer to keep more of his corn.

Ronald Reagan commissioned J. Peter Grace to form a Commission to known as the Grace Commission. They were to do a report (known as the Grace Commission Report) on every branch of the government and what each branch does. It was an effort to downsize invasive government and to cut spending and waste and so forth.

In this report, it said that every nickel of income tax is spent to pay back the interest on the national debt before it is ever collected, and that the functions of government we normally expect to come from paying income tax comes from other sources. It's really a big complicated mess. End the fed.

 

[tallmike]

How about defense spending (wars) and social spending (welfare, SS, medicare, etc) being the reason?

I would have a hard time convincing a financial adviser that my family has a debt problem due to my low income. He would certainly point to our spending and lecture us about living within our means. The government gets to set its own income, to some extent, but they need to cut spending and set a reasonable tax rate.

Could the upper tax rate stand to increase a bit? Absolutely. Could the social spending programs that are doled out to the lower income folks of our nation stand to be cut? Again, absolutely!

Too many folks want to say its one or the other. Either the Democrat line or the Republican line but the reality is its a bit of each. Both major parties are dooming this nation to live in debt and eventually we will be crushed by it.

 

[Jessica Blume]

How about defense spending (wars) and social spending (welfare, SS, medicare, etc) being the reason?

I would have a hard time convincing a financial adviser that my family has a debt problem due to my low income. He would certainly point to our spending and lecture us about living within our means. The government gets to set its own income, to some extent, but they need to cut spending and set a reasonable tax rate.

Could the upper tax rate stand to increase a bit? Absolutely. Could the social spending programs that are doled out to the lower income folks of our nation stand to be cut? Again, absolutely!

Too many folks want to say its one or the other. Either the Democrat line or the Republican line but the reality is its a bit of each. Both major parties are dooming this nation to live in debt and eventually we will be crushed by it.

Defense spending comes from corporate tax. We have a tax for everything. Income tax is just to pay interest on the money we borrow from the federal reserve.

Both parties are controlled and part of the problem indeed.

Let me try to explain a bit further about what I mean about borrowing money at interest -

Imagine I am holding YOUR WALLET. It is your money, and I promise not to take any of it. Now, when you get paid, your money goes right into this wallet. When you want money, you just simply ask me for it. I will gladly give you whatever you want out of your wallet. You just have to pay that back to me plus a small fee. Say you borrow five dollars from the wallet. NO PROBLEM! Just pay back six. Only one dollar, but you never have to worry about your wallet, because I promise to keep it safe. Oh, but you don't have that six dollars since you had to borrow the five in the first place? No problem! Just borrow the six dollars out of your wallet again to pay back the first loan. Of course, interest will be applied to that as well...

This is the crime of the federal reserve. Only what happens when there is no money in the wallet, such as after the great gold robbery of 1933? Simple! CREDIT! We can just loan you money, only we can attach your infrastructure. Keep working at your job and refilling that wallet though, so we can provide you with CREDIT! If not, your infrastructure becomes mine. That is, say, your house, your car, your children's education, and so forth.

To pay back the national debt, it would take all the real estate more than three times over to pay back. For sale or not. ALL the real estate. The credit is spent on welfare entitlement programs and war, really. A nanny state taking care of us from cradle to the grave. If you want a better life, join the military.

In this manner, the bankers in the government will help pay for things. Well, not really. They'll just get taxpayers to do that. In the military, you can work to enslave other countries and break down governments that do not have a Rothschild central bank. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, (They have them now) and Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Cuba.

The very elite in this country pay no tax. You hear about it every once in awhile. Rockefeller admits to owing no income tax even though he is worth probably a trillion dollars by now. Yet, as long as you keep working your ass off to refill that wallet and ask no questions, everything will be fine. Everything will be fine. Be fine. be fine. be fine... fine ... fine... shhh ... it's all just a dream...

It's time to wake up.

 

[waltky]

Making too many federal spending cuts now will hurt the economy...

Deficit hawks: Don't go nuts on cuts
June 11, 2011: Some budget experts who warn about the danger of the long-term debt are cautioning against dramatic immediate cuts.

Some top deficit hawks from the left and right are flashing a warning sign: Making too many federal spending cuts now will hurt the economy. These are the same folks, mind you, who have been preaching the perils of debt long before the cut-now-or-else Tea Party came to town. And their message comes at a time when Republicans are pushing for trillions in federal spending cuts -- with as much in the near-term as possible -- in exchange for raising the country's debt ceiling.

The hawks' warning was backed up Tuesday by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. "A sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile recovery," he said in a speech to bankers. Part of the GOP's reasoning for calling for big cuts: It will bolster business and investor confidence, and that in turn can help create jobs and spur economic growth.

Deficit hawks don't dispute that general trajectory, but the effect can be realized by agreeing to a long-term plan today that takes effect over time. And, they say, today's deficits aren't really what keeps them up at night. "The short-term deficit isn't the problem," said former U.S. Comptroller David Walker, who notes that recent annual deficits are the result of temporary problems such as slow economic growth, high unemployment and the cost of various stimulus measures.

Walker favors cutting some discretionary spending -- he recommends roughly $80 billion to $120 billion over the next two years. But that's a far cry from cutting $380 billion, which is something the House Republican Study Committee said it wants to do in 2012. Those cuts would amount to more than what was spent last year on the departments of agriculture, homeland security, veterans affairs and transportation combined. It's also is 57% of what was spent on defense.

MORE

See also:

Spending cuts alone won't work
May 12, 2011: Trillions in spending cuts. No tax increases. No kidding. That is House Speaker John Boehner's opening bid in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.

Politically, the Boehner parameters aren't likely to fly. President Obama and other Democrats have already made clear they want to reduce debt through a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenue. But practically, can the country live with a regimen of spending cuts alone? It's unlikely, since the changes could end up being too severe to be palatable, fiscal experts say. Just to keep the country's total debt where it is now -- around 60% of GDP -- without tax increases, lawmakers would need to cut spending today by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

That's almost as much as what the country spends on defense and other discretionary spending -- i.e., nearly everything Americans expect their federal government to do outside of providing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Keep in mind, too, that stabilizing public debt at 60% likely won't be enough because it's still well above the country's historical average -- which is under 40%. Translation: Even more cutting would be necessary in subsequent decades. Another reason that a spending-cuts-only debt-reduction plan may not be the best option: It likely would require less of a sacrifice from the wealthy than from everyone else.

And any plan lawmakers agree to has to be seen as credible by the markets since the push to bring deficits down is driven by a fear that bond investors at some point may turn tail on U.S. Treasurys. A Reuters survey this week suggests that spending cuts alone wouldn't fly. A majority of bond firm economists and fund managers said that tax increases, in addition to spending cuts, must be part of the solution. It's not clear how many trillions Boehner and the GOP will aim for in spending cuts or over what time period.

Capitol Hill aides believe lawmakers will seek a $2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, and Boehner has said spending cuts will need to exceed any debt ceiling increase. If the GOP's demands for spending cuts end up in the $2 trillion range over 10 years, that would be on par with the amount of spending cuts called for by President Obama's bipartisan debt commission, not including interest savings.

MORE

 

[Sallow]

when folks classify tax cuts as debt. you tell me?

They are loss of revenue and factor into the debt.

You do know that tax collection is a constitutionally mandated power of Congress.

So now you are saying that Taxes are Socialist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, because it's not government spending...no.

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8qBQzcvIAE]YouTube - ‪God Bless America - Archie Bunker‬‏[/ame]