Tea Party Economics!

[daenku32]

but the first thing that pops in my mind is to cancel Bush's Medicare Part D program.

So you don't want to throw grandma down the stairs in her wheelchair. Just take away her meds.

Funny how the right would rather take away the program than fix it by coming up with the funding for it.

 

[lomiller]

Show me where I said that, please. I challenge you.

I’ve quoted it twice, you said

Bush tax cuts have added nothing to the debt, it was the spending!

Which is fine if and only if you can point to spending that can actually be cut. Since the vast majority of Americans support nearly all government spending and would object to any real cuts the notion that spending cuts are an option is an outright lie unless you are prepared to say which of the major government programs you want cut.

As far as cutting spending, I haven't really thought about it, but the first thing that pops in my mind is to cancel Bush's Medicare Part D program. But perhaps you liked George Bush for doing this

I have no horse in that race. I don’t care if Americans want their government to help make prescription drugs affordable or how they choose to do it. What I do care about is honestly about policy. If a political party wants to cut Medicare they should *say* they want to cut Medicare. If they want to cut defence they should *say* they want to cut defence. They should not wave their hands around yelling “SPENDING” when they don’t support any spending cuts the way you are in this thread.

 

[keale]

*munching on popcorn*

 

[ZenFountain]

Government revenues went up! Not down!! And went up a lot!

Actually they didn't. The only statistic on tax revenue that means anything is % of GDP, which never recovered after the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. The only sustained upward trajectory in recent history was after Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew for 7 strait years.

If 96-00 revenue levels had been maintained there never would have been a deficit during the Bush years (provided expenditures were the same) and the deficit now would be far less.

I would love to have a discussion on how the budget can even come close to being balanced without raising taxes significantly or vaporizing social security and medicare.

 

[mhaze]

You smokin' crack?

"Moderate" is what you call the right hand end of that red line?

 

[tyr_13]

You smokin' crack?

"Moderate" is what you call the right hand end of that red line?

Look where it started, now look where it ended. Don't look at the lowest point and then look at the end point.

 

[keale]

I’ve quoted it twice, you said

Which is fine if and only if you can point to spending that can actually be cut. Since the vast majority of Americans support nearly all government spending and would object to any real cuts the notion that spending cuts are an option is an outright lie unless you are prepared to say which of the major government programs you want cut.


I have no horse in that race. I don’t care if Americans want their government to help make prescription drugs affordable or how they choose to do it. What I do care about is honestly about policy. If a political party wants to cut Medicare they should *say* they want to cut Medicare. If they want to cut defence they should *say* they want to cut defence. They should not wave their hands around yelling “SPENDING” when they don’t support any spending cuts the way you are in this thread.

These are very good points that I have pondered myself. With an ever increasing population in need of public services I dont see how you can run around screaming about spending and on top of that many of these people want more tax cuts particularly to high income brackets.

Now I do agree that the government as a whole is inefficient and there is waste and corruption however I see the teabaggers position as throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Corsair 115]

From 2001 to 2007, Government revenues went up over 20%! From $1,991 to $2,568.

You appear to have neglected to look at the year-by-year figures from the CBO source your provided. Here are the year-by-year revenue figures from it:

2000: 2,025.5
2001: 1,991.4
2002: 1,853.4
2003: 1,782.5
2004: 1,880.3
2005: 2,153.9
2006: 2,407.3
2007: 2,568.2

Year-over-year revenue dropped 1.7% in 2001, 6.9% in 2002, and 3.8% in 2003. That's three straight years of declines. The total drop was 12% comparing 2003 to 2000, and 10.5% comparing 2003 to 2001. It took five years for revenue to top the amount it had reached in 2000.

 

[ZenFountain]

You smokin' crack?

"Moderate" is what you call the right hand end of that red line?

It's not my chart, but suggesting use of narcotics is always a strong argument.

At any rate I've yet to engage a single self identified tea partier that was willing to engage in a budget discussion with actual proposals using accurate data. So the fairy tail that cutting taxes = more revenue and abolishing the department of education solves all our problems goes on.

 

[lomiller]

These are very good points that I have pondered myself. With an ever increasing population in need of public services I dont see how you can run around screaming about spending and on top of that many of these people want more tax cuts particularly to high income brackets.

Now I do agree that the government as a whole is inefficient and there is waste and corruption however I see the teabaggers position as throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The problem is this. Mandatory spending is covered by longstanding existing laws, budget lines for mandatory spending exist only to say how much it will cost to comply with existing laws. Defence spending is covered by multi-year appropriations, so while some of it is in play in each budget, much of it is similar to mandatory spending in that the budget describes how much it will cost to comply.

That leaves some 15ish Departments that make up the actual government and it’s associated spending. In total these cost just over $400 billion our of a budget of $3500 billion. Even accepting there is significant amounts of waste, which is questionable to begin with getting rid of that waste would trivial in the larger budget. (From experience the biggest source of “waste” in government is paralysis caused by second, third and forth guessing every decision for fear of wasting money )

For 2010 the American taxpayers federation identified $7 billion in spending it disapproved of. This doesn’t mean others feel differently about the items in question but even if they did this number is less then the rounding error most people use when citing the budget or deficit.

If you want to cut government spending you will never do it by “eliminating waste” this is quite simply a lie told by politicians who would rather lie to get elected then produce good policy. Everyone likes the idea of free stuff so “I will cut your taxes without having to cut any programs” always sells to a certain number of people, but it’s something that never actually pans out and it’s pretty much the main reason for most government deficits in normal times .

 

[Kestrel]

You appear to have neglected to look at the year-by-year figures from the CBO source your provided. Here are the year-by-year revenue figures from it:

2000: 2,025.5
2001: 1,991.4
2002: 1,853.4
2003: 1,782.5
2004: 1,880.3
2005: 2,153.9
2006: 2,407.3
2007: 2,568.2

Year-over-year revenue dropped 1.7% in 2001, 6.9% in 2002, and 3.8% in 2003. That's three straight years of declines. The total drop was 12% comparing 2003 to 2000, and 10.5% comparing 2003 to 2001. It took five years for revenue to top the amount it had reached in 2000.

When comparing across years, you also need to adjust for inflation. Using the BLS Inflation Calculator, I added revenues in constant year 2000 dollars.

2000: 2,025.5 2,025.50
2001: 1,991.4 1,936.30
2002: 1,853.4 1,774.07
2003: 1,782.5 1,668.19
2004: 1,880.3 1,714.07
2005: 2,153.9 1,899.14
2006: 2,407.3 2,056.24
2007: 2,568.2 2,132.92

 

[keale]

The problem is this. Mandatory spending is covered by longstanding existing laws, budget lines for mandatory spending exist only to say how much it will cost to comply with existing laws. Defence spending is covered by multi-year appropriations, so while some of it is in play in each budget, much of it is similar to mandatory spending in that the budget describes how much it will cost to comply.

That leaves some 15ish Departments that make up the actual government and it’s associated spending. In total these cost just over $400 billion our of a budget of $3500 billion. Even accepting there is significant amounts of waste, which is questionable to begin with getting rid of that waste would trivial in the larger budget. (From experience the biggest source of “waste” in government is paralysis caused by second, third and forth guessing every decision for fear of wasting money )

For 2010 the American taxpayers federation identified $7 billion in spending it disapproved of. This doesn’t mean others feel differently about the items in question but even if they did this number is less then the rounding error most people use when citing the budget or deficit.

If you want to cut government spending you will never do it by “eliminating waste” this is quite simply a lie told by politicians who would rather lie to get elected then produce good policy. Everyone likes the idea of free stuff so “I will cut your taxes without having to cut any programs” always sells to a certain number of people, but it’s something that never actually pans out and it’s pretty much the main reason for most government deficits in normal times .

I agree simply eliminating waste is only a part of the overall problem.

And your right about politicians and politics in general. I used to work for a city councilman and its amazing what goes on in city hall.

 

[easycruise]

Let's review our exchange, shall we?

Posted by Iomiller
So once again, since you think spending should be cut rather then taxes raised, what specific spending items do you want cut?

Posted by easycruise
Show me where I said that, please. I challenge you.

Posted by Iomiller
I’ve quoted it twice, you said..""Bush tax cuts have added nothing to the debt, it was the spending!""

So, let's see how your brain works...

1. I said that tax cuts didn't cause the deficits because revenues actually went up not down. Therefore it was the higher spending levels that caused the deficits. (on the other side of the ledger).And proved it with the CBO data.

2. Hilariously, you subsequently said that I said that spending should be cut rather than taxes raised, when I said no such thing or anything near that.

3. When I called you on it, you pointed to #2, above.

Just freaking unbelievable. You sir, are NOT a critical thinker.

 

[easycruise]

Actually they didn't. The only statistic on tax revenue that means anything is % of GDP, which never recovered after the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. The only sustained upward trajectory in recent history was after Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew for 7 strait (sic) years.

You are another one that is obfuscating the issue. In this case, you are looking at it on a relative basis instead of a absolute basis. Forget about GDP, did the tax cuts cause revenues to fall? NO! Could revenues have gone up even more without the tax cuts? I have already stipulated MAYBE! But then Grenme was kind enough to provide expert EVIDENCE that the tax cuts might have caused revenues to GO UP EVEN MORE than without them! Wow! That's SUPPLY-SIDE economics! That Grenme, what a guy!

If 96-00 revenue levels had been maintained there never would have been a deficit during the Bush years (provided expenditures were the same) and the deficit now would be far less.

But here, you give your game away when you said "Provided expenditures were the same". That's one of my points too!