Debt deal

[Kulaf]

Hard to justify saying tax revenues are at an all time low when the chart only goes back to the 70's, and it is showing tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, not total revenues. Tax receipts actually hit their all time high in 2007.....even adjusting for constant dollar values:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200

[Ddrak]

Of course they are going up in terms of total revenue - the economy and population keeps growing. GDP is one of the better proxies for the size of the economy (especially when talking about the pool of money available to be taxed), so it makes sense to measure them in terms of percentage of GDP. As the page you linked shows, revenues are the lowest they've been since 1950.

Dd

[Kulaf]

So why have receipts dropped as a percentage of GDP? The tax code remained largely unchanged. If we take them together then reciepts should largely follow econmic performance assuming taxes remain unchanged. Why the drop?

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa ... glance.htm

GDP has had positive growth since Q3 of 2009.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'd also like to point out that the argument of "we need to increase taxes because spending has increased" is a false dichotomy. If spending decreases, then there is no (or less) need to raise taxes.

Glad the Dems are finally getting the memo on that.

[Lurker]

Yeah, genius... if spending decreases by 1.5 trillion per year there is no need to raise taxes. You solved our problems! Brilliant!

[Ddrak]

So why have receipts dropped as a percentage of GDP? The tax code remained largely unchanged. If we take them together then reciepts should largely follow econmic performance assuming taxes remain unchanged. Why the drop?

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa ... glance.htm

GDP has had positive growth since Q3 of 2009.

I don't know, to be honest. Something I'll see if I can follow up. Shouldn't be hard to figure out which component the drop is in.

Excellent question though!


@Embar - yes. It needs to be a compromise. I would suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adjusting expenditure to meet the expected revenue over a 10 year prediction. I think it's unrealistic of either side to expect their own way 100% and the market is starting to get pretty jittery.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yeah, genius... if spending decreases by 1.5 trillion per year there is no need to raise taxes. You solved our problems! Brilliant!

Tell me genius, how did spending reach 1.5 trillion per year?

Bet I hear nothing but crickets from Lurker on this.

Edit: Going to hold me response until I understand what Lurker is trying to communicate to me. Disregard the crickets statement.

I need to ask Lurker why he thinks spending has significantly increased under the Obama admin, and what, if any, spending increase was justified, and why.

Lurker?

[Lurker]

It is amazing how easily you distort recent history.

Spending hasn't significantly increased under the Obama administration. Obama didn't cause our current deficit. The deficit was projected at 1.2 trillion per year before Obama even took office.

Yes, there was stimulus spending (a large portion of which came as tax cuts) that wasn't paid for, but every other program passed by Obama was revenue neutral or better. Unlike the previous administration.

After decades of fiscal insanity by Republicans where they recklessly increased spending and cut taxes without a single care about how to pay for any of it, it's a bit strange that you chide Democrats on fiscal policy. It makes you look like a partisan idiot who can't recognize the incredible damage your own party caused.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

While you're at it tell me why it was necessary to take away child-only health care packages as a result of Healthcare reform.

[Lurker]

No clue what this has to do with the topic at hand, but...

why it was necessary to take away child-only health care packages as a result of Healthcare reform

It wasn't necessary.

Now if you want to pose a different question and ask "why did major insurers take away child-only health care packages", they claim that the new law prohibiting insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions would have allowed parents to wait until their children became sick before signing them up for a policy. That concern would have been addressed if they had implemented open enrollment periods. They didn't have to eliminate the packages.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It is amazing how easily you distort recent history.

Spending hasn't significantly increased under the Obama administration. Obama didn't cause our current deficit. The deficit was projected at 1.2 trillion per year before Obama even took office.

Yes, there was stimulus spending (a large portion of which came as tax cuts) that wasn't paid for, but every other program passed by Obama was revenue neutral or better. Unlike the previous administration.

After decades of fiscal insanity by Republicans where they recklessly increased spending and cut taxes without a single care about how to pay for any of it, it's a bit strange that you chide Democrats on fiscal policy. It makes you look like a partisan idiot who can't recognize the incredible damage your own party caused.

http://www.heartland.org/firepolicy-new ... nding.html

Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Spending that exceeds revenues cause deficits.

This is a spending problem. And you'll get no argument from me that Bush spent like a Democrat. Its one of things I hated about his administration... there was no fiscal responsibility in it. Same with Obama.

I repeat... this is a spending issue, not a revenue one.

[Lurker]

Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Spending that exceeds revenues cause deficits.

Wow. It really doesn't get much more childish and moronic than that. Just... wow.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Because tax cuts don't lead to more spending in the economy, amirite?

I mean, we didn't witness that after 9/11 at all...

[Harlowe]

Tax cuts that aren't paid for and spending that exceeds revenue cause deficits.

[Lurker]

Fallakin,

I'm not sure why you brought up 9/11 in relation to tax cuts. Your last post was an absurd non-sequitor too so maybe that's your new schtick.

Anyways... are you seriously suggesting that Bush's tax cuts resulted in more revenue than there would have been without the tax cuts? That the tax cuts had no cost because they paid for themselves? That the tax cuts didn't add trillions to the deficit?

[Harlowe]

I'm not sure why you brought up 9/11 in relation to tax cuts. Your last post was an absurd non-sequitor too so maybe that's your new schtick.

I don't think he knows what else to say, so he drops in a non-sequitor. Even McCain has gotten a bit back to his old self and even he is being sensible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... _LQtXytLTQ

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Seriously don't remember the tax refund checks EVERYONE got after 9/11 and the ensuing economic slump?

[Lurker]

You aren't making any sense.

[Harlowe]

Here is some help getting back to what we're really talking about...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... times-geo/

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I've been saying all along that the real issue here is the inability of our elected officials to work together. Politics is supposed to be the "art of the deal", right? If you can't work with people you don't like, then maybe a life of public service is not for you.

Win, lose or draw, at the end of the day it's supposed to get done.

And what about the billions of dollars literally erased from the stock market? I'm personally disgusted with every single last person in this process, democrat or republican. Not a single incumbent is getting my vote, and I don't think I'm overreacting, and I don't think I'm alone in my voting intent.