CDZ The shape of things to come ... unless

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Correct.

And we have current GOP presidential candidates who seek to implement on the National level the same failed, reckless, and irresponsible fiscal policies as in Kansas.

 

[Care4all]

Gosh ALMIGHTY repubs can play dumb with great superiority.....and they can tap dance and do the twist too!

 

[Care4all]

So cutting taxes DOES NOT raise tax revenues as Cons claim....color me shocked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Budget cuts to Liberals is like sunlight to Dracula

 

[leftwinger]

Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared.

By your own numbers there is a built-in 1.5%*GDB deficit each year. This is in the 100's of billions each year.

I agree, looking back no matter where tax rates are set the most revenue collected is 20%*GDP.
They over-spend which keeps adding to the total debt.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Gov. Sam Brownback will issue $62.6 million in budget cuts and fund transfers to shore up the state’s cash reserves, his budget director announced Thursday.

"The biggest cut will come from the SCHIP program, which provides free or affordable health insurance to children of low-income families. The program will see its state funding reduced by $17.6 million. However, that will be offset by an equal increase in federal aid made possible through the Affordable Care Act."

Link: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s budget cuts announced

JULY 30, 2015 ^^^

You tell us Frank, think before you cut and run.

Trading one program for another? Brownback is smart to move the burden onto a very bad program passed without a single Republican vote

LOL A truly myopic spin by the infamous creator of the Idiot-gram. Well done sir, well done.

Translation: Frank's post demolished my thesis so I have to call him an idiot

Brownback is smart? Only someone like you would believe so.

He's trying to close a budget deficit that's a tiny fraction of what the Obamas paid to Michelle's college roommate to build the only website on the planet that couldn't tell you when someone bought your product.

Please rationale that for us. We wasted over $1,000,000,000,000 to build a failed website

We wasted over a Trillion Dollars and counting on a war of choice in Iraq and managed to kill over Four thousand five hundred American Soldiers, and seriously wound hundreds of thousands more.

BTW, prove a trillion dollars was wasted on a software glitch.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Budget cuts to Liberals is like sunlight to Dracula

Liberals are very willing to let the H. of Rep. lead on budget cuts, but first we demand they cut their own salary by 50% and pay for their own benefits; eliminate all corporate welfare and fine the military when they prove they are the ones which created the need for the word SNAFU (just as you are the one who created the need for the word Idiot-Gram).

In what may be the most bizarre and public crash of a multibillion-dollar Pentagon boondoggle ever, a surveillance blimp flying over an Army base in Maryland broke loose Wednesday afternoon, its 6,000-foot-long tether wreaking havoc on the countryside before it finally came down in pieces in Pennsylvania.

The giant airship — 80 yards long and about the size of three Goodyear blimps — was one of a pair that represented the last gasp of an 18-year, $2.7 billion program called JLENS or “Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System.”

Runaway Surveillance Blimp Deflates Raytheon’s Hopes to Sell More

At least CrusaderFrank's only cost is for all American Citizens to pay for the embarrassment, when citizen's of the world judge us by the words of CF and other partisan morons.

 

[320 Years of History]

red state voters can learn from reality and begin to vote out fiscally conservatives representatives, and elect fiscally responsible representatives. Kansas' voters voted for demagogues and charlatans and are now paying the price. See:

Kansas slashes revenue forecast, adjusts budget to avert gap

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Kansas slashed its revenue projections on Friday, and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's budget director immediately announced $124 million in budget adjustments to allow the state to keep paying its bills on time.

University economists, legislative researchers and officials in Brownback's administration issued a new, more pessimistic fiscal forecast for state government after months of disappointing tax collections. The new numbers recognize recent economic slumps in agriculture and energy production and what state officials have said is a national softness in recent months in consumer spending.

The state has struggled to balance its budget since GOP legislators cut personal income taxes dramatically in 2012 and 2013 at Brownback's urging, in an effort to stimulate the economy. Most of those income tax cuts have been preserved, but Republican lawmakers raised sales and cigarette taxes in July.

Everyone is hurting because of the last 10 years of democrat rule, have you not noticed? Low oil prices don't help anyone other then the consumers.

I don't see the point that you have attempted to make with the second sentence in your remarks....who, pray tell, isn't a consumer of oil?

• A partial list of products made from petroleum
• Oil is everywhere...common everyday items made from petroleum derivatives

We live in a world where everything goes retro except prices. We seem to have no issue accepting that the price of "stuff" rises each year, yet we hear politicians speak of taxes -- the cost of government and the things it provides -- as though they should not cost more each year. Governments are consumers of "stuff" just like everyone else, and though their size allows them to negotiate lower prices than you or I can, the price they pay for labor and capital increases each year. Sure, one can say "cut the funding for 'this or that' program." That's easy to say when the programs involved aren't the ones from which the speaker benefits.

The GOP legislators in Kansas suffer from the same myopic Suzy-one-notedness we hear from many politicians. According to John Hanna, "GOP leaders blamed national economic trends, not the 2012-13 income tax cuts, for the budget troubles." Puh-lease. Anyone should be able to tell that the shortfall Kansas faces is not the result of one single factor.

Susan Wagle, Kansas' Senate President, stated, "I am confident we would be in far worse shape had the tax cuts never happened." Let's be clear, the "we" to which she refers is the Kansas State government. Now you tell me, when you collect less income this year than you did in the prior year, are you able to spend -- spending being investments/savings and purchases -- as much as you did last year? Of course, you cannot. Well, it's no different with a government.

The idea that lowering taxes can be revenue neutral for a government is a pipe dream. It sounds like a nice thing, but it just doesn't work. For example, assume the following:

• Tax Rate = 20%
• Taxpayer Taxable Income = $100K
• Tax collected = $20K

If the government enacts a 5% tax rate reduction, the taxpayer must achieve a 33% income increase in order for the government to collect the same $20K. Now who, or what business, typically (if ever) realizes 33% income gains year over year? Even the top performing corporations produce 20% or lower gains in net income. Even a markedly lower tax reduction, say 2%, requires an 11% gain in income for the tax cut to be revenue neutral.

Now look at Kansas' median income trend since 2005. What about the 1% increase in median income from 2005 to 2012 suggests that even a meager 2% tax cut would have produced enough of a boost that the state would still have collected enough revenue to pay for the things it needs to do?

But what exactly are Kansas' tax rate cuts? Less than 1%. I don't know about you, but I'm not so well off, nor am I so poor, that a less than 1% cut in my tax bill is going to matter to me one way or the other. Let's face it, the tax cut they passed amounts to $90 per year (2013 - 2015), or $7.50/month, for a person/family with $30K of taxable income. (even less for lower income earners) Whoopty-doo!!!!

From a political positioning standpoint, however, a less than 1% tax cut still constitutes a tax cut, so the GOP legislators in Kansas can honestly state that they did lower taxes; the fact is they did. And, yes, with such a paltry tax cut, it's conceivable that had the Kansas economy been a bit stronger, the cut may have ended up being revenue neutral. Unfortunately, they also lowered state revenue and now they find themselves having to cut the funding for programs/activities like highway construction/maintenance that benefits all Kansans. So, now average to "struggling" Kansas taxpayers are faced with fewer services -- highway maintenance along with other unspecified (in the news article) service cuts -- in exchange for $7.50/per month.

 

[auditor0007]

Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared.

By your own numbers there is a built-in 1.5%*GDB deficit each year. This is in the 100's of billions each year.

I agree, looking back no matter where tax rates are set the most revenue collected is 20%*GDP.
They over-spend which keeps adding to the total debt.

View attachment 54178

If growth in GDP is greater than the yearly deficit, the deficit does not become a problem. We can run deficits forever so long as they do not outpace the growth in our economy. Currently we are running deficits lower than our historical average which means that the debt will begin to decrease as a percentage of GDP. People have been duped by conservatives into believing that the deficit is this big boogie man that we must pay off. We do not need to pay it off. We just cannot allow it to grow bigger and bigger as a percentage of GDP. It is currently around 100% of GDP and that is too high. We need to keep deficits smaller than the growth in GDP long enough to bring it back down around 70% or less of GDP.

 

[oldsoul]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

 

[oldsoul]

Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared.

By your own numbers there is a built-in 1.5%*GDB deficit each year. This is in the 100's of billions each year.

I agree, looking back no matter where tax rates are set the most revenue collected is 20%*GDP.
They over-spend which keeps adding to the total debt.

View attachment 54178

If growth in GDP is greater than the yearly deficit, the deficit does not become a problem. We can run deficits forever so long as they do not outpace the growth in our economy. Currently we are running deficits lower than our historical average which means that the debt will begin to decrease as a percentage of GDP. People have been duped by conservatives into believing that the deficit is this big boogie man that we must pay off. We do not need to pay it off. We just cannot allow it to grow bigger and bigger as a percentage of GDP. It is currently around 100% of GDP and that is too high. We need to keep deficits smaller than the growth in GDP long enough to bring it back down around 70% or less of GDP.

Sooo by your logic, we can spend more than we take in forever as long as it's not too much more? I don't get the math, 3-4=-1(ok), 3-5=-2(not ok)?
By your logic, as long as my debt does not exceed the growth in my production, I never have to pay it back. Guess I should call my banker and tell him I will never pay him back... LOL

 

[auditor0007]

Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared.

By your own numbers there is a built-in 1.5%*GDB deficit each year. This is in the 100's of billions each year.

I agree, looking back no matter where tax rates are set the most revenue collected is 20%*GDP.
They over-spend which keeps adding to the total debt.

View attachment 54178

If growth in GDP is greater than the yearly deficit, the deficit does not become a problem. We can run deficits forever so long as they do not outpace the growth in our economy. Currently we are running deficits lower than our historical average which means that the debt will begin to decrease as a percentage of GDP. People have been duped by conservatives into believing that the deficit is this big boogie man that we must pay off. We do not need to pay it off. We just cannot allow it to grow bigger and bigger as a percentage of GDP. It is currently around 100% of GDP and that is too high. We need to keep deficits smaller than the growth in GDP long enough to bring it back down around 70% or less of GDP.

Sooo by your logic, we can spend more than we take in forever as long as it's not too much more? I don't get the math, 3-4=-1(ok), 3-5=-2(not ok)?
By your logic, as long as my debt does not exceed the growth in my production, I never have to pay it back. Guess I should call my banker and tell him I will never pay him back... LOL

My logic is sound and supported by economists everywhere. Do you actually believe that we are going to pay off the debt? Really? Why would we even try? It would bankrupt us. Growing out of it is the only way to reduce it that is logical. This really isn't rocket science.

 

[auditor0007]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

So, you want to start by cutting military spending, or do you propose we cut SS and Medicare payments to recipients?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

red state voters can learn from reality and begin to vote out fiscally conservatives representatives, and elect fiscally responsible representatives. Kansas' voters voted for demagogues and charlatans and are now paying the price. See:

Kansas slashes revenue forecast, adjusts budget to avert gap

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Kansas slashed its revenue projections on Friday, and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's budget director immediately announced $124 million in budget adjustments to allow the state to keep paying its bills on time.

University economists, legislative researchers and officials in Brownback's administration issued a new, more pessimistic fiscal forecast for state government after months of disappointing tax collections. The new numbers recognize recent economic slumps in agriculture and energy production and what state officials have said is a national softness in recent months in consumer spending.

The state has struggled to balance its budget since GOP legislators cut personal income taxes dramatically in 2012 and 2013 at Brownback's urging, in an effort to stimulate the economy. Most of those income tax cuts have been preserved, but Republican lawmakers raised sales and cigarette taxes in July.

I have plenty of aquaintances in Kansas.

They really are shocked when I inform them how badly things look from the outside.

On the inside, the suburban areas of Kansas are rocking and rolling.

The states budget is a mess....so what.

Our federal budget is a mess and we somehow deal with it.

Kansas has low unemployment and is doing just fine.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Gov. Sam Brownback will issue $62.6 million in budget cuts and fund transfers to shore up the state’s cash reserves, his budget director announced Thursday.

"The biggest cut will come from the SCHIP program, which provides free or affordable health insurance to children of low-income families. The program will see its state funding reduced by $17.6 million. However, that will be offset by an equal increase in federal aid made possible through the Affordable Care Act."

Link: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s budget cuts announced

JULY 30, 2015 ^^^

You tell us Frank, think before you cut and run.

Trading one program for another? Brownback is smart to move the burden onto a very bad program passed without a single Republican vote

LOL A truly myopic spin by the infamous creator of the Idiot-gram. Well done sir, well done.

And that response is supposed to inform what ? Other than you don't have a response.

The program hurts in many states and when Kansas Children are starving to death get back to us.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

So, you want to start by cutting military spending, or do you propose we cut SS and Medicare payments to recipients?

Military spending is a great place to start.

Social Security requires that we cut out fraud and waste as well as redoing the legislation so that people can't legaly slake it the way they do now.

It's a start.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared.

By your own numbers there is a built-in 1.5%*GDB deficit each year. This is in the 100's of billions each year.

I agree, looking back no matter where tax rates are set the most revenue collected is 20%*GDP.
They over-spend which keeps adding to the total debt.

View attachment 54178

If growth in GDP is greater than the yearly deficit, the deficit does not become a problem. We can run deficits forever so long as they do not outpace the growth in our economy. Currently we are running deficits lower than our historical average which means that the debt will begin to decrease as a percentage of GDP. People have been duped by conservatives into believing that the deficit is this big boogie man that we must pay off. We do not need to pay it off. We just cannot allow it to grow bigger and bigger as a percentage of GDP. It is currently around 100% of GDP and that is too high. We need to keep deficits smaller than the growth in GDP long enough to bring it back down around 70% or less of GDP.

Sooo by your logic, we can spend more than we take in forever as long as it's not too much more? I don't get the math, 3-4=-1(ok), 3-5=-2(not ok)?
By your logic, as long as my debt does not exceed the growth in my production, I never have to pay it back. Guess I should call my banker and tell him I will never pay him back... LOL

My logic is sound and supported by economists everywhere. Do you actually believe that we are going to pay off the debt? Really? Why would we even try? It would bankrupt us. Growing out of it is the only way to reduce it that is logical. This really isn't rocket science.

Love how that would work at home.

Don't even try to pay off your debts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

So, you want to start by cutting military spending, or do you propose we cut SS and Medicare payments to recipients?

Military spending is a great place to start.

Social Security requires that we cut out fraud and waste as well as redoing the legislation so that people can't legaly slake it the way they do now.

It's a start.

Cool, let's start by building another billion dollar blimp, this time with a tether strong enough to keep it in place.

Screw children, if you outlaw abortion and contraception you can have all the cheap labor you want. I spent a week driving through Kansas one day, scenic it's not.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

So, you want to start by cutting military spending, or do you propose we cut SS and Medicare payments to recipients?

Military spending is a great place to start.

Social Security requires that we cut out fraud and waste as well as redoing the legislation so that people can't legaly slake it the way they do now.

It's a start.

Cool, let's start by building another billion dollar blimp, this time with a tether strong enough to keep it in place.

Screw children, if you outlaw abortion and contraception you can have all the cheap labor you want. I spent a week driving through Kansas one day, scenic it's not.

Reads like you were drinking when you posted it.

 

[oldsoul]

Meanwhile Obama and the Dems and Boehner ran up over $8 TRILLION in new debt

Nearly $7 trillion of our total debt was accumulated under Bush and Obama during years when tax revenues were under 17% of GDP. This was simply due to the Bush tax cuts which put a huge hole in tax collections during years when the economy was not doing as well as expected. Over the past 50 to 60 years, we have had federal outlays averaging around 20% of GDP with revenues averaging 18.5% of GDP. In years when revenues fell well below 18.5% of GDP, deficits soared. The bottom line is that Republican tax cuts have caused the vast majority of our debt, plain and simple. This idea that it has been overspending that has been the cause is an absolute fallacy.

Unless of course you realize that for tax cuts to work long term, you have to reduce spending...

So, you want to start by cutting military spending, or do you propose we cut SS and Medicare payments to recipients?

Um, how about yes, all of the above. I for one would opt out of SS and future eligability for Medicare, they can even keep what I have already "payed in"(aka : had removed from my pay).