Did Obama Vote for the Debt He "Inherited"

[Iriemon]

Doesn't matter. He was instrumental in getting it passed, he put his stamp of approval on it when he signed it....and he was lying when he said he didn't.

yay...

it is not hard to get...obama votes to approve the budget that increased our deficit, thus he is part of the problem and his actions caused the deficit to go higher.

it is the height of stupidity to say his one vote did nothing, did not count and the budget wasn't in his name. he voted to approve the budget, so saying that he had nothing to do with the deficit is a flat out lie.

So why aren't your ragging on McCain for increasing the deficit too?

 

[AllieBaba]

McCain didn't lie and say he had nothing to do with it.

 

[DiveCon]

McCain didn't lie and say he had nothing to do with it.

McCain also hasnt been trying to distance himself from his votes
unlike Obama

 

[Yurt]

McCain didn't lie and say he had nothing to do with it.

i think he is a troll....divecon and i have told him this about a dozen times in big fonts, colored fonts, underline, bold fonts...and both of us have told him that we do hold mccain responsible...

 

[Maple]

I don't like McCain, never did, he is way too moderate for me. AS far as I am concerned, I wish he would take a few of his pals like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and jump ship over to the democrats along with Spector. I didn't vote for McCain I VOTED FOR SARAH!!!!

 

[DiveCon]

McCain didn't lie and say he had nothing to do with it.

i think he is a troll....divecon and i have told him this about a dozen times in big fonts, colored fonts, underline, bold fonts...and both of us have told him that we do hold mccain responsible...

and hes called ME a troll
LOL
how many times does he have to see us say we hold EVERYONE that voted for it responsible before it finally sinks in to his thick skull

 

[Newby]

How so?

Media Matters - Media cite Japan's "lost decade" to criticize Obama's economic stimulus plan, but economists disagree

Media Matters????? And he has the nerve to degrade links to Fox News articles, hilarious!!

 

[Newby]

Doesn't matter. He was instrumental in getting it passed, he put his stamp of approval on it when he signed it....and he was lying when he said he didn't.

yay...

it is not hard to get...obama votes to approve the budget that increased our deficit, thus he is part of the problem and his actions caused the deficit to go higher.

it is the height of stupidity to say his one vote did nothing, did not count and the budget wasn't in his name. he voted to approve the budget, so saying that he had nothing to do with the deficit is a flat out lie.

So why aren't your ragging on McCain for increasing the deficit too?

McCain isn't the president.

 

[DiveCon]

yay...

it is not hard to get...obama votes to approve the budget that increased our deficit, thus he is part of the problem and his actions caused the deficit to go higher.

it is the height of stupidity to say his one vote did nothing, did not count and the budget wasn't in his name. he voted to approve the budget, so saying that he had nothing to do with the deficit is a flat out lie.

So why aren't your ragging on McCain for increasing the deficit too?

McCain isn't the president.

more important is McCain isnt denying his role in it

 

[jreeves]

Only in limited situations; eg a recession where temporary fiscal stimulus may be justified or where the nation's life depends on spending more than it can raise from taxes. Otherwise I don't think any deficits are OK.

So its ok to run up deficits that will lead this country to deficits that will ultimately lead to the federal budget consisting of nothing more than; entitlement programs and paying interest on the national debt, as long as it is excused by the purpose of stimulating the economy.

No

Even before the baby boomer generation has begun to retire, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid constitute 42% of the federal budget, he said. In the next 30 years, the share of population that's older than 65 will hit 20%, from 13% currently, which commensurately inflates the cost of those programs. At the same time, inflation in health care costs far outstrips economic growth, meaning that Medicare and Medicaid in 40 years will be as big as the entire federal budget today.
National debt makes U.S. vulnerable, experts say - JSOnline
In less than 20 years, those three programs, plus interest payments on America's debt, will consume all the tax revenue the nation can expect by then, Bixby said.

That's before Obama's 2 trillion dollar expansion of the national debt.

Therefore we need to raise taxes or lower benefits, or make them more efficient.

What do you think the effect of raising taxes would be to the economy? There is one way to curtail budget deficits, don't spend the money. Stop automatically increasing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding, make the Congress actually do their job. Make them debate funding for these programs. For goodness sake, Social Security payments shouldn't increase when we are in deflationary pattern. These people that we elected to do our nation's business are truly brain dead....seriously

 

[Iriemon]

So its ok to run up deficits that will lead this country to deficits that will ultimately lead to the federal budget consisting of nothing more than; entitlement programs and paying interest on the national debt, as long as it is excused by the purpose of stimulating the economy.

No

Even before the baby boomer generation has begun to retire, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid constitute 42% of the federal budget, he said. In the next 30 years, the share of population that's older than 65 will hit 20%, from 13% currently, which commensurately inflates the cost of those programs. At the same time, inflation in health care costs far outstrips economic growth, meaning that Medicare and Medicaid in 40 years will be as big as the entire federal budget today.
National debt makes U.S. vulnerable, experts say - JSOnline
In less than 20 years, those three programs, plus interest payments on America's debt, will consume all the tax revenue the nation can expect by then, Bixby said.

That's before Obama's 2 trillion dollar expansion of the national debt.

Therefore we need to raise taxes or lower benefits, or make them more efficient.

What do you think the effect of raising taxes would be to the economy?

It depends on a number of things, but given that a lot of excess capital is sitting in banks, if the extra revenues were put to demand creating ventures, it would be helpful. Plus there would be the added confidence associated with budget forecasts that would be more balanced.

There is one way to curtail budget deficits, don't spend the money. Stop automatically increasing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding, make the Congress actually do their job. Make them debate funding for these programs. For goodness sake, Social Security payments shouldn't increase when we are in deflationary pattern. These people that we elected to do our nation's business are truly brain dead....seriously

No there are two ways. Increase revenues curtails deficits too.

 

[jreeves]

No



Therefore we need to raise taxes or lower benefits, or make them more efficient.

It depends on a number of things, but given that a lot of excess capital is sitting in banks, if the extra revenues were put to demand creating ventures, it would be helpful. Plus there would be the added confidence associated with budget forecasts that would be more balanced.

There is one way to curtail budget deficits, don't spend the money. Stop automatically increasing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding, make the Congress actually do their job. Make them debate funding for these programs. For goodness sake, Social Security payments shouldn't increase when we are in deflationary pattern. These people that we elected to do our nation's business are truly brain dead....seriously

No there are two ways. Increase revenues curtails deficits too.

One problem with your assumption, raising taxes, doesn't always lead to increased tax revenues. The only sure way to balance the budget is to cut spending.

 

[Iriemon]

It depends on a number of things, but given that a lot of excess capital is sitting in banks, if the extra revenues were put to demand creating ventures, it would be helpful. Plus there would be the added confidence associated with budget forecasts that would be more balanced.

No there are two ways. Increase revenues curtails deficits too.

One problem with your assumption, raising taxes, doesn't always lead to increased tax revenues. The only sure way to balance the budget is to cut spending.

Always has raised revenues in the past, I think.

Problem with cutting spending in a recession is you are reducing economic stimulus at the time you most need it.

 

[jreeves]

One problem with your assumption, raising taxes, doesn't always lead to increased tax revenues. The only sure way to balance the budget is to cut spending.

Always has raised revenues in the past, I think.

Problem with cutting spending in a recession is you are reducing economic stimulus at the time you most need it.

Here is a history of tax cuts leading to increased tax revenues....
TDP - Tax Cut Revenue Rewards
Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.

We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?

The table shows the average annual change in tax revenue from the year before the tax cut to the end of the experiment (or in Mr. Bush's case to the present).

President Kennedy proposed major tax reduction before he was assassinated in 1963. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the tax cuts in the summer of 1964. Rates for all income groups were cut and the top rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for the three years after the tax cut, with very low inflation. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress raised taxes in 1968, ending the Kennedy experiment.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was experiencing no growth and high inflation. As part of the solution, Reagan proposed a 30 percent reduction in tax rates. His critics claimed this would increase inflation and lead to economic disaster. Twenty five years ago this month, Congress passed a slightly watered-down version of the Reagan proposals, which reduced tax rates by about 25 percent over three years, and brought the top rate down to 50 percent.

In retrospect, the entire tax rate reduction should have been made in 1981, rather than dragging it out to 1983, which had the short-run effect of reducing growth by giving people an incentive to delay income realization. However, once enacted, the results were spectacular. Real economic growth averaged more than 4 percent per year, and inflation fell from double digits and averaged roughly 4 percent.
Cap+Gains (image)
Here is a chart of capital gains tax rates and the actual tax revenues collected, notice when rates were high less revenues were collected.

 

[Iriemon]

Always has raised revenues in the past, I think.

Problem with cutting spending in a recession is you are reducing economic stimulus at the time you most need it.

Here is a history of tax cuts leading to increased tax revenues....
TDP - Tax Cut Revenue Rewards
Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.

Is this guy smoking crack? I mean, OK, he's a Moony. But good lord.

Year - Total revenues
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

Source CBO.gov

Despite a growing economy, revenues fell by hundreds of billions of dollars concurrent with the Bush tax cuts.

And this idiot writes: Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment?

If a decline of $250 billion dollar per year isn't a "big reduction" what the hell is?

It took 5 years before revenues recovered to their 2000 levels. The government has cumulatively lost well over a trillion dollars in revenues because of the tax cuts.

We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?

Let's compare and see how well the tax cuts really worked. The GDP figures are from the BEA and the revenues figures are CBO.gov data adjusted for inflation using GDP inflation factors used by the BEA to convert GDP to 2000 dollars.

Year - Revenues 2000$
1980 956.8
1988 1201.3
Increase: 25.5%

Year - GDP 2000$
1980 5,161.7
1988 6,742.7
Increase: 30.6%

Reagan taxes. Under Reagan, real GDP grew a total of 30.6%, not stellar by any means. Revenues grew less than GDP, by 25%. Is this what the author calls, "a surge"? That, along with the military buildup, is the reason why the debt increased 180% while Reagan was president.

Clinton raised taxes from 31% to 40% in 1993. Lets see what happened:

Year - Revenues 2000$
1992 1263.3
2000 2025.2
Increase 60.3%

Year - GDP 2000$
1992 7,336.6
2000 9,817.0
Increase: 33.8%

The economy did a little better than during Reagan, but look at those revenues! Up 60% real. Now that is a surge in revenues! And a the main reason why the Govt had a surplus in 2000.

The Bush took office and slashed taxes again:

Year - Revenues 2000$
2000 2025.2
2008 2061.0
Increase: 1.8%

Year - GDP 2000$
2000 9,817.0
2006 11,652.7
Increase: 18.1%

The effect of tax cuts again failed to live up to the hype. Despite the promise of superior growth, the economy grew a paltry 18% real over the past 8 years, and revenues have barely kept ahead of inflation. This is the biggest reason why the Bush administration put the nation $5 trillion more in debt, helped with a massive military buildup and fighting a couple wars.

Surging revenues with tax cuts? Higher rates of economic growth? That's certainly not what the data looks like to me.

 

[Iriemon]

[
President Kennedy proposed major tax reduction before he was assassinated in 1963. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the tax cuts in the summer of 1964. Rates for all income groups were cut and the top rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for the three years after the tax cut, with very low inflation. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress raised taxes in 1968, ending the Kennedy experiment.

You could make an argument for a reduction from 91% to 70%. That increases after tax income 200% while reducing the effect tax rate by only about 20%

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was experiencing no growth and high inflation.

A bit misleading. Real GDP growth average 3.3% under Carter, not much worse than the 3.4% in averaged under Reagan. But Carter appointed Vockler to fight inflation in 1979, and Vockler slammed down on the money supply causing interest rates to sky and the economy grind to a halt. So the statement is true only if you look at the year 1980.

As part of the solution, Reagan proposed a 30 percent reduction in tax rates. His critics claimed this would increase inflation and lead to economic disaster. Twenty five years ago this month, Congress passed a slightly watered-down version of the Reagan proposals, which reduced tax rates by about 25 percent over three years, and brought the top rate down to 50 percent.

I remember critics saying it would lead to huge deficits. They were right.

Inflation came down because of Volcker's strict money policy, nothing to do with the tax rate. But since the author is lying about everything else, I guess he figured he'd slide that in.

Cap+Gains (image)
Here is a chart of capital gains tax rates and the actual tax revenues collected, notice when rates were high less revenues were collected.

Interesting chart.

What is shows is that even tho Bush cut cap gains tax, cap gains revenues have never been higher than they were in 2000, when the cap gains tax was higher.

So much for the cutting taxes increases revenues malarky, eh?

 

[jreeves]

Always has raised revenues in the past, I think.

Problem with cutting spending in a recession is you are reducing economic stimulus at the time you most need it.

Here is a history of tax cuts leading to increased tax revenues....
TDP - Tax Cut Revenue Rewards
Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.

Is this guy smoking crack? I mean, OK, he's a Moony. But good lord.

Year - Total revenues
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

Source CBO.gov

Despite a growing economy, revenues fell by hundreds of billions of dollars concurrent with the Bush tax cuts.

And this idiot writes: Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment?

If a decline of $250 billion dollar per year isn't a "big reduction" what the hell is?

It took 5 years before revenues recovered to their 2000 levels. The government has cumulatively lost well over a trillion dollars in revenues because of the tax cuts.

We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?

Let's compare and see how well the tax cuts really worked. The GDP figures are from the BEA and the revenues figures are CBO.gov data adjusted for inflation using GDP inflation factors used by the BEA to convert GDP to 2000 dollars.

Year - Revenues 2000$
1980 956.8
1988 1201.3
Increase: 25.5%

Year - GDP 2000$
1980 5,161.7
1988 6,742.7
Increase: 30.6%

Reagan taxes. Under Reagan, real GDP grew a total of 30.6%, not stellar by any means. Revenues grew less than GDP, by 25%. Is this what the author calls, "a surge"? That, along with the military buildup, is the reason why the debt increased 180% while Reagan was president.

Clinton raised taxes from 31% to 40% in 1993. Lets see what happened:

Year - Revenues 2000$
1992 1263.3
2000 2025.2
Increase 60.3%

Year - GDP 2000$
1992 7,336.6
2000 9,817.0
Increase: 33.8%

The economy did a little better than during Reagan, but look at those revenues! Up 60% real. Now that is a surge in revenues! And a the main reason why the Govt had a surplus in 2000.

The Bush took office and slashed taxes again:

Year - Revenues 2000$
2000 2025.2
2008 2061.0
Increase: 1.8%

Year - GDP 2000$
2000 9,817.0
2006 11,652.7
Increase: 18.1%

The effect of tax cuts again failed to live up to the hype. Despite the promise of superior growth, the economy grew a paltry 18% real over the past 8 years, and revenues have barely kept ahead of inflation. This is the biggest reason why the Bush administration put the nation $5 trillion more in debt, helped with a massive military buildup and fighting a couple wars.

Surging revenues with tax cuts? Higher rates of economic growth? That's certainly not what the data looks like to me.

You are dead wrong, the tax cuts didn't cause the deficits it was an increase in governmental spending. See....
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil*lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil*lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)


Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro*jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend*ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev*enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

 

[jreeves]

[
President Kennedy proposed major tax reduction before he was assassinated in 1963. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the tax cuts in the summer of 1964. Rates for all income groups were cut and the top rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for the three years after the tax cut, with very low inflation. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress raised taxes in 1968, ending the Kennedy experiment.

You could make an argument for a reduction from 91% to 70%. That increases after tax income 200% while reducing the effect tax rate by only about 20%

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was experiencing no growth and high inflation.

A bit misleading. Real GDP growth average 3.3% under Carter, not much worse than the 3.4% in averaged under Reagan. But Carter appointed Vockler to fight inflation in 1979, and Vockler slammed down on the money supply causing interest rates to sky and the economy grind to a halt. So the statement is true only if you look at the year 1980.

As part of the solution, Reagan proposed a 30 percent reduction in tax rates. His critics claimed this would increase inflation and lead to economic disaster. Twenty five years ago this month, Congress passed a slightly watered-down version of the Reagan proposals, which reduced tax rates by about 25 percent over three years, and brought the top rate down to 50 percent.

I remember critics saying it would lead to huge deficits. They were right.

Inflation came down because of Volcker's strict money policy, nothing to do with the tax rate. But since the author is lying about everything else, I guess he figured he'd slide that in.

Cap+Gains (image)
Here is a chart of capital gains tax rates and the actual tax revenues collected, notice when rates were high less revenues were collected.

Interesting chart.

What is shows is that even tho Bush cut cap gains tax, cap gains revenues have never been higher than they were in 2000, when the cap gains tax was higher.

So much for the cutting taxes increases revenues malarky, eh?

Here pick your year for a correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.


In other words, higher tax rates do not correlate with higher tax revenues.