Tea Party Economics!

[easycruise]

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

You are derailing the thread.

 

[easycruise]

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.

Wrong. The size of the pie is not static, like you assume. It is usually increasing in size. Found this...

""The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.""

http://islandrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/12/who-pays-taxes-and-with-what-income_18.html

 

[GreNME]

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"

No, you don't seem to get it. You're the one who is trying to come in here screeching about how I have no idea what I'm talking about. As such, you need to actually address what I've been saying. This does not include having the conversation that you want to have just because you want it.

What's the matter? Can't have a conversation when you don't get to swing talking points with impunity?

 

[easycruise]

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.

Wrong. It seems you are unaware of the following...It was not in violation of NAFTA. There was a separate 5 year agreement for softwood lumber. When it expired, the dispute started. US claimed Canada was dumping.

""In 1996, the United States and Canada reached a five-year trade agreement, The Softwood Lumber Agreement, officially ending Lumber III. Under its terms, Canadian lumber exports to the United States were limited to 14.7 billion board feet (34.7 million cubic metres) per year. However, when the agreement expired on April 2, 2001, the two countries were unable to reach consensus on a replacement agreement.

Three days after the Softwood Lumber Agreement's expiration on March 31, 2001, the U.S. lumber industry petitioned the Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties.[3] In addition, the U.S. industry for the first time brought an anti-dumping claim arguing Canadian lumber companies were also engaged in unfair price discrimination.""

So then, the dispute went through all sorts of courts and panels and the two countries came up with a new agreement in 2006...which Canada promptly violated.

"" * On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration ruled (in the first arbitration initiated in August 2007) that Canada was in violation of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement in its eastern provinces, but not in its western provinces. [17] The panel had been made up of a Belgian arbitrator nominated by Canada, a British arbitrator named by the U.S., and a panel president from Germany.[18]

* On February 26, 2009, the London Court of International Arbitration announced its ruling (in the second arbitration initiated in January 2008) that Canada was in breach of the softwood lumber agreement as a result of its failure to calculate quotas properly during January-June 2007.[19][20][21] The arbitration body ordered that sawmills in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan must pay an additional 10 per cent export charge (up to $68.26 million). The tribunal imposed a 30-day deadline to rectify the breach.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_–_Canada_softwood_lumber_dispute

 

[easycruise]

Are you aware that more than half of that trillion was built up over the last administration?

Wrong. Deficit was $161 billion when the Republicans lost control of Congress, circa 2007, declining from $412 in 2004.

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

I love it when short-term-memory arguments like this are made, because it displays succinctly just how lacking in sensibility and reason the complaints against Obama really are.

You would finally show reason and sense if you would back up your claims and not ad hominem as much.

Oh yea, the tired old left-wing canard of "It's Bush's fault". Puhleeze.

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.

You don't even know simple accounting and confuse revenue with spending levels. Most funny, (as you like to say). Or I guess you just like unlimited spending levels? Meanwhile, cutting taxes on the repatriation of corporate taxes is a very good idea! Great Tea Party idea!

 

[Random]

Wrong. The size of the pie is not static, like you assume. It is usually increasing in size. Found this...

""The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.""

http://islandrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/12/who-pays-taxes-and-with-what-income_18.html

From your own source:

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

It's entirely possible for the pie to get bigger while having much of the growth go to a small segment of the population. Indeed, it's entirely possible for the economy to grow while most of the population slips further behind.

The distribution of taxes in society is important, but but you need to put it in perspective of income distribution as well.

 

[lomiller]

You are derailing the thread.

eh? You made the claim "it's the spending not the tax cuts that caused the deficit" I'm merely trying to find out what spending.

These are the major spending items of the US government, if it really is the spending then surely you can tell us which of these you want cut. Again please round the the nearest $50 billion for simplicity.

1) Defense
2) Social Security
3) Medicare
4) Medicaid
5) Unemployment Insurance

 

[GreNME]

Wrong. Deficit was $161 billion when the Republicans lost control of Congress, circa 2007, declining from $412 in 2004.

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

Please stop lying using limited information. Government Debt from 2000 to 2010 and previous years:

Year​

|

Debt​

| Amount Increased *

1992 | $4.1 trillion | $399.3 billion
1993 | $4.4 trillion | $346.9 billion
1994 | $4.7 trillion | $281.3 billion
1995 | $4.97 trillion | $281.2 billion
1996 | $5.2 trillion | $250.8 billion
1997 | $5.4 trillion | $188.3 billion
1998 | $5.5 trillion | $113 billion
1999 | $5.66 trillion | $130 billion
2000 | $5.67 trillion | $17.9 billion
2001 | $5.8 trillion | $133.3 billion
2002 | $6.23 trillion | $420.8 billion
2003 | $6.78 trillion | $555 billion
2004 | $7.38 trillion | $595.8 billion
2005 | $7.93 trillion | $553.7 billion
2006 | $8.5 trillion | $574.3 billion
2007 | $9 trillion | $500.7 billion
2008 | $10 trillion | $1,017 billion
2009 | $11.9 trillion | $1,885 billion
2010 | $13.6 trillion | $1,652 billion

* from previous year

I could go back further, but this illustrates the lies you're peddling pretty clearly as is.

Rise in debt during Clinton years: $1.57 trillion; rise in debt during Bush years: $4.33 trillion. Fact: the federal debt quadrupled under Bush.

Another feature that's interesting to note is that the rate of increase of debt is upward during the Bush years while it's downward during Clinton's years (Obama is only 2 years in, not enough to plot a trend). Feel free to explain your way out of those facts.

You would finally show reason and sense if you would back up your claims and not ad hominem as much.

I've attacked stupid ideas and arguments, not you or anyone personally. That you personalize my attacks shows how little reason and sense you are applying in your own arguments. Now please abstain from ridiculous talking points and actually engage me on what I'm saying.

Oh yea, the tired old left-wing canard of "It's Bush's fault". Puhleeze.

Arguments from incredulity aren't valid. Please feel free to supply your excuses for what was at fault. I've supplied mine-- the constantly-failing economic policy of top-down mercantilism-- while all you've done is throw talking points at me that don't actually address what I've said.

You don't even know simple accounting and confuse revenue with spending levels. Most funny, (as you like to say). Or I guess you just like unlimited spending levels? Meanwhile, cutting taxes on the repatriation of corporate taxes is a very good idea! Great Tea Party idea!

Still can't address what I'm actually saying and throwing useless insults instead. Let me know when you're interested in a conversation and we can try again some time in the future. I have no time for your demagogic trolling.

You would do better in actually answering lomiller's question to actually address what I'm saying. He seems to be looking at the problem I've pointed out and is addressing it from a different (though equally valid) manner.

eh? You made the claim "it's the spending not the tax cuts that caused the deficit" I'm merely trying to find out what spending.

These are the major spending items of the US government, if it really is the spending then surely you can tell us which of these you want cut. Again please round the the nearest $50 billion for simplicity.

1) Defense
2) Social Security
3) Medicare
4) Medicaid
5) Unemployment Insurance

There are a few other things lomiller could have added in the list, but even with those I could provide an answer. Can you, easycruise?

ETA: Oh, and if you like you can tell me how this graph is false as well, which shows the same higher debt and greater percentage of GDP under top-down "supply side" economics than under, say, Clinton's administration.

 

[Corsair 115]

Wrong. It seems you are unaware of the following...It was not in violation of NAFTA. There was a separate 5 year agreement for softwood lumber. When it expired, the dispute started. US claimed Canada was dumping.

You left this out of your list. Why, I wonder.

• In March 2006, a NAFTA panel ruled in Canada's favour, finding that the subsidy to the Canadian lumber industry was de minimis, i.e., a subsidy of less than one percent. Under U.S. trade remedy law, countervailing duty tariffs are not imposed for de minimis subsidies.

Thus, the U.S. was violating NAFTA by its continued imposition of the tariffs. The panel's ruling should have been the end of the matter. It wasn't. The U.S. continued to levy tariffs.

Want more evidence? See the ruling by the United States Court of International Trade on July 21, 2006, which found that the imposition of the duties was a violation of U.S. law. You can read the ruling itself here. (Note: link is to a PDF file.)

Whenever U.S. industries start lobbying Congress, signed trade deals mean little and offer no protection.

 

[easycruise]

eh? You made the claim "it's the spending not the tax cuts that caused the deficit" I'm merely trying to find out what spending.

These are the major spending items of the US government, if it really is the spending then surely you can tell us which of these you want cut. Again please round the the nearest $50 billion for simplicity.

1) Defense
2) Social Security
3) Medicare
4) Medicaid
5) Unemployment Insurance

For this discussion. who cares how it was spent. It was spent, period! It's totally besides the point of tax cuts causing deficits. Stop trying to derail the thread.

 

[easycruise]

You left this out of your list. Why, I wonder.

• In March 2006, a NAFTA panel ruled in Canada's favour, finding that the subsidy to the Canadian lumber industry was de minimis, i.e., a subsidy of less than one percent. Under U.S. trade remedy law, countervailing duty tariffs are not imposed for de minimis subsidies.

Thus, the U.S. was violating NAFTA by its continued imposition of the tariffs. The panel's ruling should have been the end of the matter. It wasn't. The U.S. continued to levy tariffs.

Want more evidence? See the ruling by the United States Court of International Trade on July 21, 2006, which found that the imposition of the duties was a violation of U.S. law. You can read the ruling itself here. (Note: link is to a PDF file.)

You didn't address this and left it out of your response..Why, I wonder..

""So then, the dispute went through all sorts of courts and panels and the two countries came up with a new agreement in 2006...which Canada promptly violated.

"" * On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration ruled (in the first arbitration initiated in August 2007) that Canada was in violation of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement in its eastern provinces, but not in its western provinces. [17] The panel had been made up of a Belgian arbitrator nominated by Canada, a British arbitrator named by the U.S., and a panel president from Germany.[18]

* On February 26, 2009, the London Court of International Arbitration announced its ruling (in the second arbitration initiated in January 2008) that Canada was in breach of the softwood lumber agreement as a result of its failure to calculate quotas properly during January-June 2007.[19][20][21] The arbitration body ordered that sawmills in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan must pay an additional 10 per cent export charge (up to $68.26 million). The tribunal imposed a 30-day deadline to rectify the breach.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_–_Canada_softwood_lumber_dispute

 

[easycruise]

Please stop lying using limited information. Government Debt from 2000 to 2010 and previous years:

Year​

|

Debt​

| Amount Increased *

1992 | $4.1 trillion | $399.3 billion
1993 | $4.4 trillion | $346.9 billion
1994 | $4.7 trillion | $281.3 billion
1995 | $4.97 trillion | $281.2 billion
1996 | $5.2 trillion | $250.8 billion
1997 | $5.4 trillion | $188.3 billion
1998 | $5.5 trillion | $113 billion
1999 | $5.66 trillion | $130 billion
2000 | $5.67 trillion | $17.9 billion
2001 | $5.8 trillion | $133.3 billion
2002 | $6.23 trillion | $420.8 billion
2003 | $6.78 trillion | $555 billion
2004 | $7.38 trillion | $595.8 billion
2005 | $7.93 trillion | $553.7 billion
2006 | $8.5 trillion | $574.3 billion
2007 | $9 trillion | $500.7 billion
2008 | $10 trillion | $1,017 billion
2009 | $11.9 trillion | $1,885 billion
2010 | $13.6 trillion | $1,652 billion

* from previous year

I could go back further, but this illustrates the lies you're peddling pretty clearly as is.

Rise in debt during Clinton years: $1.57 trillion; rise in debt during Bush years: $4.33 trillion. Fact: the federal debt quadrupled under Bush.

Another feature that's interesting to note is that the rate of increase of debt is upward during the Bush years while it's downward during Clinton's years (Obama is only 2 years in, not enough to plot a trend). Feel free to explain your way out of those facts.

You are confusing the national debt with deficits and you again are including spending levels which have nothing to do with revenue levels and tax cuts......AGAIN, you said..

""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. ""

I ask you AGAIN. Please provide evidence for this claim!

I've attacked stupid ideas and arguments, not you or anyone personally. That you personalize my attacks shows how little reason and sense you are applying in your own arguments. Now please abstain from ridiculous talking points and actually engage me on what I'm saying.

Here's how it works here on JREF. You made a claim but provided no evidence..I challenge that claim and ask for some evidence. You either provide solid evidence or retract the claim. You have done neither. You are just obfuscating the debate with talking points that are not germane to the topic at hand. National debt and spending levels are not relevant to tax cuts and their relation to deficits. AGAIN, they are on the other side of the ledger!

You would do better in actually answering lomiller's question to actually address what I'm saying. He seems to be looking at the problem I've pointed out and is addressing it from a different (though equally valid) manner.

He's on the other side of the ledger too! Can't you see that? What's more, he wants to get even further off track by discussing the details of the spending levels!

There are a few other things lomiller could have added in the list, but even with those I could provide an answer. Can you, easycruise?

Now I know you are in debate desperation. You aren't even trying to move the goalposts, this is a case of a complete change of football stadiums. lol.

ETA: Oh, and if you like you can tell me how this graph is false as well, which shows the same higher debt and greater percentage of GDP under top-down "supply side" economics than under, say, Clinton's administration.

As Reagan said..."There you go again". You can't win the tax cuts vs. deficits argument, so you try a sleight-of-hand with the debt vs. GDP. James Randi would be proud of your magician skills.

 

[easycruise]

(Obama is only 2 years in, not enough to plot a trend). Feel free to explain your way out of those facts.

And what, pray-tell, could have happened to those deficits in those two Obama years? Convienently, you don't say. But you did say.."because it displays succinctly just how lacking in sensibility and reason the complaints against Obama really are.""

Hmmm. I think that just one of the many sensible and reasoned complaints against Obama is what happened to the deficits in those two short years.

I've attacked stupid ideas and arguments, not you or anyone personally.

Oh really?? I seem to recall you said this...(your penchant for revisionist history again)..

""That you seem convinced otherwise just shows how hopelessly uneducated you are on the subject.""

That you personalize my attacks shows how little reason and sense you are applying in your own arguments.

See above. You are now becoming quite amusing.

Now please abstain from ridiculous talking points and actually engage me on what I'm saying.

I am. Now start providing some evidence!

 

[lomiller]

who cares how it was spent.

Which is it, do you are about the spending or not? If you actually think there was too much spending you should have at least some minimal idea where to much money was spent.


Either you support this spending or you don't. From this post all we can conclude is that you want this money to be spent, but don't think it should be paid for.

 

[rustypouch]

Which is it, do you are about the spending or not? If you actually think there was too much spending you should have at least some minimal idea where to much money was spent.


Either you support this spending or you don't. From this post all we can conclude is that you want this money to be spent, but don't think it should be paid for.

Exactly.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that government revenue went up 50% under Reagan. What was not mentioned is that government spending went up more than 80% in the same time period. How is this a a good idea, let alone sustainable?

 

[easycruise]

Which is it, do you are about the spending or not? If you actually think there was too much spending you should have at least some minimal idea where to much money was spent. Either you support this spending or you don't. From this post all we can conclude is that you want this money to be spent, but don't think it should be paid for.

Are you dense? We are talking about tax cuts and their effect on deficits and the imaginary Tea party protectionism platform. If you want to talk about cutting spending and how to do it, then start a thread and perhaps I will reply to it, if I feel so inclined. Frankly, at the moment, I haven't given it much thought. But I do seem to recall that entitlements make up 60% of the budget.

 

[lomiller]

Are you dense? We are talking about tax cuts and their effect on deficits and the imaginary Tea party protectionism platform. If you want to talk about cutting spending and how to do it, then start a thread and perhaps I will reply to it, if I feel so inclined.

Eh? The thread title says "tea party economics", not "tea party wants to cut taxes, claims spending is to high but don't discuss spending because they don't actually want to reduce it"

In any case *you* brought up spending. you claimed spending was to high for the taxes, I challenged you to give some specifics of where spending was to high. Clearly if there is no place in the budget where spending is to high, it's impossible for spending as a whole to be to high and the one and only problem is that taxes are to low.

Frankly, at the moment, I haven't given it much thought.

How can you hope to discuss the topic of budget deficits and tax rates if you haven't given any thought to how much money should be spent and where?

But I do seem to recall that entitlements make up 60% of the budget.

Do you even know what entitlements are?

Hint, some examples of entitlements are
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
which is why I asked you how much you think these should be cut by

It makes much more sense, however to discuss mandatory spending, which is spending enacted by existing law, years, sometimes decades old. This money must be spent barring some change in the law.

Mandatory spending makes up about 2/3 of the US budget. Of the rest defense related spending makes up another 2/3. Only A little over 10% of the US budget (~$400 billion) actually goes to the other 15 or so government departments that do almost everything else the US government does.


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

 

[lomiller]

Once again, your quote and my response. If "it's the spending" as you claimed surly you must have some idea what this spending was.

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

 

[easycruise]

Grenme=crickets=typical JREF leftie

But I do seem to recall that entitlements make up 60% of the budget.

Do you even know what entitlements are?

Oooohh, I sense condescending anger and ad hominem attacks..show me where I did that to you, please. I guess I do know what entitlements are since you confirmed my number in this next statement of yours. Please read the posts for content next time, OK?

Mandatory spending makes up about 2/3 of the US budget.

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

Show me where I said that, please. I challenge you. I was talking to Grenme, before he turned into a cricket, about tax cuts and their influence on deficits. Again, you are on the other side of the ledger of our discussion. But I do take note of your Alinsky-like efforts to paint me as a cruel uncaring conservative who is ready to push Grandma down the staircase in her wheelchair. Meanwhile, perhaps you like a ever expanding welfare state with European style unemployment rates? We here in America don't, and that's why in a week from now we will be happily voting out the welfare statists. Even the Tea Party is helping do it's part by voting out the RINOs.

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 didn't. It was yet another government handout. And I see that France has finally gotten, dare I say, religion and is raising the retirement age.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Can you stop using them too then?