Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years

[Hamiltonian]

So why not take the tax rates back to Carter where the top producers were paying 70%

Or if we really want to incrase our revenue lets go to 90$% as was with Kennedy

You are so full of it. With higher taxes, the economy would not be expanding, thus fewer people working, thus less tax collected

The revenues increased when Kennedy cut taxes

The revenues DOUBLED under Reagan to over $1 trillion in eight years with tax cuts

and revenues are soaring under Pres Bush

Libs cannot see the forest for the trees

How about the tax revenues we had during the Clinton administration. I'll tell you a little bit about optimum tax rates. Why not cut taxes way down so that you have to pay a penny for every $10,000 you earn. This would surely not increase our tax revenue because even if it would help the economy, it would not increase revenue since the government would be getting such a small piece of the economy. Similarly if you increase tax rates so that you're paying $99 in taxes for every $100 you earn, that will hurt the economy so much that tax revenues will fall. What you have to do is to weigh the factors of the tax rate and the harm to the economy against each other, and find at which tax rate you take in the most income. This is clearly not the tax rate that we're at. We would be taking in even more revenue if we repealed the tax cuts.

 

[red states rule]

How about the tax revenues we had during the Clinton administration. I'll tell you a little bit about optimum tax rates. Why not cut taxes way down so that you have to pay a penny for every $10,000 you earn. This would surely not increase our tax revenue because even if it would help the economy, it would not increase revenue since the government would be getting such a small piece of the economy. Similarly if you increase tax rates so that you're paying $99 in taxes for every $100 you earn, that will hurt the economy so much that tax revenues will fall. What you have to do is to weigh the factors of the tax rate and the harm to the economy against each other, and find at which tax rate you take in the most income. This is clearly not the tax rate that we're at. We would be taking in even more revenue if we repealed the tax cuts.

Economic 101 (you should read it) has a principal called Law of Diminishing Returns

Libs will never admit when you cut taxes you will spur economic activity, economic growth, and thus higher revenues

We can have MORE tax cuts and increase the revenues

Considering the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of federal incomes taxes, how much more you you deem they should pay (since you feel they are not paying enough)

 

[Bullypulpit]

this can't be possible....bush is an idiot...tax cuts don't work....the war costs too much....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/D8MJU5901.html

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

On paper. Given that Chimpy and Co routinely overestimate the size of the deficit in their budgets, they can thump their chests when the deficit comes in under their projections.

And, let's not forget, the costs of the war are continually covered under "emergency supplemental" spending which is off budget. Let them use generally accepted accounting practices to present their budgets, and they (and we) will be singing a different song...the blues. Not to mention the sea of red ink we'll be drowning in for generations.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Economic 101 (you should read it) has a principal called Law of Diminishing Returns

Economics 101 (you should read it) has a principal called the Laffer Curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve

Libs will never admit when you cut taxes you will spur economic activity, economic growth, and thus higher revenues

Well I guess that means I'm not a lib since I just acknowledged that cutting taxes can spur economic activity under the right situations.

We can have MORE tax cuts and increase the revenues

This statement is sometimes true. Cut taxes to zero and I'll guarantee you that you won't increase the revenues. Cutting taxes to 1 penny per $10,000 earned doesn't increase revenue. These are examples on the extreme side of low taxes, which there is no way you could disagree. The same principle applies to our current tax rates. Read up on the Laffer Curve.

Considering the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of federal incomes taxes, how much more you you deem they should pay (since you feel they are not paying enough)

I've already answered you on this front multiple times. We should repeal the tax cuts and go back to the old tax levels.

 

[Darwins Friend]

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

5.12% OF THE TOTAL DEBT!!! Man, we’re in business now! Sell my clothes - I’m go’en to heaven!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

On paper. Given that Chimpy and Co routinely overestimate the size of the deficit in their budgets, they can thump their chests when the deficit comes in under their projections.

And, let's not forget, the costs of the war are continually covered under "emergency supplemental" spending which is off budget. Let them use generally accepted accounting practices to present their budgets, and they (and we) will be singing a different song...the blues. Not to mention the sea of red ink we'll be drowning in for generations.

Delusional at best my dear friend.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One of the problems is that we'll have to pay off more than 25k debt. Our government keeps increasing the debt instead of paying it off. We don't see many budget surpluses. Also, we're having to pay interest on that 25k, so it's really more than 25k.

Why else is a national debt bad? Because it hurts our economy, especially in the long term, by decreasing investment.

Historically, every time taxes had a significant cut, it spurred the economy leading to higher revenues.

The revenues are a function of tax and other policies adopted the previous year or two or more. So,what happens the year after the tax cuts doesnt reflect the real effect the cuts will have.

No, the actual debt is $25K not 30K. You dont discuss your amount of debt by stating how much you will pay back, paying back always intails a higher figure than what you borrowed.

Cutting spending would be easy. I could hack the budget by a third and have no reduction in services. Every level of Govt has bloated beauracracies. Level upon level of un needed employees. Even the govt employees I have talked to admit it.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Historically, every time taxes had a significant cut, it spurred the economy leading to higher revenues.

Correlation does not imply causality. Clinton raised taxes and it raised our revenues. Here's a nice government paper on the tax cuts. I direct your attention to page 2, where it has a nice chart of revenue lost due to the tax cuts.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govd...df?PHPSESSID=863ec332a2468c40be531653901351e5

The revenues are a function of tax and other policies adopted the previous year or two or more. So,what happens the year after the tax cuts doesnt reflect the real effect the cuts will have.

Wrong, the positive effects of the tax cuts are supposed to happen in the first five years after they are enacted. There are negative effects in the long run since tax cuts reduce savings.

No, the actual debt is $25K not 30K. You dont discuss your amount of debt by stating how much you will pay back, paying back always intails a higher figure than what you borrowed.

I never said anywhere that the debt was 30k. I pointed out that some people were assuming they would only have to pay back 25k, when in fact they would have to pay back more than 25k with interest.

Cutting spending would be easy. I could hack the budget by a third and have no reduction in services.

To get a surplus right now you would have to lop off all spending to the DoD. Somehow I doubt cutting funding is as easy as you think.

 

[theHawk]

Cutting spending would be easy. I could hack the budget by a third and have no reduction in services. Every level of Govt has bloated beauracracies. Level upon level of un needed employees. Even the govt employees I have talked to admit it.

Exactly, thats what none of these libs understand. There is so much money wasted in the government. What's funny is all these libs act like they are so upset over the debt, but refuse to cut out the welfare programs and other crap that costs us so much money. Plus they want the government to get bigger and take over health care for every American. There is no reason to raise taxes on anyone, but liberals want taxation on the 'rich' no matter what because income redistribution in one of their core socialist beliefs.

 

[red states rule]

Exactly, thats what none of these libs understand. There is so much money wasted in the government. What's funny is all these libs act like they are so upset over the debt, but refuse to cut out the welfare programs and other crap that costs us so much money. Plus they want the government to get bigger and take over health care for every American. There is no reason to raise taxes on anyone, but liberals want taxation on the 'rich' no matter what because income redistribution in one of their core socialist beliefs.

Libs believe NOTHING will happen unless government money is spent to solve the problem

The "poor" will never amount to anything unless a government program helps them

 

[Emmett]

Exactly, thats what none of these libs understand. There is so much money wasted in the government. What's funny is all these libs act like they are so upset over the debt, but refuse to cut out the welfare programs and other crap that costs us so much money. Plus they want the government to get bigger and take over health care for every American. There is no reason to raise taxes on anyone, but liberals want taxation on the 'rich' no matter what because income redistribution in one of their core socialist beliefs.

Oh Hawk, that is ridiculous! There you go again with your common right wing rhetoric. Claiming once more that people know better than Government how to spend their money!

You know, it's people like you that do the socialist cause the biggest injustice. If it wasn't for folks like you the government could have all the money and then they could be totally in chatge of our well being. Just thinnk, we could let government have it all. We wouldn't need to worry about redistribution at that point. Everyone would be treated equally. You know, like it was in the Soviet Union, or modern day North Korea.

Your such a jack ass!

 

[Hamiltonian]

I know, these liberals all want to ruin our country by trying to make it just like the Soviet Union. First they took control of the MSM to spread their propaganda and then started taking over the country. They voted to send us to the Iraq War because they thought it would destroy our budget and cripple us militarily by pulling us into a long and drawn out conflict. Now they want to ruin the budget even more by raising taxes, which will decrease our revenue. The only possible explanation for such behavior is that they want to hurt business and the American way of life. That's why many former socialists have become neo-libs. It is all a thinly veiled attack at the founding Capitalistic principals of this country.

 

[red states rule]

The lasy thing libs want is a growing economy as we have now. They can see the proof tax cuts work and how they increase revenue, spur economic growth, and create jobs

Like drug dealers, libs want people dependent on them via a government program and enslaved to dependence

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I know, these liberals all want to ruin our country by trying to make it just like the Soviet Union. First they took control of the MSM to spread their propaganda and then started taking over the country. They voted to send us to the Iraq War because they thought it would destroy our budget and cripple us militarily by pulling us into a long and drawn out conflict. Now they want to ruin the budget even more by raising taxes, which will decrease our revenue. The only possible explanation for such behavior is that they want to hurt business and the American way of life. That's why many former socialists have become neo-libs. It is all a thinly veiled attack at the founding Capitalistic principals of this country.

Although you meant this sarcastically, the irony is ITS (almost) TRUE !!!

But you failed to mention these little (but VERY important) words.

....while a Republican administration is in office, so the Dems can regain control.....

 

[Hamiltonian]

Although you meant this sarcastically, the irony is ITS (almost) TRUE !!!

The scary thing is people actually believe it's true. Do you liberals actually shed a tear every time and American worker gets a raise? Painting caricatures of your opponents will lead you to defeat. As Sun Tzu said, "Know thy enemy."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Seems like you have a concept and are hell bent on making the facts fit it. I say this because you use some information and ignore other info.

Correlation does not imply causality. Clinton raised taxes and it raised our revenues. Here's a nice government paper on the tax cuts. I direct your attention to page 2, where it has a nice chart of revenue lost due to the tax cuts.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govd...df?PHPSESSID=863ec332a2468c40be531653901351e5 .

The chart is guesswork, as the paper itself states. You state it as though its a factual chart based on past economic data.

Correlation CAN imply causality. Especially in economics more than social behavior of people. When the effects are repeated many times over a long period of time, then you have to assume the one common denominator in all of the scenarios is the cause, or part of. Certainly it proves that the chances of the tax cuts cutting revenues is far fetched at best.
Regarding the clintion increases, I didnt say that revenue increases occur ONLY after tax cuts.

Wrong, the positive effects of the tax cuts are supposed to happen in the first five years after they are enacted. There are negative effects in the long run since tax cuts reduce savings. .

????thats what I said. It takes a year or two or more for it to become effective, I DIDNT say it takes more than five years.

Long term reduction is PURE SPECULATION. I read the study and it is MAJOR flawed. For example, it states that long term investment is reduced unless...then it states two ways to increase investment, of which one is foreign borrowing. That, it states, proves long term investment will decline... ????????? WTF???, are they saying foreign borrowing cant happen? It might be a negative as far as they are concerned because it increases the trade deficit (but some disagree), but it doesnt mean it cant happen.

I never said anywhere that the debt was 30k. I pointed out that some people were assuming they would only have to pay back 25k, when in fact they would have to pay back more than 25k with interest..

Actuallly, the term you used was "it", and it could be read either way, as referring to the actual amount of the debt to pay back, or the debt plus interest. Problem is mostly with the sentence previoius to that one, same post by you. Someone stated that 25K per person isnt that much a burden, then you supposedly refute that by saying the debt wont remain at 25K.
YOu are creating another scenario when you bring in the additional debt incurred. The person stated that the ACTUAL amount of 25K isnt that big a deal, to refute someone who said it is. He DIDNT say, the amount, plus future amounts (which is what you used to make your claim that it is indeed troublesome) arent troublesome.

Its like someone saying, we are down by 2 runs and five innings left to play, we can make that up without much of a problem, then you say, yea, but they will score more runs in the next five innings too, so it will be hard to make it up. Yours is mere speculation, the others statement is based on facts.

To get a surplus right now you would have to lop off all spending to the DoD. Somehow I doubt cutting funding is as easy as you think.

Cutting spending is quite simple. I have run a number of businesses, succesfully, and all you do is cut the amount of checks. The agencies (the ones that would remain) have to figure out how to accomplish the work with the amount of money. If it doesnt get done effeciently, then fire the people making the decisions. IT WORKS, I know from experience.

Even your own study states increases in revenue will occur in the short run. TO then say it will lower them in the long run is MAJOR SPECULATION at best.

 

[Hamiltonian]

The chart is guesswork, as the paper itself states. You state it as though its a factual chart based on past economic data.

The chart is based on Economic models. How exactly can you present a factual chart saying that you lost (or gained) so much revenue from the tax cuts, because we have no definite way of knowing what revenues would have been without the tax cuts. Therefore you use Economic models. The paper points out the difficulties in estimating the effect of tax cuts.

Correlation CAN imply causality. Especially in economics more than social behavior of people. When the effects are repeated many times over a long period of time, then you have to assume the one common denominator in all of the scenarios is the cause, or part of. Certainly it proves that the chances of the tax cuts cutting revenues is far fetched at best.
Regarding the clintion increases, I didnt say that revenue increases occur ONLY after tax cuts.

Cutting taxes can increase government revenue, or decrease it. As you point out, other factors can increase revenues. However, the Economy is such a complex beast you can't say that all the tax cuts are responsible for increasing the government revenue afterwards. That is unless you're ready to present the growth accounting data to me that I asked for earlier in this thread.

????thats what I said. It takes a year or two or more for it to become effective, I DIDNT say it takes more than five years.

No, you're misunderstanding. It depends on what you mean by short run. Over the short run is when we have the benefits of the tax cuts. Over time the economy adjusts to them and in the long term they are not beneficial.

Long term reduction is PURE SPECULATION. I read the study and it is MAJOR flawed. For example, it states that long term investment is reduced unless...then it states two ways to increase investment, of which one is foreign borrowing. That, it states, proves long term investment will decline... ????????? WTF???, are they saying foreign borrowing cant happen? It might be a negative as far as they are concerned because it increases the trade deficit (but some disagree), but it doesnt mean it cant happen.

You're not seeing the big picture. Tax cuts decrease government revenue. This sends us into larger deficit. That is synonymous with greatly decreasing public savings, which hurts our economy in the long run according to the Solow Model. All of this is rather established economics, and I believe taught in Econ 101. It is clear that the tax cuts are sending a negative effect towards our long term growth by lowering the savings rate. The study then mentions two sources of investment which could possibly offset the decrease in the savings rate. It is unequivocal that the tax cuts are sending a negative effect towards our economy. If there was foreign borrowing and we didn't have the tax cuts, then our economy would do even better long term due to a higher savings rate.

Cutting spending is quite simple. I have run a number of businesses, succesfully, and all you do is cut the amount of checks. The agencies (the ones that would remain) have to figure out how to accomplish the work with the amount of money. If it doesnt get done effeciently, then fire the people making the decisions. IT WORKS, I know from experience.

You're not taking into account the fact that you have to get elected, and get funding from all of these pro-funding lobbyists in order to do that.

Even your own study states increases in revenue will occur in the short run.

It estimates GDP increase in the short run, not revenue.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Exactly, thats what none of these libs understand. There is so much money wasted in the government. What's funny is all these libs act like they are so upset over the debt, but refuse to cut out the welfare programs and other crap that costs us so much money. Plus they want the government to get bigger and take over health care for every American. There is no reason to raise taxes on anyone, but liberals want taxation on the 'rich' no matter what because income redistribution in one of their core socialist beliefs.

Cut ALL WELFARE tomorrow and see how quick anarchy sets it.

Over the past 50 years and presidents on both sides of the isle - we’ve created a monster that only knows how to increase in diameter.

You can either pay people who’ve never been brought up to know anything about a work ethic, fathers, going to church or even running a basic household budget - or bring back the National Guard from Iraq to shoot them down in the streets, when you don’t send out the checks any longer.

Conservatives just don’t get it. This is a sub-specie we’ve ALL created.

 

[bush lover]

I commend our President Bush for his tax cuts, which benefit all of us so much, especially the middle class. But, if the tax revenues are now going up, I think our President should pass another tax cut to give us those extra monies back. Otherwise they will just pile up. And that really is a tax increase.

 

[theHawk]

Cut ALL WELFARE tomorrow and see how quick anarchy sets it.

Over the past 50 years and presidents on both sides of the isle - we’ve created a monster that only knows how to increase in diameter.

You can either pay people who’ve never been brought up to know anything about a work ethic, fathers, going to church or even running a basic household budget - or bring back the National Guard from Iraq to shoot them down in the streets, when you don’t send out the checks any longer.

Conservatives just don’t get it. This is a sub-specie we’ve ALL created.

Yes, both sides have contributed. What I don't understand is this mentality that since its been created there is just nothing we can do about it. What makes it even worse is liberals don't seem to understand that creating a national health care system would just make the problem 100 times worse. I'm not saying cut all welfare tomorrow, but it can be vastly downsized. There are lots of single mothers out there that could sure use it, but there isn't any reason at all an able bodied man should ever be on welfare.