3 ms·

> After [2001], deficits ballooned and the debt swelled considerably. Deficits "ballooned" for a while, and then started back down - the 2006 deficit was "only

• anigbrowl 16y ago
  And how much debt did we run up during this period? And since when does Congress write the federal budget? As for your comparison of boom-period deficits with emergency post-recession deficits, surely you can't expect me to take this seriously. Marginal rates are the only thing that counts on the individual level. Share of the tax burden is irrelevant and largely reflects their share of national income. Essentially, you're saying that yes, they pay less taxes than they used to, but it's terrible that their taxes aren't even lower. I am not in favor of endlessly rising taxation or soaking the rich. But I'm not in favor of voodoo economics either, like complaining about the debt while simultaneously arguing for drastically cutting revenue.
  • lzw 16y ago
    I love how "tax the rich" types seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the status quo. A major tax hike, on top of the deficit sending and resulting inflation will greatly increase unmetoyment and worsen the depression. But you don't get off the hook for deficit spending just because there is a recession. First off, as I've pointed out, deficit spending makes the economy worse. Secondly, there are massive amounts of new spending that has been created. The vast majority of the current yearly deficit is from new spending on stupid, pointless things that will also only serve to hurt the economy. Frankly, since government has shown no ability or interest in being fiscally responsible, they really should lose the ability to levy an income tax at all. This would benefit poor people more than rich people, and would greatly stimulate the economy, and the government would only have to shrink to the size it was a decade ago, or so. Since they have proven to be completely incompetent at running government, they have lost the right to take our money and "manage it for us". Social Security is a complete scam- you'd be better off putting the money in a savings account. Therefore, the idea that government should be taxing us to provide us with "Services" is absurd -- they never deliver the services, and they constantly increase the taxes.
    • anigbrowl 16y ago
      I love how "tax the rich" types ...a position I do not hold, and which I object to being characterized with. seem to presume that leaving the taxes where they are now is "drastically cutting revenue". Actually it would be maintaining the status quo. No, because the status quo includes a sunset for the tax cuts in question, that was put there by the Congress that passed EGGTRA and JGGTRA in the name of fiscal responsibility. The legislation which implemented those tax cuts was crafted as a temporary measure, designed to promote more economic activity and pay for themselves after economic growth had returned to earlier levels. Making the tax cuts permanent equates to a drastic cut in revenue because for the entire life of the tax cut, budget and debt projections were calculated and presented to the public on the basis that the cuts would be allowed to expire, as they were designed to do by law. Anyone who questioned the deficits being run up by the previous administration was told to stop worrying, and presented with figures showing that it would all come back into balance...later. And yet, when those expiration dates arrived starting in 2006, and the economy had grown so much that a classic asset bubble was inflating, and borrowing had significantly increased during the life of the tax cuts, the very same people insisted that we had to extend the tax cuts because to do otherwise would slow economic growth. They weren't even willing to contemplate increasing the tax rate on short-term capital gains. As of now, they (and seemingly you) are insisting those tax cuts should be made permanent, while completely ignoring the fact that they came with a sell-by date. Answer me this: if higher taxes are such a terrible idea, and Congress was able to cut them as they did during the previous administration, why didn't they reduce spending at the same time? Why is it that the same people who cut taxes chose to actually increase spending significantly, and borrow to pay for it?
  • anamax 16y ago
    > And how much debt did we run up during this period? About what we're going to run up in the next couple of years. The difference being that the deficit was going down and now it's roughly stable (Obama's predictions) at roughly twice as high. > And since when does Congress write the federal budget? They pass it. Bush wasn't all that good on spending as the prescription drug monstrosity proved. However, he was better than Obama. > As for your comparison of boom-period deficits with emergency post-recession deficits, surely you can't expect me to take this seriously. Sure I can - the recession ended a year ago. More to the point, the spending isn't going down post-recession. That's why the projected deficits are staying high. > Share of the tax burden is irrelevant You're claiming that the rich aren't paying enough. I'm pointing out that they're paying more than they did before. > Marginal rates are the only thing that counts on the individual level. The rate that actually matters is not the worst case marginal rate, but the rate seen by an individual. The high rates in the past were accompanied by a lot of loopholes and the like that disappeared with Reagan.
    • anigbrowl 16y ago
      The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble, which just might have had something to do with the second (JGGTRA) cut bringing forward cuts in capital gains taxes that were supposed to be phased in slowly. And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. Doubtless you also have a justification for things like $38,000 tax breaks on Hummers - http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml Sure I can - the recession ended a year ago. More to the point, the spending isn't going down post-recession. Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. And increasing your spending at the same time you cut taxes, using borrowed money, is fiscally responsible and doesn't have the slightest impact on future budgets. You're claiming that the rich aren't paying enough. I'm pointing out that they're paying more than they did before. a) No I'm not, I think everyone is going to have to pay some more taxes; b) They're paying more in nominal terms because they have a greater share of national income. Let's consider an example. I am rich, you are not. My income works out at $1,000/day, yours is more like $200/day. I pay, say, $400/day in taxes, you pay something like $50. We are more or less OK with that. Then I fire you (and a lot of other people) and outsource your factory job to someone in Asia, who is willing to work for $20/day and pays no US income tax. You get another job, probably at a Walmart, that pays $100/day and now you only pay $10 of it in taxes, mostly payroll. My income has gone up to $2,000/day and I'm paying $700 of that in taxes (because the tax rate got cut a little bit, from 40% to 35%). I think it's just terrible that I'm paying an extra $300 in taxes already and now Obama wants to put it up to a total of $800, which will leave me taking home only twice as much as I was before. You should feel sorry for me, because you are 80% better off than you were before: you used to pay $50 in taxes, but now you only pay $10, you freeloader. My taxes are 70 times higher than yours, and Obama wants to make it 80 times higher. Stupid, right? But that entire last paragraph is technically true. It just invites you to forget, briefly, about the changes in how much we take home each day. If I'm feeling particularly lucky, I might try changing the subject to something else, and then reminding you of how little you earn so I can attribute the blame to Obama for that, too.