Of course Ryan's plan is radical. It carries a deficit (increases the debt) for 30 or 40 years because there are no tax increases
Sigh. It is more than evident by now that you don't know what you are talking about, Bri.
Ryan's Path To Prosperity does NOT increase debt in any meaningful way … because the only meaningful number when looking at debt is the
ratio of debt to GDP, which goes
down under Ryan's plan, not up. Here is what it will do to that ratio:
As you can see, debt
as a percentage of GDP would level off and start shrinking almost immediately and it would approach zero in about 40 years, assuming we follow through with it and economic growth turns out as predicted by Ryan (and he didn't assume any radical numbers for that … just what America is capable of sustaining if socialists get out of the way and let it).
That's not at all the picture you tried to paint. I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know even the basics about Ryan's plan. Let me recommend you watch this video over and over until you do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xwv5EbxXSmE
In fact, Ryan's plan will achieve results very close to those recommended by bi-partisan Fiscal Commission that Obama with great fanfare created to study the debt problem and whose results Obama and democrats promptly ignored. Here's a chart that shows what the commission thought needed to happen:
http://www.uncoverage.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PublicDebtRyanvsCommission.gif
Their recommendation is the green line. The similarity of that line to Ryan's Path is why the heads of that commission from each party (Erskine Bowles And Senator Alan Simpson) said this: “The budget released this morning by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation’s enormous fiscal challenges” and "“We applaud him for his work in putting forward a proposal which will reduce the country’s deficit by approximately the same amount as the plan of the President's Fiscal Commission.” In fact, here's a side by side comparison of the Ryan Plan with what the Fiscal Commission recommended:
http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=236151 . There are differences but also many similarities,
not the least of which is that BOTH plans keep revenues within the range that have been historically possible (under 21%), not the insane 24+% that's assumed possible in the Extended Baseline Scenario being pushed by Obama and democrats (and I assume you).
That figure also shows what the White House Authored Budget would do (the blue line) … which is put debt as a percent of GDP through the roof with it growing exponentially into the forseeable future. A disaster. That's the plan the democrats were defending when Obama called Ryan's plan "radical". So if you think his plan is radical, then INSANE is the only way to describe Obama and the democrats' plan.
The key to what Ryan shows debt can do is economic growth. Without it, NO plan will succeed. Which is why over and over, with multiple examples from history, I've tried to show you what happens to economic growth when you lower taxes and when you raise them. And what I've proven is that when you lower taxes, GDP growth increases, but when you raise taxes, GDP growth decreases. The lesson is simple. The ONLY way to get where we need to go is to lower taxes (and reduce government regulation). We need to encourage the free market to do what the government has never been able to do … be efficient and generate wealth.
Quote:
And then to rely on being able to steadily increase tax revenue as a percentage of GDP from about 21% in 2015 to 24% by 2035. But as I've noted, revenue levels above 21% of GDP have NEVER been seen. For that reason, the Obama/democrat plan is PURE FANTASY.
Let's assume you're right about that.
I am.
So what? Increasing taxes is still a viable way to get to the important milestone you mentioned above.
Actually, here again, historical data shows that you are wrong. As the chart I linked to you earlier proves (here it is again from a different source:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...I/AAAAAAAABOI/6r6ldZzqmFI/Revs+pct+of+GDP.jpg ), the ONLY time since WW2 when revenues as a percent of GDP reached 21% (or even came close to that) was in 1999,
a few years after republicans CUT TAXES. Prior to the tax cuts, revenues as a percent of GDP were BELOW 18.5%. In fact, when Clinton increased taxes early in his first term, revenues as a percent of GDP dropped BELOW the historical average (18%) and stayed there for several years. The lesson is clear. Why can't liberals like you learn it? Increasing taxes hurts the economy
and decreases revenues. Decreasing taxes helps the economy
and increases revenues.
In fact, go look at the chart I just linked again. There are two other times when revenues as a percent of GDP went up markedly. From about 1967-70 you can see it briefly climbed to about 19.5%. And it did it again about 1979-81. And what happened both times to tax rates a few years prior? They dropped. The top marginal rate dropped from 90% to 70% around 1965. They dropped from 70% to 50% around 1979.
The amount we would have to decrease spending depends on how quickly we want to pay off the debt. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to raise revenues now in order to reach the final goal.
Sigh. But it's
how you raise revenues that matters.
Raising taxes will drop revenues because it will hurt GDP growth. The historical data (which I've presented over and over to you) shows this as clear as day … just like it shows you can't expect to raise revenues above 18-19% of GDP for any significant length of time.
Historical data (which I've presented to you over and over) also proves that lower taxes markedly improve GDP growth. I've pointed out data from half a dozen specific historical time periods where when taxes were lowered GDP grew significantly. I showed you how doing that, as opposed to raising taxes, helped get the US out of three previous, very deep recessions (1837, 1893 and 1921). And I could have shown you even more examples. But what's the point if you refuse to learn?
Even if you're right (which I don't buy), we still need to increase revenues in addition to spending cuts.
Sigh. As I've said over and over now, what we need to do is increase revenues
AS A PERCENT OF GDP. That's the important parameter. You have to include GDP in the calculation and look at what taxes do to GDP growth. Are you unwilling to do that, Bri?
Quote:
And I've already shown that increasing taxes hurts GDP growth...
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but I have. Over and over with multiple examples,
ALL OF WHICH YOU HAVE SIMPLY IGNORED. I'm beginning to doubt you came to this thread for honest debate.
That can be easily demonstrated by the current situations where taxes are the lowest they've been in decades
NO THEY ARE NOT. You aren't listening at all, are you? Just regurgitating the same nonsense I debunked already. Attention span isn't your only problem, Bri. You have the same problem that all liberals have when confronted with facts. You hide, run or lie.
I showed you earlier that low taxes are not the reason current revenues as a percent of GDP is the worst in decades. I'll repeat what I said
in my last post since you appear to have simply skipped over it:
Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in is because of the Bush tax breaks at a time when the economy didn't grow as rapidly as was predicted
Wrong. Look at this chart, which shows recent historical GDP growth rates:
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/811_em811_figure11.jpg
The US went into recession in 2000 and then suffered 9/11 on top of that. When that happened, GDP growth plummetted. To bring us out of that downturn, Bush enacted two different tax cuts.
First, there was a tax cut enacted in June of 2001 (
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/...dit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS ). You can see from the chart that the first tax cut was enacted at a time when GDP growth was over -1 percent (i.e., NEGATIVE) and it was only 1 percent in the quarter before that. After it was enacted, GDP growth immediately climbed to nearly 2% and then stayed above 2% for the next 3 quarters.
Then the economy went back into another slump, falling to near zero percent growth and then only 1 percent in the first quarter of 2003. But that slump wasn't because of the tax rates.
So Bush cut taxes again. The second tax cut was enacted in May of 2003. And as you can see, immediately GDP growth rate rose to over 3%. Then in the next quarter climbed to over 7%. And then it averaged about 3.5% until mid 2006 … the next 11 quarters. Clearly, the tax cut had a very beneficial effect.
And then what happened? The power of democrats grew. They won control of Congress at the end of 2006. And looked what happened then? GDP growth rates began to head south. While two quarters of 2007 continued the 3.5% average level of the earlier quarters, for two other quarters it was only 0.5%. Then came the crash and GDP really headed south … followed by Obama who made the collapse even worse and has prolonged it.
No, Bri, the tax cuts were not the source of today's problems. You are just plain wrong about that. But then modern democrats always are when it comes to matters of economy. Because they don't actually look at history before reaching their *conclusions*.
Taxes are the lowest they've been since the 1950's
I'm beginning to think that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, Bri. Or at least you need to learn that just because a USA Today headline tells you something, it isn't necessarily so. Be a skeptic.
It's true that the amount of personal income that government has seized has fallen dramatically since 2007 and is now at the lowest levels since the 50s. But that's because we are in a deep recession. That's because we have a progressive tax structure. And when the economy falters, people make less, and they end up in lower tax brackets which drives down the average amount they pay.
As USA Today said (
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm ), since 2007, the "tax rate paid by all Americans -- rich and poor combined -- has fallen 26%." And what follows in their article as the reason for that shows that they didn't mean tax "rate" but the tax "revenue". The tax schedules themselves didn't changed. And the moment the economy recovers … if it recovers … the tax collected will spring back to 2007 levels. And if Congress allows the Bush cuts to expire, then we'll see the largest tax increase in history. And you know what that will do to the economy? History tells us. Learn from it.
Now if you want to argue that I'm wrong, then argue that with specifics, not with handwaving. Otherwise, don't pretend that low tax rates or Bush tax cuts are what created this economic mess. It isn't true. It's democrat-inspired out of control social spending, democrat-inspired government over-regulation, and democrat-inspired higher taxes. That is what is keeping GDP and revenue as a percent of GDP down right now. Clear as day.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples where taxes have been increased and the GDP increased.
Prove it. So far, I'm the only one who has been presenting real data on that topic on this thread. You're just making unsupported claims … handwaving … which liberals do all the time
while lying through their teeth to push their socialist agendas.
The problem is lack of demand, which is largely being caused by unemployment. That means that you should put more money in the hands of consumers by increasing employment.
LOL! But you won't do that with more stimulus and higher taxes to pay for that stimulus. The past 3 years proves that without any doubt. But then you can't learn from history, can you?
Unfortunately, that takes money. Which is why we probably shouldn't start cutting spending until the economy recovers somewhat.
Since you ignored my response when you made this assertion previously, I'll just repeat the proof portion of my last response:
Yes, I believe that cuts are needed (but not necessarily right away in the current economy).
... snip ...
Yeah, Bri, I've heard this defense before … *how can you talk about cuts
in a recession?* Well it's just another example of liberals being unable to learn from history and not understanding basic economics. Because history shows over and over that recessions are exactly when you need to cut to get out of recessions/depressions. And what do you think is the purpose of recession in a free market anyway? It is to force improvement in efficiency … by cutting back things that aren't working out … be it operations or employees. Eliminate products that are not selling. Shed investments that are not earning. The purpose is to make the system more efficient so that in the long run everyone benefits. To allocate resources in a different and more productive manner so that in the long run everyone benefits. There are sound economic reason for periodic recessions. But liberals can't seem to see them.
The problem with liberals and, sadly, even many modern republicans nowadays, is that they think government can operate outside sound economic principles. You've heard it during this recession time and time again … democrat leaders promising to protect government jobs by instituting policies to make government employees immune from the effects of this recession. Sure … Obama sold the Stimulus with the claim that most of the jobs saved and created would be in the private sector … with shovel ready jobs. But that was a lie. That were never enough shovel ready jobs. That was never the plan. The reality is that almost of the jobs (what few there were) that were saved ended up being in the government sector as democrat politicians voiced the mantra that *a recession is the the wrong time to cut … people need jobs*. They did this to keep government employees (a large part of their voter base) from experiencing the recession like those in the private sector (mostly conservatives) did. Because liberals simply don't understand economics … but they do understand the way the political system works and how to manipulate it to garner power.
But that was the wrong thing to do, as history proves over and over.
Look at the downturn (depression) of 1837. It was so serious that 4 million people lost their jobs (that was a LOT back then compared to the size of the working population). It was the worst downturn the US had experienced. About 40% of the banks outright collapsed. Property values that had been in a speculative bubble (much like ours) collapsed. It looked a lot like what Obama warned us
would happen if we didn't intervene with a massive stimulus in the current recession. But intervene was not what President Van Buren (a democrat who today would be called a Tea Party republican) did. No, he was philosophically opposed to government intervention … so he did
nothing. The economy recovered … partially recovering by 1839 (i.e., by now, in the current downturn), then suffering a brief relapse as a result of events overseas, then taking another 4 years to turn around (although some historians say that real GNP actually grew about 16% over those 4 years). It's worth noting that Federal debt as a percent of GDP was close to zero at the time. By the logic liberals use today, Van Buren could have spent and spent and spent and spent. But he didn't. And things worked out fine
Then we have the depression of 1893. Again, the worst in US history to that point in time. Unemployment went from 4% to over 12%. GDP dropped 10%. But again, we were blessed with a President, Grover Cleveland, who, like Van Buren, was opposed to government intervention.
Who, in fact, cut taxes and reduced government spending in response. Who was supported by many in Congress, such as Senator James Berry who declared "It is not the purpose of this government to give work to individuals throughout the United States by appropriating money which belongs to other people and does not belong to the Senate." And guess what? The economy recovered. That downturn was over within 6 years, with unemployment back to 5% and the economy booming. Do you think that's what's predicted now? No, unemployment is predicted to remain high … a new "norm" … with GDP growth relatively stagnant and predicted to remain low … a new "norm". All despite (or I think, BECAUSE OF) massive and inefficient interventions by the government.
Or how about the example of 1921, when President Harding inherited (like Obama claims he inherited) one of the sharpest recessions in US history. Unemployment rose over 700% in just one year. Production fell 23%. The stock market lost 18%. Yet within within two years (by now), it was over. Unemployment had returned to what was considered full employment and the economy was booming. And what happened to make this possible?
President Harding cut government spending by 40%, instead of massively increasing it. He
lowered taxes and
reduced regulation, all of which helped America's entrepreneurs and capitalists create new jobs and push the economy to recover rapidly. Harding's free market policies (and then Calvin Coolidge's, who followed him) led to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. All of this without a government stimulus robbing peter (a privately employed taxpayer) to pay paul (a government worker). All of this because Harding had a wisdom sadly lacking in all democrats and many top republicans nowadays. The wisdom to know that recessions are ALSO a time when government needs to make itself more efficient … by CUTTING programs and people that are not needed or meeting their goals.
Learn from history, Bri, or you will suffer the mistakes of the past.
Quote:
So don't be so sure that Obama is not a Fabian Socialist ... at least in thinking and objectives.
So, no evidence then.
My evidence is that Obama surrounds himself with Fabian Socialists and has promoted policies that Fabian Socialists would approve. And remember what Obama said during the 2008 campaign? "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself." I am. You won't because you are a liberal and liberals never judge their own.
Quote:
That's ALWAYS the problem with liberals. You never can cut (except maybe the military). There's always an excuse.
So Obama's not a liberal?
Nice strawman. It doesn't change the fact that
you just got done telling us that now is not the time to cut spending. And given that in good times democrats have been even more resistant to cutting spending, call me skeptical about your sincerity to do so when (if) times ever get better.
Quote:
It's always *we'll worry about it tomorrow* with liberals.
So now Clinton isn't a liberal?
Nice strawman. It doesn't change the fact that you and other democrats are indeed saying we should worry about high spending tomorrow … after the economic downturn is over. That was your side's starting position in the debate. And it's still basically your position. The new debt deal pushes worrying about it till after the next election. Never mind how much the debt to GDP ratio will grow in that time. All that matters to you democrats is getting this matter off the table for the election. The republicans who negotiated that deal are statist fools.
I don't recall any Republicans complaining bitterly when Bush unbalanced the budget (and they sure complained when Clinton balanced it).
Either you have a poor memory or you are a liar. Because republicans are the ones who first pushed for a balanced budget under Clinton (I earlier cited two attempts to pass an amendment to force it that were both shot down by democrats) and they did not complain when Clinton came close (and btw, he didn't actually do it if you look at what the Treasury said the national debt did during his years:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ). If republicans complained at all at that time, it was about
how Clinton *balanced* the budget (and that is a reasonable thing to disagree with given that he sold out the nation's security to do it). And contrary to your claim, republicans did indeed express concern about the growing budget imbalance under Bush. Were you not around back then?
Where was the Tea Party then?
They weren't needed yet. Under Bush, debt as a percent of GDP (the parameter that matters) was quite manageable. It was leveling off
below the percentage that it was during the first half of Clinton's term (before republicans cut taxes and got the economy going). Here, see for yourself:
http://jean-francois.im/2010/04/07/us-debt-to-gdp-ratio.png . It was only after the collapse of the economy (brought on in large part by past democrat policies), and after Obama came into office in 2009 , that the debt to GDP ratio blew through the roof … when Obama spent and spent and spent and kept the economy from recovering as it would have done had he (and Bush) not interfered. Learn some history, Bri, because right now you are doing nothing but making a fool of yourself.
Your very lengthy rant aside, I'll have to side with economists that history actually doesn't show that.
What you call *rants* cited DATA from more than 6 time periods that prove tax and spending cuts are exactly what you need to get out of recessions and depressions, and that increasing taxes and spending during recessions deepens and prolongs them. So far, you haven't offered ANY actual data, Bri. Just handwaving and don't think others can't see that.
Quote:
Stockman has certainly been calling for large increases in taxes.
Yes he has. And also for spending cuts. What I said was that I see no evidence that Stockman thinks we can tax more than we currently spend. If that's what you're implying, then it's a straw man.
Why did you cut off the rest of what I said? Which is this:
"And since he's smart enough to know that raising taxes will hurt economic growth (he's said that in the past, by the way), I'm not sure how he arrives at the notion that raising taxes will "lower debt", unless he was, as I said, calling for revenues to exceed spending over an extended period into the foreseeable future.
Can you explain that, Bri?"
So I'm still waiting. Can you explain that?
Quote:
And by the way, I hear that today's debt deal would put most of any possible changes on the backs of a bipartisan debt commission … snip ...
… snip … Unfortunately, the Republicans insisted on it.
Prove it. Otherwise, we might conclude you are a liar, Bri.
I think Obama should have followed the bipartisan debt commission or the Gang of Six recommendation
Those are two entirely different proposals. One sort of called for increasing taxes and the other called for sort of called for reducing them. As I've already pointed out, the bipartisan debt commission recommendations are not all that different from the Ryan plan in outcome and in what they say we can reasonably expect for revenues as a percent of GDP (21% or lower).
The Gang of Six recommendation had little actual detail, but they did agree that lower tax revenues are essential to stimulate economic growth (which is exactly what I've been saying). The Gang of Six plan called for a reduction in the top personal tax rate from 35% to the range of 23-29%. They also called for a reduction in double taxing of corporations. That doesn't sound AT ALL like what you've been suggesting so far. But I'm glad to hear you are finally coming around to my way of thinking.
Quote:
Sure, that's a nice goal. But what goals has the US government ever really met?
For a short while under Clinton, yes.
Non-sequitur. What goals has the US government every really met? I don't think you can rationally claim they even met a balance the budget goal and kept it for long enough to matter.
But this discussion isn't about whether the government will follow through with whatever plan is decided on.
Of course it is. That has to be factored into this. Because if the next Congress or President comes along and undos whatever fix is picked, it's all for not. Especially if the "fix" is one that has to be maintained for a long time to work. That's been part of the problem with government all along.
It's about whether the plan should include increased revenues in addition to spending cuts.
NO, the discussion is not about that. We ALL agree that revenues need to increase. The discussion is about HOW to increase them. You claim we can we can do it by increasing tax rates and I say the only way is through economic growth. I say that increasing taxes rates like you want to do with stifle economic growth. And I've presented a mountain of facts and data to back up my assertion while you've presented NOTHING BUT HANDWAVING.
Quote:
Balancing the budget is a wonderful goal, but it's FANTASY to think democrats will EVER go along with an Amendment that would actually force that to occur.
This discussion is too long already without throwing a new discussion of a Constitutional amendment into it. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you on this. A Constitutional amendment would be like solving a termite problem by burning down the house.
But this should be discussed if balancing the budget is important to you (it's not essential to me, as long as the debt as a percentage of GDP is dropping and that can happen through GDP growth alone). The only way I can see to insure that future Presidents and Congresses will continue balance the budget is through an amendment of some form. But like I said, its unlikely democrats will EVER agree to such an amendment. And you prove my point.
Quote:
Our economy is already tanked.
Give me a break. I agree that the economy sucks, but we still have an economy.
Ohhhhhh. So by tanked, you meant something worse than the 18% real employment we now have?
Something worse than a GDP that is now best described as lackluster.
Doing what you suggest would obliterate the economy entirely.
History (which I've cited numerous examples from, so far) proves you wrong. You just refuse to learn from history. You've completely ignored the data I've supplied. And instead regurgitate partisan hyperbole. A common liberal affliction.
Quote:
You simply don't understand how most of us feel. Here's a poll from last year from a liberal source … Gallup (
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...axes-too-high/ ) . What that poll shows is a nation where half think taxes are too high and half think they are about right. Hardly ANYONE thinks they are too low.
You're joking, right?
Why would think I'm joking? You made the assertion that taxes don't seem to be too high. Who decides that? YOU? Shouldn't the people decide it? Surely you aren't claiming that what taxpayers think doesn't matter to you democrats? If so, I hope people keep that in mind during the next election. I simply noted that the people who pay no taxes AT ALL but receive all those benefits you listed (and more) are probably the ONLY reason that not everyone thinks taxes are now too high.
You think it's a revelation that people don't like to pay taxes?
Polls have shown that people are willing to pay taxes …
if they think they are getting their money's worth. They've demonstrated that all these years. But more and more of us are feeling that we aren't getting our money's worth. That taxes are way to high given how inefficient government has turned out to be in dealing with problem after problem after problem. I listed a bunch of those failures earlier. All I heard from you was {crickets}.
But polls also show that people like to drive on streets, cross bridges, have a fire truck come if their house catches on fire, like to be protected from home invasions and invasions from other countries and Social Security and Medicare and all the other benefits government offers too.
Yeah, and how has government performed in those areas? Are we really being protected from invasions? Seems to me that millions of illegal aliens entering our country and receiving many of those services you mention for free (not to the taxpayer), constitutes an invasion. And we now live under a constant threat of terrorist attack. Sure we get fire protection but the pensions we give fire fighter (and police) unions are threatening to bankrupt some cities. And SS and Medicare? Last I heard (from Obama) those two programs alone are either going insolvent or threatening to bankrupt the whole country. Yeah … government's done such a great job.
Quote:
With 47% of Americans not paying any Federal taxes, it's no surprise that about half think they are about right. If I was living off someone else's dime, I'd think they were about right, too.
With the poor getting poorer
And you complained about me expanding the topic? LOL!
If that's happening (people getting poorer), it's because of lack of economic growth. But are democrats offering any promise of more of that? NO. What democrats have done the last few decades is hinder growth and now they are trying to convince the people to accept a "new norm" … a more impoverished norm.
If that's happening, it's because democrats have created a permanent poor class. Prior to the start of the War On Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate was in a steep decline in the US. But as WOP spending ramped up, the decline leveled off. It bottomed out at 11.1% in 1973 and then started going back up. Between 1965 and 1995, welfare spending increased 7 fold, yet the poverty rate consistently remained between 12-16%. And now the poverty rate has gone back up to where it was in 1964. And that's despite spending upwards of $20 TRILLION dollars on "means tested welfare" fighting poverty over that time.
http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm
The "capitalism alone" phase of poverty reduction can be seen operating from 1950 to 1966. In that period the poverty rate (column H) fell from 30% to 15%. Even poverty in the non-white population (column I) fell from almost 60% in 1960 to 40% by 1966. ... snip ... What attends the striking increase in anti-poverty activity is the actual slowing and halting of the fall in the poverty rate. The percentage of the population below the poverty line bottoms out in 1973 at 11.1% and then stagnates or increases from then on. By 1981, only the first year of the Reagan Presidency, the poverty rate is already back up to 14%, where it hadn't been since 1967. At the same time, the percentage of families on AFDC had skyrocketed, from the disturbing 2% of 1963 to what must be the even more disturbing, or shocking, 6.5% of 1980. Programs intended to reduce "dependency" had instead more than tripled it.
And I think the fault for that lies squarely on the shoulders of democrats who constantly pushed this program and called anyone against it uncaring. Perhaps the result was accidental at first, but now I think they callously maintain that poor class because it benefits them politically. Without the poor, the democrat party would be irrelevant. Indeed, Obama recently revised the definition of poverty to insure there are ALWAYS poor, regardless of how much they make. Did you know that, Bri?
Which brings me to wonder, what do you mean by "poor" anyway?
Quote:
So where do you exactly get your belief that taxes are too low, Bri?
Because despite the (unsurprising) revelation that people don't like to pay taxes, they are too low.
And you're the final arbiter? I see.
Quote:
And as for the problem being demand, you don't create demand with government programs. Haven't you learned ANYTHING from the failure of the last trillion dollar stimulus?
A discussion for another time, but again I disagree with you.
Ah, so the running is about to begin.
Quote:
If there were an identified need (that most of us could agree on) that could be met within the Constitutionally agreed limits of government's role in our lives …
And if we could be somewhat confident that government could efficiently meet that need and not fail like it has so many other times (as I've noted earlier) …
And if current tax revenues were well below historical averages that suggest what people are willing to give …
THEN I might be willing to raise taxes.
But you wouldn't be willing to raise taxes in the least to get to that point.
You asked under what circumstances I would be in favor of raising taxes. I told you. You don't like my honesty?
Quote:
Furthermore, there are plenty of noted economists who say you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession.
And plenty more who say you don't cut spending in the middle of a recession, but you seem to dismiss them out of hand.
LIAR. I haven't done that at all. I've presented a mountain of sourced facts and data that refute the soundness of your viewpoint. You are the one who has been dismissing out of hand. You've simply ignored all the data I offered and have yet to offer ANY data that proves what you claim.
Revenues as a percentage of GDP is generally accepted as the best way to measure overall tax rates.
FALSE. It became false the moment you threw GDP into that definition. Tax RATES are not the same thing as revenues. I've over and over proven with actual historical data that when you lower taxes rates, revenue as a percentage of GDP almost always goes UP. And you've ignored it all. I presented more data to prove that in this post. And I predict you will ignore it too, because I'm now convinced you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I started out thinking you might be willing to debate this honestly, but that is clearly not the case. You're just a typical liberal.
Afterall, most economists are liberals. They vote democrat. They are not politically unbiased.
Prove it.
LOL!
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf
In Spring 2003, a survey of 1000 economists was conducted using a randomly generated membership list from the American Economics Association. … snip … In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1. These results are compared to those of previous surveys of economists.
Quote:
And the economists that supported the stimulus, which I imagine includes most of the economists you might name, promised us that it would keep unemployment under 8%. FAIL.
Please provide references to economists who promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. I'm aware of one economist who provided that figure as a projection with plenty of caveats.
LOL! Christina Romer, head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the Vice President's top economic adviser, published a report in January of 2009, titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (
http://www.thompson.com/images/thompson/nclb/openresources/obamaeconplanjan9.pdf ). Their report projected (see Figure 1) that without the stimulus, unemployment would hit 8.5 percent in 2009 and then rise to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. But with the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent. Go read it. Go tell us what caveats they made.
I'm pretty sure that Obama and his economists would agree with you that the debt is higher than it should be.
LOL! Then is that why they were proposing a budget that would have pushed debt as a percentage of GDP into the stratosphere?
Of course, there was the little matter of a recession that Obama inherited
LOL! How much longer do you leftists think you can keep blaming everything on Bush?
]
]
