Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[Corsair 115]

Because I believe the fairest approach is to have everyone pay in the same proportion.

Why?

That you believe it to be the most fair means nothing in and of itself. I'm asking for the reasoning behind why you believe it's the most fair. Surely your belief wasn't created out of thin air, there must be some sort of evidence or rationale that you're using as the basis for your belief. That's what I'm trying to get at.

So present your evidence and support as to why a progressive tax is so much better than a flat tax.

I will simply note you have not provided any evidence to support your assertion that a flat tax is better other than your insistence it is more fair (for unspecified reasons). But leaving that aside, I'll offer this for consideration:

The Laffer Curve postulates that there is a rate of income taxation which maximized the amount of revenue taken in; above or below that rate government revenue is being lost. But it seems to me that what that optimal rate of taxation would vary by the level of income. Surely the optimal rate of taxation to maximize revenue from those making $20,000 per year would not be the same rate of taxation as for those making $2,000,000 per year, given the same overall cost of living in the general economy. In which case that right there would seem to argue for a progressive rate of taxation so that the government can be the most efficient in its acquiring of revenue from the general population.

 

[Corsair 115]

Ready... it is very easy. Balance the budget. It isn't magic. it isn't that difficult.

In 2010, according to the GAO's examination of the U.S. government's expenditures and revenues, the amount of money taken in was only about half of what was being spent. So where do you make the cuts? A 50% spending cut in every federal government department and agency would be one way, but does that seem likely?

And in any case the amount of debt is less an issue than the amount of revenues which are needed to service that debt. As long as the percentage of revenue going to pay down that debt is reasonable and manageable, then there is plenty of time to reverse the fiscal course.

I will also note that the U.S. had reversed its deficit spending ways in the late 1990s, posting four consecutive years of surpluses (1998-2001) after some 28 years of consecutive deficits. But then a Republican administration in the White House and Congress promptly squandered that positive fiscal trend by returning to deficit spending in 2002, which continued every year thereafter of that administration.

 

[stokes234]

A) You are unaware of reality because you think the "left" (whoever that is) is envious of the wealthy. That is entirely wrong, and nonsensical.

I see that whole line of argument as about as useful to the discussion as saying religious conservatives are opposed to homosexuality because they're jealous of gay people's sense of fashion. Untrue and useless, unless you think unfounded insults are a helpful form of debate.

 

[RandFan]

A) You are unaware of reality because you think the "left" (whoever that is) is envious of the wealthy. That is entirely wrong, and nonsensical.

Framing. It happens on both sides but it's of particular use to the right. Buzz words, black and white thinking, tunnel vision. Narrowly focus on a single aspect of a complex issue and argue that point ad nauseam.

 

[TruthersLie]

That would be a straw man.\

you said the $5 Trillion was from BUSH... so tell me... how much of this $5 Trillion is from Bush, how much is Obama responsible for.

It wasn't a strawman... It was asking you to tell me HOW MUCH IS OBAMA'S FAULT?

A pass for what? The economy was shrinking. We needed stimulus AND increased tax revenue.

So lets tax more so we can give more out.. why not let people keep their OWN money?

Clinton raised tax rates.

and BALANCED THE BUDGET.

What was I talking about again? Oh... BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET.

Never mind that austerity in Europe has resulted in their shrinking economies while our's has expanded. Hmmmm......

Never mind that countries like Greece, spain, ireland and others borrowed and borrowed and borrowed until they went broke.

so you want to borrow and borrow and borrow... and what do you think will happen? Hmmm?

 

[TruthersLie]

delete

 

[TruthersLie]

In 2010, according to the GAO's examination of the U.S. government's expenditures and revenues, the amount of money taken in was only about half of what was being spent. So where do you make the cuts? A 50% spending cut in every federal government department and agency would be one way, but does that seem likely?

No politician would be elected who demanded a 50% cut in spending in every federal government agency/department (including medicare, medicaid and the military). It is rather unfortunate that we will spend money we don't have for programs of dubious value. Case in point the library tax thread.

And in any case the amount of debt is less an issue than the amount of revenues which are needed to service that debt. As long as the percentage of revenue going to pay down that debt is reasonable and manageable, then there is plenty of time to reverse the fiscal course.

But is that what is being done? No. We are using the credit cards for WANTS not NEEDS. The US as a country has been living beyond our means for decades. Eventually we will need to pay the piper.

I will also note that the U.S. had reversed its deficit spending ways in the late 1990s, posting four consecutive years of surpluses (1998-2001) after some 28 years of consecutive deficits. But then a Republican administration in the White House and Congress promptly squandered that positive fiscal trend by returning to deficit spending in 2002, which continued every year thereafter of that administration.

Yup. I hate to say it, but Clinton was the One of the BEST Republican presidents we ever had (too bad he is a democrat).

For the record, I don't like EITHER candidate. My response to the OP was that it was a bit unfair to frame the discussion that Romney will EXPLODE the debt and to IGNORE that SO WILL OBAMA.

 

[RandFan]

you said the $5 Trillion was from BUSH...

What are you talking about?

It wasn't a strawman... It was asking you to tell me HOW MUCH IS OBAMA'S FAULT?

This has been argued to death. It was the source of economists arguing on TV for a couple of weeks. I've no idea exactly who is responsible for what. I know that Bush is HUGELY responsible and gave Obama a nightmare of an economy. You want to ignore and pretend it didn't happen and lay it all at the feet of Obama. That's disingenuous at best. What I do know is this, that austerity in times like these doesn't work as two Nobel prize winning economists keep pointing out.

So lets tax more so we can give more out.. why not let people keep their OWN money?

A.) Tax to meet our responsibilities. B.) Straw man argument. No one is arguing for communism. We are arguing that we need to tax sufficiently to meet our obligations. C.) We are arguing that austerity in times like these doesn't work. And no, the Clinton era was NOT like it is now.

and BALANCED THE BUDGET.

AND HAD AN EXPANDING CELL PHONE MARKET AND COMPUTER MARKETS. Expanding economies have ways of doing that. So does raising taxes like Clinton did. But you want to ignore that and pretend that he balanced the budget without higher tax rates than we have right now and without booming markets like Clinton did. Come on, be honest you KNOW these things are true. You can pretend that you don't but you and I both know that you do.

What was I talking about again? Oh... BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET.

Not at this moment. As Krugman and Stigliz point out, now is not the time. A number of European nations tried that. They have double dip inflation WE DON'T!!!!! Get it?

Never mind that countries like Greece, spain, ireland and others borrowed and borrowed and borrowed until they went broke.

They were in recession, tried austerity and are now in a double dip recession. We didn't and we aren't can you see a pattern emerging?

Austerity during such a severe recession won't work as many nations have made clear time and again. But of course, that doesn't fit with your world view so you ignore it telling me to ignore it also. No. It doesn't work. Raise the tax rates to help meet our responsibilities. There is no question we will have to address the deficit. Now is not the time to drastically cut jobs. That's moving in the WRONG ******* DIRECTION!

so you want to borrow and borrow and borrow... and what do you think will happen? Hmmm?

First we need to put the tax rates back to the Clinton levels. And NO, I don't want to ******* borrow and borrow, that's a convenient straw man of your inventions.... it's dishonest.....

BTW: I don't use caps much but if you think it is effective then lets just both scream at each other.

 

[RandFan]

Yup. I hate to say it, but Clinton was the One of the BEST Republican presidents we ever had (too bad he is a democrat).

A very good politician and lucky enough to be in office when timing brought a wave of economic prosperity with swiftly rising demand for cell phones, computers and the internet. It was a prefect storm, but you know what, you keep conveniently ignoring those facts as they don't fit with your agenda. Oh, and go ahead, keep ignoring the fact that the tax rates under Clinton were higher than they are now. Don't let pesky facts get in your way.

 

[TruthersLie]

A very good politician and lucky enough to be in office when timing brought a wave of economic prosperity with swiftly rising demand for cell phones, computers and the internet. It was a prefect storm, but you know what, you keep conveniently ignoring those facts as they don't fit with your agenda. Oh, and go ahead, keep ignoring the fact that the tax rates under Clinton were higher than they are now. Don't let pesky facts get in your way.

can you show me where I have said don't raise taxes? Please... pretty please.

I am for balancing the budget, raising taxes and cutting spending. Don't make ASSUMPTIONS about me... it makes that ASS out of U and really pisses off MPITON.

So we will keep borrowing, spending and rinse and repeating. Our current debt is 2x greater than the GDP.... and under Obama for 4 more years it will be 4x GDP.... yes.. that is what we need... right?

Read for understanding. My response to the OP was that it was dishonest by making the statement that under romney it will "explode the debt." The OP should be that BOTH of them will "explode" the debt. Shouldn't it?

The US is just too big to fail, right?

 

[RandFan]

I am for balancing the budget, raising taxes and cutting spending. Don't make ASSUMPTIONS about me... it makes that ASS out of U and really pisses off MPITON.

I apologize but don't be an ass. You've made assumptions about me. Go look in the mirror. Just look at your very next line.

So we will keep borrowing, spending and rinse and repeating.

What was that about making an ASS out of U?

Our current debt is 2x greater than the GDP

Where are you getting your numbers. Current debt to GDP is 20%

Read for understanding. My response to the OP was that it was dishonest by making the statement that under romney it will "explode the debt." The OP should be that BOTH of them will "explode" the debt. Shouldn't it?

Given the situation we don't have a lot of options. For the short term we need to stimulate the economy. And then cut spending when unemployment is significantly lower.

The US is just too big to fail, right?

Now, this is "assuming". I absolutely think we can fail. Please take your own advice and stop making assumptions about me and I'll not make them about you, fair enough?

 

[Corsair 115]

No politician would be elected who demanded a 50% cut in spending in every federal government agency/department (including medicare, medicaid and the military). It is rather unfortunate that we will spend money we don't have for programs of dubious value. Case in point the library tax thread.

Well, you were the one who said it ought to be easy to balance the budget. Are you now withdrawing that statement?

But is that what is being done? No. We are using the credit cards for WANTS not NEEDS.

What exactly are you classifying as 'wants' and 'needs'? In 2010, the department that was at the top of the list for net expenditures was the Department of Defense—$889 billion, more than was spent on any other single department or agency, and which accounted for over 20%—one-fifth—of total U.S. federal government expenditures.

The US as a country has been living beyond our means for decades. Eventually we will need to pay the piper.

As long as the cost of servicing the debt is a manageable percentage of overall revenue, it's not a problem, and the U.S. does not have to cure the matter in its entirety immediately.

 

[TruthersLie]

Where are you getting your numbers. Current debt to GDP is 20%

You might want to re read that graph... it is 60% as of 2008

and this one shows us pushing 100% as of 2010
[IMGw=500]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png[/IMGw]

I was using the US government budget of 4.5 Trillion and conflating that with GDP which is incorrect... so we have a debt that is 2x the federal yearly budget.... and after 4 more years it will be 4x greater than the federal yearly budget.

Given the situation we don't have a lot of options. For the short term we need to stimulate the economy. And then cut spending when unemployment is significantly lower.

so what is the sell by date... how many more years will Obama and the democrats blame the debt and massive deficit spending on Bush? Not a strawman... out of that 5 trillion in debt that Obama has hung around our necks... how much is from Bush and how much from obama?

We are broke, we are hurting... time to spend more money we don't have.... make sense to me.

Now, this is "assuming". I absolutely think we can fail. Please take your own advice and stop making assumptions about me and I'll not make them about you, fair enough?

Why? Krugman doesn't seem to think so... he seems to believe that pointing out that greece, spain and ireland were at 120% of GDP (which is what caused them to go broke) won't happen with the US. We are at nearly 100% and yet it is no big deal...

 

[Random]

...and BALANCED THE BUDGET.

What was I talking about again? Oh... BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET.

You are confusing effect for cause. The economy didn't do well under Clinton because he balanced the budget, he was able to balance the budget because the economy was doing well. With an expanding economy and firm enforcement of the PAYGO rule (any tax cut or spending increase for a governemnt program had to be paid for by either a different tax increase or spending cut somewhere else) he was able to put us onto a path where revenues rose at a faster rate than expenses. Eventually revenues caught up to expenses and we had a balanced budget.

We then had Bush show up, and a bunch of Republicans lined up and declared how awful it was that the budget was balanced and how we should go back to deficit spending and institute huge tax cuts for the rich (as well as some minor tax cuts for everyone else so they could say they were cutting everyones taxes). And when they took control of the House in 2010, they instituted CUTGO (any spending increase for a government program msut be paid for by a spending cut somewhere else) thus deciding that tax cuts didn't have to be paid for. Indeed, the mere idea that tax cuts have to be paid for will send some of them into a rhetorical tizzy.

The economy doesn't care about the deficit. People looking to buy a new car don't ask the dealer what the current national debt is. No one cares. The economy does care about bond rates, interest rates, and inflation, but we have had huge deficits, low bond rates, low interest rates, and low inflation for several years now, so there isn't an automatic linkage between them and the deficit.

Fix the economy, get rid of the Bush tax cuts, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of the deficit goes away on its own.

 

[TruthersLie]

Well, you were the one who said it ought to be easy to balance the budget. Are you now withdrawing that statement?

Oh no... it is easy. Give me a pen and the current budget and I'll happily cut spending by 50%... or 20% or whatever amount you deem necessary so long as we have a balanced budget.

oh you were meaning, do i think that balancing the budget, or cutting spending by politicans is easy. It is easy, none of them have the fortitude to do it because as soon as they do it, they will be attacked for hating whatever group gets the cuts.

What exactly are you classifying as 'wants' and 'needs'? In 2010, the department that was at the top of the list for net expenditures was the Department of Defense—$889 billion, more than was spent on any other single department or agency, and which accounted for over 20%—one-fifth—of total U.S. federal government expenditures.

I'm fine with cutting defense spending by 30 to 50% across the board. We have the largest, most expensive military in the world. The next closest military isn't even half as large. We have 9 supercarriers.... the chinese have 1. I'm quite ok with cutting military expenditures.

Wants- biggest baddest military on the face of the world, with the newest baddest weapons on the face of the world. (see F22, and the Joint strike fighter).
Need- The biggest baddest military on the face of the world. (which we already have and could cut spending by at least 30% and still maintain)

As long as the cost of servicing the debt is a manageable percentage of overall revenue, it's not a problem, and the U.S. does not have to cure the matter in its entirety immediately.

Did I say we needed to cure it immediately? We need to do drastic measures pretty soon though, as the debt is at 9 Trillion right now... and will be at 20 if Obama gets another 4 years. Maybe starting to balance the budget NOW and not go on national spending sprees until the economy is back on its feet....

 

[RandFan]

I was using the US government budget of 4.5 Trillion and conflating that with GDP which is incorrect... so we have a debt that is 2x the federal yearly budget.... and after 4 more years it will be 4x greater than the federal yearly budget.

I've no idea what you are talking about. 20% was a typo but how does that equate to 2X GDP? How are you calculating that?

so what is the sell by date... how many more years will Obama and the democrats blame the debt and massive deficit spending on Bush? Not a strawman... out of that 5 trillion in debt that Obama has hung around our necks... how much is from Bush and how much from obama?

I get why politicians spin. I don't get why you think it is of any value to our discussion for you to do it. It's honest to admit that Obama was handed a nightmare, can you at least admit that?

We are broke, we are hurting... time to spend more money we don't have.... make sense to me.

How are you defining broke? Things were much worse at the time of the depression. We spent money. We grew the economy. Europe has demonstrated that austerity during a severe financial crises doesn't work. Unlike them our economy is moving in the right direction. They chose austerity and we didn't.

Why? Krugman doesn't seem to think so... he seems to believe that pointing out that greece, spain and ireland were at 120% of GDP (which is what caused them to go broke) won't happen with the US. We are at nearly 100% and yet it is no big deal...

Again with the straw man. I never said it was no big deal. During the great depression our debt to GDP ratio reached 120%. It was a big deal then also but it's not insoluble Austerity won't get the economy moving. We won't get a handle on our debt without economic expansion. It's a serious problem but we can most certainly fix it. One thing we need to do first is get the economy expanding faster than it currently is.

 

[TruthersLie]

I've no idea what you are talking about. 20% was a typo but how does that equate to 2X GDP? How are you calculating that?

Note that I said i was wrong and conflating the US federal budget with the GDP. So our debt is 2x the FEDERAL BUDGET. And if Obama gets anotehr 4 years it will be 4x the FEDERAL BUDGET.

so it wasn't 20% and it wasn't as high as I said. it is currently 80% of the GDP and growing... When it gets to 100% what then? Do we BORROW MORE? How much longer do we spend until we end up like greece and spain?

I get why politicians spin. I don't get why you think it is of any value to our discussion for you to do it. It's honest to admit that Obama was handed a nightmare, can you at least admit that?

I have never not admitted that Obama was handed crap. And in 3 years he has spent/borrowed more than Bush (you know that guy who never found a tax cut he didn't like) did in 8 years. And if we follow his current budgets he will DOUBLE the debt in 4 more years. Will you at least admit that he is going to increase the debt by TRILLIONS more? Which is my point. The OP is dishonest and misleading.

How are you defining broke? Things were much worse at the time of the depression. We spent money. We grew the economy.

You are ignoring the massive industrialization of World War II.... many economists argue (IIRC) that the policies of FDR actually made the depression WORSE and it wasn't getting better until we had a World War...

Do you expect a world war to bring us out of this global financial crisis? (I personally think it will get worse and devolve into a world depression, but that is MHO)

Europe has demonstrated that austerity during a severe financial crises doesn't work. Unlike them our economy is moving in the right direction. They chose austerity and we didn't.

Lets see... The countries who are up to their necks and are having a poor economy is all of the countries who had over 100% of debt vs Gdp... Which comes very close to where we are now and what I have been talking about. go figure.

Again with the straw man. I never said it was no big deal. During the great depression our debt to GDP ratio reached 120%. It was a big deal then also but it's not insoluble Austerity won't get the economy moving. We won't get a handle on our debt without economic expansion. It's a serious problem but we can most certainly fix it. One thing we need to do first is get the economy expanding faster than it currently is.

so we spend money we don't have to get the economy working by hiring individuals into government positions which is a self fulfilling cycle. But hey, instead of cutting spending, raising taxes and trying to live within means, break out the credit cards and charge it.... (I didn't like it when Bush said it after 9/11 and I don't like it now)

 

[lomiller]

I was using the US government budget of 4.5 Trillion

The US budget is $3.8 trillion (which is higher than the 3.73 trillion requested in Obama’s budget proposal) not $4.5 trillion.

Budget size is a useless metric for evaluating debt. Think about it, if you cut spending debt to budget size goes up. The most relevant metric is either debt to GDP or the rates on US government paper depending on what you are trying to look at.

 

[Belz...]

We spent money. We grew the economy.

You are ignoring the massive industrialization of World War II....

How is mentioning spending, which could be said to include war spending, ignores WWII ?

 

[TruthersLie]

The US budget is $3.8 trillion (which is higher than the 3.73 trillion requested in Obama’s budget proposal) not $4.5 trillion.

Budget size is a useless metric for evaluating debt. Think about it, if you cut spending debt to budget size goes up. The most relevant metric is either debt to GDP or the rates on US government paper depending on what you are trying to look at.

I realize that (after the fact) that I was using the federal budget as a metric and not gdp. I admitted that I was wrong.

But the debt to gdp is about 80% and expected to go HIGHER .... so how high is the question I have... and do we really want to find out when the world will quit on the US?