Tea Party Economics!

[GreNME]

Your chart proves that you are indeed revising history. Did you even notice that your chart is 5 years old and the projection for 2006 was way off?

I repeat..quoting Steve Moore..""Congress controls the purse strings. When Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid rose to their present jobs in January 2007, the deficit was $161 billion. It had been on a downward trajectory from $413 billion in 2004. Three years later, the Pelosi-Reid Congress had added $1.2 trillion to the deficit.""

Yes, it turned out to be $161, not $260. Nice sleight-of-hand there. You got caught, though. Care to provide a more up to date graph including the Obama deficits? You don't dare show that graph, do you?

You're funny. Of course, your quote still gets the number wrong (source), but I'm not bothering with pedantics with Know-Nothing arguments like you're peddling. The graph shows that the worst deficits have been in Republican administrations that were espousing the top-down nonsense that the Tea Party candidates preach. Your arguments in no way explain away the fact that "tax breaks" are simply another word for "deficit spending" and you seem eager to play sleight of hand and switch blame from the presidential administration to the Congress whenever it suits your desire to blame the Democratic Party.

Wrong. Who's blocking all the free trade pacts with such countries as Columbia? That would be the Democrats. Why? Because they are beholden to their labor union constituency. Who, BTW, are the other reason for the minimum wage hikes, as the base union wage is based on a precentage increase above the minimum wage.

And the previous administration blocked free trade with Canada, and the Tea Partiers are still eagerly against free trade with Mexico, and so on and so forth. Your confirmation bias is staggering. And you're still arguing a strawman against me as if I'm trying to claim the Democratic Party is getting everything right. But go ahead and keep playing the whole "Pelosi! Reid! Obama!" canards if that keeps your populist anger up at eleven.

That means we have to figure out what works now, not 100 or 200 years ago. Welcome to the 21st century, where 18th, 19th, and early 20th century economic models are becoming less and less applicable. Whether you like it or not we're in a global economy, brown folk from our southern borders aren't a terrorist threat, and calling political opponents Communo-fascist-nazi-atheists isn't the hallmark of a rational debate.

Tell that to Obama. He's doing all of that in his own uneducated way.

More educated than you. And the fact is that both sides do this-- government spending as the solution to deficits. That you seem convinced otherwise just shows how hopelessly uneducated you are on the subject. I can suggest a pretty good book by Michael Shermer on the subject.

The man is clueless. Imagine trying FDR's WPA infrastructure "shovel-ready projects" in today's economic model. The Japanese tried that recently and failed. Obama obviously didn't learn from that, and because he actually tried it, we can now use your words directed towards him...

""While it's more of a novelty to say that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is insanity, the fact is that doing so is stupid economic policy.""

Yep, you pretty much sum it up..Obama and the Democrats are insane and have a stupid economic policy.

The stupid thing they've done is tried to please everyone all at the same time. Arguments like yours are exactly the kinds of ignorant, uneducated BS that they need to forget about ever trying to please. As long as a socialist, Muslim, atheist, n-word Democratic president is in the White House they're not going to be happy.

 

[Corsair 115]

I repeat..quoting Steve Moore..""Congress controls the purse strings. When Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid rose to their present jobs in January 2007, the deficit was $161 billion. It had been on a downward trajectory from $413 billion in 2004. Three years later, the Pelosi-Reid Congress had added $1.2 trillion to the deficit."

Repeating:

From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008, the accumulated shortfall of U.S. budgets was $2.13 trillion. All of those were delivered during President Bush's terms in office. Through 2006 there was a Republican majority in Congress, by which time the accumulated budget shortfall had reached $1.51 trillion.

 

[lomiller]

I repeat..quoting Steve Moore..""Congress controls the purse strings.

So? Are you suggesting that if Republicans had controlled congress in 07-08 they would have made the deep cuts to defence, Social Security and Medicare required to balance the US budget?
Less than 20% (~$450 billion) of the US budget must be appropriated on a yearly basis. The vast majority of US government spending was authorized prior to the Democrats assuming control of congress. If the right was serious about cutting any of this spending they had a decade and a half to do so.

For the fact impaired: The primary source of the deficits in the 2009 Bush Budget and the 2010 Obama Budget is the ~$700 billion drop in revenues resulting form the banking crisis and subsequent economic collapse of in the fall of 2008. A little more (~$200 billion) came from increased mandatory programs particularly UI.

 

[GreNME]

For the fact impaired: The primary source of the deficits in the 2009 Bush Budget and the 2010 Obama Budget is the ~$700 billion drop in revenues resulting form the banking crisis and subsequent economic collapse of in the fall of 2008. A little more (~$200 billion) came from increased mandatory programs particularly UI.

And between those two were the costs of the (Bush Era) tax cuts, which unofficial estimates have placed between $200 and $500 billion so far. It's a disappointment that the CBO hasn't seen fit to publish more accurate assessments of those costs, so that there would be a public record of the contributions to our deficit.

ETA: Some have placed the estimated costs higher.

 

[lomiller]

And between those two were the costs of the (Bush Era) tax cuts, which unofficial estimates have placed between $200 and $500 billion so far. It's a disappointment that the CBO hasn't seen fit to publish more accurate assessments of those costs, so that there would be a public record of the contributions to our deficit.

ETA: Some have placed the estimated costs higher.

The revenues drop off I was referring to is the decrease created by the economic slowdown, it doesn’t include the Bush tax cuts. It would include the Obama tax cuts from the stimulus bill though.

 

[GreNME]

The revenues drop off I was referring to is the decrease created by the economic slowdown, it doesn’t include the Bush tax cuts. It would include the Obama tax cuts from the stimulus bill though.

Right, which is why I was talking about factors other than those two you mention as contributing to the deficit. The Bush cuts would count in the 2009 budget (they were still present), but I agree not in the same way that the Obama cuts did since one could argue that the spending habits had already adjusted accordingly. The take-away I was trying to convey was that insisting tax breaks as a way to lower the deficit is opposite to reality. Deficit spending is deficit spending.

 

[easycruise]

You're funny. Of course, your quote still gets the number wrong (source), but I'm not bothering with pedantics with Know-Nothing arguments like you're peddling. The graph shows that the worst deficits have been in Republican administrations that were espousing the top-down nonsense that the Tea Party candidates preach. Your arguments in no way explain away the fact that "tax breaks" are simply another word for "deficit spending" and you seem eager to play sleight of hand and switch blame from the presidential administration to the Congress whenever it suits your desire to blame the Democratic Party.

Couldn't find that in your link, but it seems perhaps your graph and Steve Moore got confused with the lag of fiscal year and calendar year reporting. Indeed, for 2007 the number was 161. Nice decline in the deficit when the Republicans were controlling the purse strings! Total reversal when the Democrats took over. But you don't dare show that graph.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

]And the previous administration blocked free trade with Canada,

They did? Silly me, I thought NAFTA was passed in the 90's! With the Republicans in Congress supporting it! Oh dear, Perhaps it is your revisionist history again. Do provide a source for your claim.

""These empirical results support the findings of other researchers that Democrats, in general, tend to be more protectionist than non-Democrats, all else equal.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n4_v55/ai_18910967/pg_6/?tag=content;col1

""David Bonior, the No 3 Democrat in the House who has been co- ordinating opposition to the agreement, said he believed the opponents of Nafta still had 222 votes.""

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ress-as-narrow-victory-predicted-1504425.html

And the Senate vote for NAFTA was Republicans voting 34 yea, 10 nay...democrats 27 yea, 28 nay.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395#top

And that "previous administration" you mention? Well, lets talk about CAFTA, shall we?

""House Passes Free-Trade Agreement in Tight Vote
After last-minute lobbying, Bush gets a CAFTA win""

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0728-01.htm

Yes, that source is a left-wing website.

and the Tea Partiers are still eagerly against free trade with Mexico, and so on and so forth. Your confirmation bias is staggering.

Please provide evidence for this claim as well.

(Obama is).. More educated than you.

What a childish retort. Shame.

And the fact is that both sides do this-- government spending as the solution to deficits. That you seem convinced otherwise just shows how hopelessly uneducated you are on the subject.

I agree both sides do this, Bush and the Republicans were spending like liberals, but Obama and co. have taken it to a whole new level. But please do point out where I "seem convinced otherwise". I would love to see it. And please point out where I said that the Republicans in Congress were paragons of virtue in regards to spending restraint. You are addicted to putting words in people's mouths.

Arguments like yours are exactly the kinds of ignorant, uneducated BS that they need to forget about ever trying to please. As long as a socialist, Muslim, atheist, n-word Democratic president is in the White House they're not going to be happy.

I have a valid argument backed up by facts and you have yet to refute them. You said..

""just how lacking in sensibility and reason the complaints against Obama really are.""

The TeaPartiers, Steve Moore and myself have very valid arguments against Obama. You just don't like to hear them.

 

[easycruise]

And between those two were the costs of the (Bush Era) tax cuts, which unofficial estimates have placed between $200 and $500 billion so far. It's a disappointment that the CBO hasn't seen fit to publish more accurate assessments of those costs, so that there would be a public record of the contributions to our deficit.

ETA: Some have placed the estimated costs higher.

You must be joking! Government revenues went up! Not down!! And went up a lot! Look at the leftmost column in the first table. Same thing happened during the Reagan years!

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

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Bush tax cuts didn't "cost" anything! If anything, they probably helped bring in MORE revenue! During the Reagan years, government revenues went up 50%! Could they have gone up more than that without the tax cuts? Perhaps. But the evidence points to great success with supply-side economics as being a revenue generator by stimulating the economy. Compared to Keynesian economics, it's much better, according to the evidence. A wild spending Congress is a whole different matter on the other side of the ledger. Look at the second most leftward column on that same table called "outlays" and see how the deficits were really caused.

The take-away I was trying to convey was that insisting tax breaks as a way to lower the deficit is opposite to reality. Deficit spending is deficit spending.

You're clearly looking at it the wrong way. Spending has nothing to do with tax cuts (and the imaginary lost government revenue because of tax cuts). Again, I repeat, you've obviously never heard of dynamic scoring.

From your source...""When the Kennedy tax cut dropped the top income tax rate from 91% to 70%, or when the Reagan tax cut dropped it from 70% to 50%, it is quite possible that the lower rates raised more revenue than the old, higher rates would have.""

Thanks for providing evidence for my argument

 

[GreNME]

Couldn't find that in your link...

Because you're displaying confirmation bias. But at least that gives a clear enough indication that you have no desire to actually debate facts and instead look for every excuse you can to come back to arguing against the Democrats and Obama, and not what I'm actually saying.

I hope you someday find your Libertopia. I'd just rather you not try to hijack the country I live in to become it.

 

[daenku32]

From '93 to '99, Federal Revenues went up 50%.

Bush tax cuts have added a trillion dollars to debt. About time to end them.

 

[easycruise]

From '93 to '99, Federal Revenues went up 50%.

Bush tax cuts have added a trillion dollars to debt. About time to end them.

How much of that was capital gains tax revenue from a roaring stock market? Bush tax cuts have added nothing to the debt, it was the spending!

 

[easycruise]

Because you're displaying confirmation bias. But at least that gives a clear enough indication that you have no desire to actually debate facts and instead look for every excuse you can to come back to arguing against the Democrats and Obama, and not what I'm actually saying.

So, that's it? You give up? You sure were a weak debating opponent, which is typical for JREF lefties. And you leave without providing any evidence for any of your wild claims? Huh?

Let's review..you showed..

no evidence provided for ""And the previous administration blocked free trade with Canada""

no evidence provided for "and the Tea Partiers are still eagerly against free trade with Mexico""

no evidence provided for "Tea Party economics are just an extreme form of Republican protectionist economics. ""

no evidence provided for.."Most funny is that the supposed solution from the Tea Party folks is to cut taxes, which actually increase our deficits in the first place-- yes, the Bush "tax cuts" contributed to the deficit, not the other way around. ""

no evidence provided for.."because it displays succinctly just how lacking in sensibility and reason the complaints against Obama really are. Our current president's attempts to fix the train wreck of the last administration's economic policies"

Your confirmation bias is staggering, especially when considering that last statement of yours above.

Continuing review...I provided solid evidence that many of your arguments were false. You clearly need to stop parroting and believing left wing propaganda and use some critical thinking instead. Maybe a book by Michael Shermer might help you? lol.

The two funniest parts were when you said..""just shows how hopelessly uneducated you are on the subject""

Project much?

and when when your link provided evidence to support MY claim. Too funny. BwaHaHa!

 

[easycruise]

All seemed blissfully unaware that much of the funding for Tea Party activities is being furnished by large corporate interests and wealthy right-wing types.

Still waiting for evidence for this howler.

 

[easycruise]

It has always worked better than the idiotic supply-side crap.

Supply-side tax cuts work just fine, thank you. Proven time and again. See above.

It has always worked better than the idiotic supply-side crap. We let the rich keep more of their money and they used it to build factories off-shore. That must end.

Actually, the evidence is that the Bush tax cuts were harsh on the rich, not a giveaway to them..From the WSJ...

http://www.alexashrugged.com/2007/12/wealthiest-1.html

http://www.alexashrugged.com/2008/07/wealthiest-1-again.html

""Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

But let's not let facts get in the way of left-wing propaganda, shall we?

Even the NY Times weighs in..excerpt..

""The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts......By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

 

[GreNME]

So, that's it? You give up? You sure were a weak debating opponent, which is typical for JREF lefties. And you leave without providing any evidence for any of your wild claims? Huh?

Um, no. I'm just not interested in playing your pedantry games until you pretty much remove the debate from what I was actually saying. You just keep going deeper into point-counterpoint nonsense until the original argument gets lost.

You want to debate what I said, then answer these:

1. Do you agree that "tax breaks" are actually spending and not savings? Why or why not?
2. What is the precedence for claiming tax breaks work when there is no evidence in the last three decades of them actually helping an economy recover? Oh, and try to explain without conflating tax breaks with tax rates, since rate changes aren't the same as tax breaks.
3. Explain where in any US history that supply-side economics have done anything but increase deficit spending.
4. (this one will be interesting) Please explain how top-down mercantilism (supply-side economics) is compatible with a consumer-driven capitalist market in a beneficial manner.

I doubt you can do those things without once again falling into the same "Democrats in the 90's" or "Keynes durrr" hyperbole that you dipped into fairly quickly before. And frankly, all you're doing when you play that game is dropping into a conversation separate from the one I was talking about and demanding that I join you on your strawman.

 

[lomiller]

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

Ok, lets talk spending. Just how much do you want cut from each of the major US spending items. please round to the neared $50 billion how much you want to cut from
1) Defense
2) Social Security
3) Medicare
4) Medicaid
5) Unemployment Insurance

 

[Random]

You must be joking! Government revenues went up! Not down!! And went up a lot! Look at the leftmost column in the first table. Same thing happened during the Reagan years!

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

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Bush tax cuts didn't "cost" anything! If anything, they probably helped bring in MORE revenue! During the Reagan years, government revenues went up 50%! Could they have gone up more than that without the tax cuts? Perhaps. But the evidence points to great success with supply-side economics as being a revenue generator by stimulating the economy. Compared to Keynesian economics, it's much better, according to the evidence. A wild spending Congress is a whole different matter on the other side of the ledger. Look at the second most leftward column on that same table called "outlays" and see how the deficits were really caused.



You're clearly looking at it the wrong way. Spending has nothing to do with tax cuts (and the imaginary lost government revenue because of tax cuts). Again, I repeat, you've obviously never heard of dynamic scoring.

From your source...""When the Kennedy tax cut dropped the top income tax rate from 91% to 70%, or when the Reagan tax cut dropped it from 70% to 50%, it is quite possible that the lower rates raised more revenue than the old, higher rates would have.""

Thanks for providing evidence for my argument

Why do people keep bringing up this silliness? Revenues went up 50% during the tax-cutting Regan years, but they almost doubled under the tax-raising Clinton. Bush is worse, as a quick look at your source shows that after his tax cuts it took five years for revenues to rise above what they were under Clinton.

Of course, you can get around this by saying there was the internet boom under Clinton and the 911/stock market/recession stuff at the beginnings of the Bush years. But if you are going to start harping on secondary causes, you really can't ignore the enormous spending hikes under Regan and their effect on the economy, or the enormous recent housing bubble (which burst just as your chart cuts out).

The Laffer Curve "shows" us that excessive taxation can result in decreased government revenue, but it by no means certain, and there is a huge difference between cutting the top tax rate from 90% to 70%, to cutting the top tax rate from say 40% to 35%.

 

[Random]

Actually, the evidence is that the Bush tax cuts were harsh on the rich, not a giveaway to them..From the WSJ...

http://www.alexashrugged.com/2007/12/wealthiest-1.html

http://www.alexashrugged.com/2008/07/wealthiest-1-again.html

""Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.""

The resaon that the rich are paying an increased amount of the income tax pie is simple, they are making an increased amount of the income pie. Your income goes up, your taxes go up. If you double your income, don't come crying to me when your tax bill goes up by 50%.

Of course, a lot of conservative pundits like to use the progressive US income tax, where the percentage of money you pay in taxes goes up as your income increases. A lot of Americans pay far more in Social Security and payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Once you hit the Social Security income cap, the percentage you pay in taxes actually drops as your income increases. To say nothing of other regressive taxes such as gas taxes, sales taxes, etc. Add it all up and we pretty much have a flat tax system in place already.

 

[Corsair 115]

They did? Silly me, I thought NAFTA was passed in the 90's! With the Republicans in Congress supporting it! Oh dear, Perhaps it is your revisionist history again. Do provide a source for your claim.

It seems you are unaware of U.S. actions against Canadian softwood lumber exports. The short version is that the U.S. took actions which were in direct violation of its NAFTA obligations, with such actions happening during Bush's tenure as President and a Republican Congress. The dispute was only settled when Canada and the U.S. signed a separate agreement on the matter.

Canada was left to wonder what the point was of signing a trade deal with the United States when the U.S. felt free to ignore the terms of that deal whenever domestic politics made it expedient to do so.

 

[easycruise]

Um, no. I'm just not interested in playing your pedantry games until you pretty much remove the debate from what I was actually saying. You just keep going deeper into point-counterpoint nonsense until the original argument gets lost.

You want to debate what I said, then answer these:

1. Do you agree that "tax breaks" are actually spending and not savings? Why or why not?
2. What is the precedence for claiming tax breaks work when there is no evidence in the last three decades of them actually helping an economy recover? Oh, and try to explain without conflating tax breaks with tax rates, since rate changes aren't the same as tax breaks.
3. Explain where in any US history that supply-side economics have done anything but increase deficit spending.
4. (this one will be interesting) Please explain how top-down mercantilism (supply-side economics) is compatible with a consumer-driven capitalist market in a beneficial manner.

I doubt you can do those things without once again falling into the same "Democrats in the 90's" or "Keynes durrr" hyperbole that you dipped into fairly quickly before. And frankly, all you're doing when you play that game is dropping into a conversation separate from the one I was talking about and demanding that I join you on your strawman.

When you finally provide evidence for your (ad hominem) claims, then we can get into your list above. You first. But I am curious as to how you define "tax breaks"