Presidential Campaign: 2012

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by roni

Bachmann would get rid of unemployment by getting rid of the minimum wage, course that would probably increase welfare expenses for all those low wage jobs that would be created.

Michele Bachmann: Review minimum wage - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

Those low wage jobs are already going to the " undocumented workers" . That are already collecting welfare and food stamps.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But in true Republican fashion, still not even any acknowledgment of those revenue questions, despite claiming to be so worried about how terrrrrible the debt is.

Perhaps those Republicans you mention know something that you don't; that the budgetary problems we face are those of excess expenditures and not insufficient revenues. For example, total tax receipts to the federal government (through 2008, the year before the current malaise) increased 140% since 1990, while the population increased only 24%, and the CPI 70%. Taking the social insurance portion of the receipts out of the equation yields the same percentage growth of federal revenues since 1990, that is, 140%. If you reversed the dreaded Obama tax cuts for those families, the husband and wife police officers down the street from me (the "rich" to some on this board), earning over 250k per annum, it would have a marginal impact on the overall budget. Spending has to be brought to heel, and fast, to avert disaster, but those pesky Democrats refuse any acknowledgement of the problem other than to call those wishing to address the issues cold-hearted and murderous.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

Perhaps those Republicans you mention know something that you don't; that the budgetary problems we face are those of excess expenditures and not insufficient revenues. For example, total tax receipts to the federal government (through 2008, the year before the current malaise) increased 140% since 1990, while the population increased only 24%, and the CPI 70%. Taking the social insurance portion of the receipts out of the equation yields the same percentage growth of federal revenues since 1990, that is, 140%. If you reversed the dreaded Obama tax cuts for those families, the husband and wife police officers down the street from me (the "rich" to some on this board), earning over 250k per annum, it would have a marginal impact on the overall budget. Spending has to be brought to heel, and fast, to avert disaster, but those pesky Democrats refuse any acknowledgement of the problem other than to call those wishing to address the issues cold-hearted and murderous.

Really? Because last I heard, they were working on cuts. No, it seems only the Republicans I referred to are stuck in a knee-jerk denial approach that rejects consideration of one entire side of the problem. That's the hypocrisy of the big urgent concern they keep expressing about the debt.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Really? Because last I heard, they were working on cuts. No, it seems only the Republicans I referred to are stuck in a knee-jerk denial approach that rejects consideration of one entire side of the problem. That's the hypocrisy of the big urgent concern they keep expressing about the debt.

You heard wrong; the cuts proposed and under review by the Democrats will have no more impact on the budget than will the proposed tax increases; they are just fiddling at the margins. No comment on the steep rise in revenues over the last 20 years, completely demolishing your claim that lagging revenues are the problem?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

You heard wrong; the cuts proposed and under review by the Democrats will have no more impact on the budget than will the proposed tax increases; they are just fiddling at the margins. No comment on the steep rise in revenues over the last 20 years, completely demolishing your claim that lagging revenues are the problem?

But I didn't claim any such thing. I claimed that a number of Republicans in Congress are arbitrarily rejecting consideration of anything on the revenues side to help solve the problem they say they are so worried about. This is demonstrable: they do it quite publicly and frequently.

You then made the counterclaim that Democrats are refusing any acknowledgment of the need for spending cuts. This is farcical: they also do precisely that publicly and frequently.

You know these things to be true.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But I didn't claim any such thing. I claimed that a number of Republicans in Congress are arbitrarily rejecting consideration of anything on the revenues side to help solve the problem they say they are so worried about. This is demonstrable: they do it quite publicly and frequently.

You then made the counterclaim that Democrats are refusing any acknowledgment of the need for spending cuts. This is farcical: they also do precisely that publicly and frequently.

You know these things to be true.

The point is, increasing revenues are at best tangential to the problem, and rather than waste any time on such nonsense, we should get to the heart of the matter. That is not possible now, because one side is vilified for properly recognizing the futility of using revenue increases as a means of solving the problem. The Democrats make noise that they are seeking to make cuts in the budget, but the proposals they make are ludicrously insufficient so as to be meaningless.

If you insist that the Democrats are acknowledging the need to make cuts, in light of the ones they propose, that's fine; their offer is entirely un-serious and barely above contempt. Try this with your wife as an acknowledgment of a problem. "Of course drinking and driving is a bad thing, honey; that is why I will only drink three bottles of wine with dinner tonight, instead of my customary four, before we head back home!".

[ryberg]

So your defense is that when those Republicans outright reject without even any consideration any revenue changes to resolve the country's financial problems -- the problems Republicans complain so vociferously about -- that's really not so bad because the spending cuts Democrats are in fact proposing (in your newly reversed position on that point) are insultingly small and ineffective.

Gotcha!

President Barack Obama said at a news conference Wednesday that he expects congressional Republicans to “take on their sacred cows” in reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, and his administration and Congress must take a “balanced approach that looks at everything” from cutting spending to raising revenues...

Exactly. Stop refusing to even think inside half the box, GOP, while simultaneously issuing your barrage of concern over our finances.

That's from

Obama at press conference: GOP strategy on debt talks 'not on the level' - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by tmc

. . . the budgetary problems we face are those of excess expenditures and not insufficient revenues. For example, total tax receipts to the federal government (through 2008, the year before the current malaise) increased 140% since 1990, while the population increased only 24%, and the CPI 70%. . .

Originally Posted by tmc

. . . No comment on the steep rise in revenues over the last 20 years, completely demolishing your claim that lagging revenues are the problem?

Well, if I may... Tax receipts from 1990 to 2008 may be up 140% (I trust you, I didn't check any resources), but U.S. GDP during the EXACT same period is up ALMOST THREEFOLD from 5.75 trillion to 14.36 trillion USD.

So, basically, what we see is that even in a period where federal revenue is up, the U.S. economy can still grow at a SIGNIFICANTLY faster pace?

And wait... If GDP is able to grow at this astonishingly high pace (a pace much faster than that of federal revenue during the same period) does that mean that American businesses can still prosper, grow, thrive and succeed all while... ...PAYING TAXES?


U.S. GDP growth chart below:

World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google public data

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So your defense is that when those Republicans outright reject without even any consideration any revenue changes to resolve the country's financial problems -- the problems Republicans complain so vociferously about -- that's really not so bad because the spending cuts Democrats are in fact proposing (in your newly reversed position on that point) are insultingly small and ineffective.

Gotcha!

Now you get it! If tax revenue increases would make a 5% difference in the greater scheme of things and budget cuts a 95% change in the process, of course we should focus on the tax increases, right? Take heed of the words of Willie Sutton when discussing matters financial.

Exactly. Stop refusing to even think inside half the box, GOP, while simultaneously issuing your barrage of concern over our finances.

That's from

Obama at press conference: GOP strategy on debt talks 'not on the level' - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Wow, imagine that, the President disagrees with me! It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong (unemployment not rising above 8%, "shovel ready" projects suited for the stimulus, Obamacare good for business) about such things, and probably not the last.

[STOGEY]

One of President Obama's rallying cry. Will be,"remember the Spartans." How they sacrificed everything for their country of Greece. Yet even though they were out numbered by their adversaries , lacking in technology and education.

I would like all of us in the United States of Amerika. To look to where Greece was in those dark days and use them as an inspiration as to where we can go.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by tmc

Now you get it! If tax revenue increases would make a 5% difference in the greater scheme of things and budget cuts a 95% change in the process, of course we should focus on the tax increases, right?

Where do you get those figures?

Wouldn't it depend on the amount of revenue increases and budget cuts?

Or am I missing something?

[tmc]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Well, if I may... Tax receipts from 1990 to 2008 may be up 140% (I trust you, I didn't check any resources), but U.S. GDP during the EXACT same period is up ALMOST THREEFOLD from 5.75 trillion to 14.36 trillion USD.

So, basically, what we see is that even in a period where federal revenue is up, the U.S. economy can still grow at a SIGNIFICANTLY faster pace?

And wait... If GDP is able to grow at this astonishingly high pace (a pace much faster than that of federal revenue during the same period) does that mean that American businesses can still prosper, grow, thrive and succeed all while... ...PAYING TAXES?


U.S. GDP growth chart below:

World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google public data

You should have shown the results on a log chart, it would have had a much different impact than you think. According to your chart, the pace of US economic growth has slowed precipitously over the last 20 years compared to any rolling 20 year period from 1960 through 1995; in the early part of the time identified growth over a 20 year period was almost at a factor of five rate, the last 20 year period it was half that (2 1/2 times as you identified).

I don't know that there is any correlation between rate of growth of tax revenues and GDP growth as you imply, but revenues to the feds exploded when GDP rates were much higher in the 60's, 70's, and 80's; perhaps if we had an approach to grow the economy, rather than bridle it, we might be able to increase the revenues you seem so desperate to place into the hands of an economic illiterate as Mr. Obama.

[roni]

The USA Federal govt.. Needs more revenues. Lots more.

Thinking it is solely or primarily a spending problem is incorrect.

That will be discussed during the primary and general election campaign, but there is little evidence anyone other the Koch's, Norquist and their minions, sycophants, and other followers think it is a spending problem primarily.

[user 6507]

Originally Posted by roni

The USA Federal govt.. Needs more revenues. Lots more.

Thinking it is solely or primarily a spending problem is incorrect.

That will be discussed during the primary and general election campaign, but there is little evidence anyone other the Koch's, Norquist and their minions and sycophants think it is a spending problem primarily.

I think I just discovered I'm a minion...cause I think the USA has a serious spending problem...

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by tmc

. . . the pace of US economic growth has slowed precipitously over the last 20 years compared to any rolling 20 year period from 1960 through 1995 . . . (2 1/2 times as you identified).

Wow! Really? This DESPITE the fact that during 26 of those 35 years from 1960 to 1995 the top marginal tax bracket ranged between 50% and 91%? Seriously?

But wait... wait... Now I'm REALLY confused... You're saying that the pace of U.S. economic growth during the LAST 20 years, a time when our tax income tax rates are the LOWEST in history (thanks to your Republican supply-side brethren), is way slower than this period during which the top marginal tax rate was a downright sisyphean rate of at LEAST 50% in 26 of 35 of those years?

During the last 20 years (during which you are asserting that U.S. economic growth was much slower than the 35 years from '60 - '95) haven't we been enjoying top marginal tax rates which are, quite literally, a FRACTION of that "go go growth" time you are referring to between 1960 and 1995?

I know I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but what I *THINK* you are saying is this: When top marginal rates were really, really high, the U.S. economy blossomed like a rose in spring, when top marginal rates were really, really low, the U.S. economy grew, barely, but at a laboriously slow pace?

I mean, I see your point... But I'm just surprised to see you advocating for such a marked increase in the top marginal tax rates!!!

Originally Posted by tmc

. . . perhaps if we had an approach to grow the economy, rather than bridle it, we might be able to increase the revenues you seem so desperate to place into the hands of an economic illiterate as Mr. Obama.

Notwithstanding your ad hominem jab at President Obama, I think I would agree with YOUR approach to grow the economy, based on the argument and statistics you quote in your post - we need merely raise the top marginal income tax brackets to somewhere between 50% and 91% and the logarithmic curve of U.S. GDP growth should EXPLODE, right?