• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush Era Tax Cuts, Wars Account for Nearly Half of National Debt by 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,761
3
76
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-the-one-graph-you-need-to-see-before-watching/

There is no single policy we have passed that has added as much to the debt, or that is projected to add as much to the debt in the future, as the Bush tax cuts, which Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003 and Obama and the Republicans extended in 2010.
The data is taken from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.

I just always find it fascinating that the very people who rail against our national debt are the same people that want to continue the very things that are most directly contributing to it.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,911
1,063
126
Because they seem to believe that if you give more money to the rich that they'll magic that money back to the government in triplicate. Failing to realize that with record reserves of cash in business and record amounts of wealth among the 1%, that they aren't creating new jobs now so why the fuck would they if we give them more?

Basically people who support extending the Bush tax cuts are idiots and I'm upset with Obama for making a deal previously to extend them.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
There are some problems with that chart. GDP was equal to National Debt in Jan 2012, not somewhere in the mid 2020's like that chart suggests. Also according to that chart take away the wars, tax cuts and bailouts and Debt would be 25% of GDP or roughly $4 Trillion which is what the Debt was in 1992.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
I just always find it fascinating that the very people who rail against our national debt are the same people that want to continue the very things that are most directly contributing to it.
I think if we reduce our spending that would reduce the debt too. Why do so many only rail about the tax rates.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
There are some problems with that chart. GDP was equal to National Debt in Jan 2012, not somewhere in the mid 2020's like that chart suggests. Also according to that chart take away the wars, tax cuts and bailouts and Debt would be 25% of GDP or roughly $4 Trillion which is what the Debt was in 1992.
As I understand it, it's presenting only the additional debt since 2001, not total debt.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
Technically you cannot blame a tax cut on the increase in debt; debt is excess spending. You can have zero taxes and zero debt if you don't spend. I know people like to blame the tax cuts, but they are only a symptom of the problem.

BTW, my personal position on all of this is that taxes need to go up massively for everybody. I have concluded with high confidence that substantial spending cuts will never happen and so to pay for it we do need to jack up taxes. Kill the bush tax cuts and raise other taxes also until we hit break point.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
31
91
BTW, my personal position on all of this is that taxes need to go up massively for everybody. I have concluded with high confidence that substantial spending cuts will never happen and so to pay for it we do need to jack up taxes. Kill the bush tax cuts and raise other taxes also until we hit break point.
Yeah, and a year after we raise taxes enough to get rid of the deficit the idiots in Congress will just increase spending by $1 trillion and tell us we need to raise taxes again :rolleyes:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,738
13,855
136
Technically you cannot blame a tax cut on the increase in debt; debt is excess spending. You can have zero taxes and zero debt if you don't spend. I know people like to blame the tax cuts, but they are only a symptom of the problem.
I don't think that's accurate. Tax cuts w/o spending cuts are utterly irresponsible, a primary cause, not a symptom. If right wing politicians were honest at all, they'd cut spending first, then lower taxes to match. They actually care less about deficits than Dems- witness the results. RR & GHWB quadrupled the debt, and GWB doubled it again.

They're just using the idea as a foil, a beard, an excuse to cut the social programs their own policies have forced the govt to adopt. Kill the Unions. Offshore everything. Loot America to get the money to do it. Legalized financial fraud.

BTW, my personal position on all of this is that taxes need to go up massively for everybody. I have concluded with high confidence that substantial spending cuts will never happen and so to pay for it we do need to jack up taxes. Kill the bush tax cuts and raise other taxes also until we hit break point.
I'll go along with that with some caveats. Taxes must go up at the top first if the whole thing is to be politically palatable. People in the lower half of family incomes can't be expected to pay higher taxes because their share of national income has fallen substantially as a result of Repub policy. That's not politically palatable, either, despite the ravings of the usual wingnuts. They're already paying more in other taxes than they can afford, which is part of the reason we have things like food stamps & EITC.

You can't sell tax increases the same way that Repubs sold cuts- as a flimflam favoring the Rich. It won't fly.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I think if we reduce our spending that would reduce the debt too. Why do so many only rail about the tax rates.
Because it would require draconian spending cuts compared to relatively modest tax increases. America prospered quite nicely under Clinton-era tax rates, and had a nominally balanced budget to boot. That seems like a good place to (re)start.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
31
91
Because it would require draconian spending cuts compared to relatively modest tax increases. America prospered quite nicely under Clinton-era tax rates, and had a nominally balanced budget to boot. That seems like a good place to (re)start.
We'd have to raise taxes by over 50% to close the deficit.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
We'd have to raise taxes by over 50% to close the deficit.
I'm not suggesting at all that tax increases are the total solution. I'm saying returning to Clinton-era rates would be a solid step in the right direction, while not imposing an unreasonable burden. We need spending cuts as well.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,809
407
136
I'm not suggesting at all that tax increases are the total solution. I'm saying returning to Clinton-era rates would be a solid step in the right direction, while not imposing an unreasonable burden. We need spending cuts as well.
Come on now, we all know the only fix is to cut the tax rate for the rich to 0. It creates moar jobs!
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,738
13,855
136
I'm not suggesting at all that tax increases are the total solution. I'm saying returning to Clinton-era rates would be a solid step in the right direction, while not imposing an unreasonable burden. We need spending cuts as well.
We could return to pre-Reagan rates for the top 20% w/o imposing unreasonable burdens, and raise rates on the top .1% even higher, given that their incomes & share of income have more than doubled.

Which way would a person come out ahead- paying 20% on $10M/yr, or 40% on $20M/yr?
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,809
407
136
You can't be serious about balancing the budget if revenue increases of some kind aren't in the discussion.
Fuck no! Cut em lower! Doesn't that must make sense? You obviously haven't read the republican guide that explains this voodoo math.... the one that doesn't exist nor has been explained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS