[BadKosh]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc...isis_Brief.pdf


Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, com- pared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions.1
Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP) almost cer- tainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push federal spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, well above the levels experienced in recent decades. Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a shareof GDP,or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.

Although deficits during or shortly after a recession generally hasten economic recovery, persistent deficits and continually mounting debt would have several negative economic consequences for the United States. Some of those consequences would arise gradually: A growing por- tion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur. In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by
imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would dis- courage work and saving and further reduce output. Ris- ing interest costs might also force reductions in spending on important government programs. Moreover, rising debt would increasingly restrict the ability of policy- makers to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or international crises.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Unless taxes are raised to where they used to be...

[turtle777]

One word: massive inflation.
Yes, that's two words, in case you didn't get the irony !
-t

[BadKosh]

Anything but cut taxes and remove regulations and such that have hampered recovery. Gov't spending was exactly the WRONG thing to do as it raises taxes and returns very little on money spent.

[hyteckit]

Tax cuts during Bush years worked out really well.

Like bankrupting the US and causing the US debt to increase rapidly in the last few years.

Republicans care about the deficit? Bullsh*t.

During Pres. Bush years.

VP Dick Cheney said deficits doesn't matter.
Pres. Bush said surpluses are a bad thing because government is collecting too much money.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Tax cuts during Bush years worked out really well.

Like bankrupting the US and causing the US debt to increase rapidly in the last few years.

My pet turtle has more economic understanding than you.

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

-t

[smacintush]

Taxe revenues as expressed as a percentage of GDP haven't moved significantly in decades. It has stayed around 18% (periodic economic downturns excepted of course).

The problem isn't too little taxes, it's spending that has been rising.

It's a shame that our immoral government is currently trying to use the deficits that (they are deliberately running up, and that are being worsened by the poor economic situation that they set in motion) as a means to extort more of our money from us. 'Cuz they "need" it and we all need to make "sacrifices".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

My pet turtle has more economic understanding than you.

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

-t

So the deficit of $4.7 trillion was the result of tax cuts, the war, the medical D program under president Bush and the rest is the result of existing entitlement programs and declining revenues.

So tax cuts resulted in tanking the economy and causing a decline in revenues.

Declining revenues are driving future deficits.

Wow. Great. Thanks for confirming.

Pres. Bush sucks.

[turtle777]

Ah, I see. No real argument on your side. Just the usual drivel. Carry on.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

All our current problems are really just carry-overs from previous presidents, all the way back to George Washington. We really have no choice after what he saddled us with.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Anything but cut taxes and remove regulations and such that have hampered recovery. Gov't spending was exactly the WRONG thing to do as it raises taxes and returns very little on money spent.

even bush's 700 billion dollar bailout?

[OAW]

This debate really is tiresome.

Why do people insist upon looking at this issue as if EITHER taxes OR spending is the cause? When the reality is that a deficit/surplus is a FUNCTION of the relationship between the two?

You can "cut taxes" and still run up the deficit. As occurred in the Bush Administration.

You can "raise taxes" and still bring down the deficit. As occurred in the Clinton Administration.

1/3 of the Stimulus package was in the form of tax cuts. Something the right claims they want ... yet turned around and b*tched about it because it raised the deficit ... the very thing they say tax cuts don't do. (when passed by the GOP that is)

Spending increased massively as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars along with Medicare Part D. Something the right claims they are against. (except when it's for things they want)

The sooner people dispense with the BS and start looking at the deficit problem mathematically the better off this country will be:

Expenditures > Revenues = Deficit

Period! That's it ... end of discussion!

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. It does not matter if that dollar is for a war or for an entitlement program or for a social program or to put a man on the moon. If you don't have that dollar in your pocket you have a problem. The minute you start yakking about one side of the equation (i.e. taxes vs spending) as if that is the root of the problem the battle is already lost. Instead of arguing about whether the government taxes too much/little or spends too much/little ... there really only needs to be two fundamental questions ....

1. What functions will the US government perform?

2. How much do those functions cost?

Once you have the answers to those questions, the issue of taxes is a function of simple mathematics*.

OAW

* At least as far as "How much?" is concerned. "Who pays what and how?" leaves plenty to bicker about.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All our current problems are really just carry-overs from previous presidents, all the way back to George Washington. We really have no choice after what he saddled us with.

That wooden-toothed wig-wearing asshole!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That wooden-toothed wig-wearing asshole!

he was a communist too!...and fascist!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

even bush's 700 billion dollar bailout?

The Democrat run congress didn't have anything to do with it? Hmmmm.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Democrat run congress didn't have anything to do with it? Hmmmm.

Are you saying that the Democrat run Congress had so complete control over Bush's actions that they were able to force his government to propose a $700,000,000,000.00 bailout?

I know a lot of people thought he was a useless President, but I didn't realize that you thought so as well.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying that the Democrat run Congress had so complete control over Bush's actions that they were able to force his government to propose a $700,000,000,000.00 bailout?

I know a lot of people thought he was a useless President, but I didn't realize that you thought so as well.

Ok, so for the record: both, Bush and Obama are fookcing fiscially irresponsible.

I opposed the bailout from the beginning. It really doesn't matter who was to blame, because currently, both Democrats and Republicans are runiung this country.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so for the record: both, Bush and Obama are fookcing fiscially irresponsible.

I opposed the bailout from the beginning. It really doesn't matter who was to blame, because currently, both Democrats and Republicans are runiung this country.

-t

for the record, I thought the bailout was a bad idea as wall.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That wooden-toothed wig-wearing asshole!

Don't forget sterile!