CBO: Trillion dollar deficits through 2017.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
No you don't. Even a cursory reading of the CBO report would show you that is false.

That must be more of that "reading comprehension" you have that translates "Bush tax cuts" into "tax cuts for the wealthy are the primary driver."

I sure hope you have something you don't suck at, because you're going to go hungry if your job involves reading and understanding things in any way.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Apparently you not only fail at logic, you fail at basic math. Yes, we have a credit card with a very high limit, so we can just keep adding to the running balance.... but no matter how you turn it, at some point you will reach the limit unless you start paying off more than what you charge. We're doing the opposite, we keep charging more and more, in addition to the balance we're already carrying. That's something you can do temporarily, but it's not ultimately sustainable.

Being the monopoly supplier and issuer of your currency means you do not have a credit limit. You can always print more. In a practical sense at least, there are implications.

It's sustainable up until the point that nobody is willing to take your currency or use your currency for international transactions. There have been only small grumblings about using the USD for international trade, we have an extremely formidable military making sure that none of those grumblings get voiced too loud. Over the course of the next few decades if the USA is not able to maintain the strength of its currency more countries will decide to either switch to a basket of currencies, trade in one of their own currency, seek to vamp up the IMFs special drawing rights system, or settle payments in gold. China and Japan have circumvented the dollar in recent trades, Saddam Hussein wanted OPEC to sell in Euros, and the sanctions in Iran is forcing them to look at different options to settle their international trade to avoid the sanctions. I would look for the USDs reserve status to go out with a fizzle and not a bang (default).

Hyperinflation is really the only form of default in a fiat currency, the only way this is possible is if the USA printed some obscene number towards its deficit, probably along the lines of 30-40% of GDP and foreign countries refused to park that currency in treasuries and bid up goods worldwide that were traded in USD. Very unlikely as government would have to grow to far larger than it is even now, and we presumably would start a large world war just to avoid going to free market currency.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,330
10,232
136
Did I mention the Ryan plan anywhere in my posts? No? I didn't think so. Nobody in washington is serious about cutting spending. Liberals are not only not serious about cutting, they think more spending is perfectly fine (see eskimo as an example of such lunacy).

So you agree it's not a just a liberal problem.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
Quick! Let's implement some more republican policies! Lets start another war or two, throw a few more handouts to big banks and big pharma, lower taxes again for the wealthy, give some more tax breaks to big oil, and throw a few more tax loopholes in there for foriegn based companies. With just a little effort we can pump those measly deficits up to 2-3 trillion per year!
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,511
29,096
146
And that's fine, however the tax cuts for the rich have already been shown to be a small part of the total deficit. So even we raise taxes on the 1% and very, very, very optimistically get $100B out of them, you still need to come up with $900B in cuts. No matter how you slice it that's going to hurt.

Pentagon.

:whiste:
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Quick! Let's implement some more republican policies! Lets start another war or two, throw a few more handouts to big banks and big pharma, lower taxes again for the wealthy, give some more tax breaks to big oil, and throw a few more tax loopholes in there for foriegn based companies. With just a little effort we can pump those measly deficits up to 2-3 trillion per year!

What an awful post. Another useless Democrat hack.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
"Some" spending cuts? There have not been ANY actual cuts. There never are. What they call "cuts" are actually simply reductions in the planned amount of increase in spending. I've yet to see actual year over year decreases in overall spending. Until we see that, we're still heading in the wrong direction.
-snip-

Yep, 'Baseline Budgeting".

I really wish we could get away from that. IMO, it's just another way for Washington DC to engage in dishonest and deceptive talk. IIRC, baseline budgeting means an automatic 8% increase in budgeting/spending, so if they 'only' increase spending by 6% they call it a "cut". An increase of 6% is in no way a cut anywhere but in Washington DC. Casual listeners watching the news programs in evening hear this and are fooled into believing there was a (real) spending cut.

Fern
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Quick! Let's implement some more republican policies! Lets start another war or two, throw a few more handouts to big banks and big pharma, lower taxes again for the wealthy, give some more tax breaks to big oil, and throw a few more tax loopholes in there for foriegn based companies. With just a little effort we can pump those measly deficits up to 2-3 trillion per year!

Deficits is just an indirect way of saying "investment" the government invests into defense contractors, foreign low-wage countries, and domestic health care. When the government isn't able to collect tax dollars for this investment, it simply creates the money to do this.

In modern monetary theory speak the deficit is basically a thermostat that you use to get a nice temperature (full employment) you keep turning the deficits up until you reach full employment, and stop before you make bubbles...

Wall street knew what they were doing when they invented this system and we entrusted them with the power to be all intertwined in our government.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
If Congress did not extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for FY 2012, then at least 90% of the deficit would've remained. I don't get what's so hard for so many people to understand about that. Federal taxes need to be abolished.

If they can't be abolished then the gas tax should be reduced to 10.2 cent per gallon, the corporate tax rate to 13% (with a 100k exclusion) with no deduction for providing insurance. Then the AMT should be repealed. The size of the 10% bracket should be doubled. There should be personal deductions for all health care expenses. HSAs should be tax free. Withdrawing from your savings to pay off your house should be tax free. There should be a standard exclusion of $12k/individual. DoddFrank and SOx should be repealed. Taxes on gold, palladium, platinum, copper, and silver need to be repealed. The NFA should be repealed. The FICA tax cut should be extended and people 25 or younger should be out of the SS and MC system. U.S. Federal lands and U.S. military weapons should be sold at 80-90% of what the average private seller would sell them for each year. The Federal debt to the Fed should be repudiated, 2/3 of the U.S. government debt held by foreigners should be repudiated without interest paid on the other 30%. 50% of the Federal debt held by Americans should be repudiated and the other 1/2 paid immediately without interest. Medicare Part D needs to be reformed via IP abolition and favoring of imported drugs for Medicare. Means testing needs to be done for Medicare and Social Security. 7 Departments and many agencies could realistically be cut. Congress's salary and cost of office should both be reduced by 1/3. Remaining Federal employees should have their compensation cut to 2/3 what it currently is. 1/2 of the bases here should closed and that land sold. 100% of overseas bases should be closed. The TSA and CIA should be abolished. The DoJ should be cut to 1/8 or less of what it currently is. If it is absolutely necessary to balance the budget, then a 10% tax on all goods entering the country and a 5% tax on all goods leaving the country would be okay. All import quotas should be repealed.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
:awe: And your post is such literary genius! You idiotic baffoon

Sorry, did I knock down your strawman?

Nobody here is advocating the Republican strategy. But almost as bad as the Republican strategy is the one the Democrats are proposing. They just want you to ignore facts and pretend that if we do nothing everything will be fine.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
If Congress did not extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for FY 2012, then at least 90% of the deficit would've remained. I don't get what's so hard for so many people to understand about that. Federal taxes need to be abolished.

If they can't be abolished then the gas tax should be reduced to 10.2 cent per gallon, the corporate tax rate to 13% (with a 100k exclusion) with no deduction for providing insurance. Then the AMT should be repealed. The size of the 10% bracket should be doubled. There should be personal deductions for all health care expenses. HSAs should be tax free. Withdrawing from your savings to pay off your house should be tax free. There should be a standard exclusion of $12k/individual. DoddFrank and SOx should be repealed. Taxes on gold, palladium, platinum, copper, and silver need to be repealed. The NFA should be repealed. The FICA tax cut should be extended and people 25 or younger should be out of the SS and MC system. U.S. Federal lands and U.S. military weapons should be sold at 80-90% of what the average private seller would sell them for each year. The Federal debt to the Fed should be repudiated, 2/3 of the U.S. government debt held by foreigners should be repudiated without interest paid on the other 30%. 50% of the Federal debt held by Americans should be repudiated and the other 1/2 paid immediately without interest. Medicare Part D needs to be reformed via IP abolition and favoring of imported drugs for Medicare. Means testing needs to be done for Medicare and Social Security. 7 Departments and many agencies could realistically be cut. Congress's salary and cost of office should both be reduced by 1/3. Remaining Federal employees should have their compensation cut to 2/3 what it currently is. 1/2 of the bases here should closed and that land sold. 100% of overseas bases should be closed. The TSA and CIA should be abolished. The DoJ should be cut to 1/8 or less of what it currently is. If it is absolutely necessary to balance the budget, then a 10% tax on all goods entering the country and a 5% tax on all goods leaving the country would be okay. All import quotas should be repealed.


Can't you just go away? No one person can be this dumb
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,400
136
That must be more of that "reading comprehension" you have that translates "Bush tax cuts" into "tax cuts for the wealthy are the primary driver."

I sure hope you have something you don't suck at, because you're going to go hungry if your job involves reading and understanding things in any way.

lol, basically my entire job involves reading and understanding politics and I'm eating just fine. But hey, I'm sure it's totally impossible that I might understand something about politics that you don't.

This is one of the principal problems with politics. Ignorant people such as yourself think you understand how these things work, and you believe it so strongly that even when people who know better try to educate you, you double down on your ignorance instead of opening your ears. (or eyes?)
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Yep, 'Baseline Budgeting".

I really wish we could get away from that. IMO, it's just another way for Washington DC to engage in dishonest and deceptive talk. IIRC, baseline budgeting means an automatic 8% increase in budgeting/spending, so if they 'only' increase spending by 6% they call it a "cut". An increase of 6% is in no way a cut anywhere but in Washington DC. Casual listeners watching the news programs in evening hear this and are fooled into believing there was a (real) spending cut.

Fern

If you don't increase spending, or even increase it slower than inflation, you are, in fact, cutting spending. Of course, in your 8/6 scenario you're right because inflation is a lot less than 8%. Is 8% supposed to be the baseline increase or did you just use that as an example?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The CBO has provided estimates for the amount of revenue that would be raised if only the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were reversed. I have already linked these several times and will not do so again.

Under the present economy the amount is $38 billion per year.

Under a 'strong' economy like we had before the recession the amount is $98 billion per year.

Accordingly, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be considered a "primary driver" of our deficits.

In any case I hardly see how this is 'news'. I think most of us already knew that until the economy turns around in a very big way we are going to be running trillion dollar deficits. I.e., this is completely expected. The revenue from tax increases is just not there, either from a math standpoint or a politically feasible one. And the necessary cuts in spending are also political impossible. 'Rock' meet 'hard place'.

Fern
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
lol, basically my entire job involves reading and understanding politics and I'm eating just fine. But hey, I'm sure it's totally impossible that I might understand something about politics that you don't.

This is one of the principal problems with politics. Ignorant people such as yourself think you understand how these things work, and you believe it so strongly that even when people who know better try to educate you, you double down on your ignorance instead of opening your ears. (or eyes?)

Then you should be able to give me the facts, as I've asked for them several times, and yet you continually fail to provide. Stop deflecting, bobbing and weaving, spinning and dodging. Just answer the question posed to you.

How much of the potential $1T/yr deficit can be eliminated by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? You claim it's the primary driver behind that $1T/yr then it's should be at least a couple of hundred billion per year in increased tax revenue, right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,400
136
The CBO has provided estimates for the amount of revenue that would be raised if only the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were reversed. I have already linked these several times and will not do so again.

Under the present economy the amount is $38 billion per year.

Under a 'strong' economy like we had before the recession the amount is $98 billion per year.

Accordingly, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be considered a "primary driver" of our deficits.

In any case I hardly see how this is 'news'. I think most of us already knew that until the economy turns around in a very big way we are going to be running trillion dollar deficits. I.e., this is completely expected. The revenue from tax increases is just not there, either from a math standpoint or a politically feasible one. And the necessary cuts in spending are also political impossible. 'Rock' meet 'hard place'.

Fern

Please read posts more carefully before responding in the future.

The CBO's report speaks for all of the Bush tax cuts, not simply the tax cuts for the wealthy. My post also spoke of the Bush tax cuts as a whole, as I consider many people making much less than $250,000 to be quite wealthy. Regardless of what I think however, the CBO report was quite clear.

According to figures supplied by the CBO, the cost of these tax cuts start at north of $200 billion per year, rising to nearly $300 billion per year by 2022. Considering the scope of deficits going forward, this would represent anywhere from about 20% of total deficits up to 50% of deficits or more. Furthermore, by themselves these tax cuts represent a 'program' with one of the single largest impacts on the deficit. Not only are they larger than any other revenue measures by a factor of 200-300%, but they dwarf nearly all spending reduction programs as well.

By any rational estimate that is a 'primary driver'.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,400
136
Then you should be able to give me the facts, as I've asked for them several times, and yet you continually fail to provide. Stop deflecting, bobbing and weaving, spinning and dodging. Just answer the question posed to you.

How much of the potential $1T/yr deficit can be eliminated by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? You claim it's the primary driver behind that $1T/yr then it's should be at least a couple of hundred billion per year in increased tax revenue, right?

You can look that information up yourself, the CBO report has links to revenues, but you didn't ask for anything of the sort. You were trying to make a ridiculous, pedantic point.

Here is a link to the excel spreadsheet on expiring tax provisions. Shorthand, the Bush tax cuts basically account for anywhere between $200-300 billion per year going forward.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/Expiringprovisions.xls
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
What's awesome is that in this thread the CBO specifically mentions not taxing the rich as one of the primary drivers of this debt going forth.

Gotta read some, brotha.

Actually they are talking about the entirety of the Bush tax cuts, the lions share (dollar wise) of which went to the "non-rich".
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
You can look that information up yourself, the CBO report has links to revenues, but you didn't ask for anything of the sort. You were trying to make a ridiculous, pedantic point.

Here is a link to the excel spreadsheet on expiring tax provisions. Shorthand, the Bush tax cuts basically account for anywhere between $200-300 billion per year going forward.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/Expiringprovisions.xls

My god. Are you serious about being some kind of political expert?

Your original post:

the CBO specifically mentions not taxing the rich as one of the primary drivers of this debt going forth.

Now you're saying:

the Bush tax cuts basically account for anywhere between $200-300 billion per year going forward.

You do realize the Bush tax cuts cover more than the wealthy, don't you?

Christ, if you're actually paid to be some sort of professional political correspondent or consultant, it's no wonder this country is going to hell. You don't even have a basic understanding of what you yourself are saying, much less what others are saying.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Please read posts more carefully before responding in the future.

The CBO's report speaks for all of the Bush tax cuts, not simply the tax cuts for the wealthy. My post also spoke of the Bush tax cuts as a whole
-snip-

What's awesome is that in this thread the CBO specifically mentions not taxing the rich as one of the primary drivers of this debt going forth.

Gotta read some, brotha.

Now who needs to read more carefully?

You're the one who mentioned the "rich", and ONLY the rich in your post I responded to.

Fern
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
You know that the overwhelming majority of that interest would be going back into the pockets of Americans, right? ie: not a net loss for the country.

Even if that were true, you do realize that money would be invested elsewhere in the economy if the .gov wasn't borrowing it, don't you? And we haven't even gotten into the inflationary policy we must have due to the high borrowing and a ton of other issues with our debt.

Living above your means for an extended period of time always results in a net loss.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Now who needs to read more carefully?

You're the one who mentioned the "rich", and ONLY the rich in your post I responded to.

Fern

Give up Fern, he's got his head planted firmly in his own anal cavity and has no intention of coming up for air.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
You can look that information up yourself, the CBO report has links to revenues, but you didn't ask for anything of the sort. You were trying to make a ridiculous, pedantic point.

Here is a link to the excel spreadsheet on expiring tax provisions. Shorthand, the Bush tax cuts basically account for anywhere between $200-300 billion per year going forward.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/Expiringprovisions.xls

And during the rosy times before the bottom fell out the portion of those tax cuts the "rich" got was roughly $70ishB. I have seen many reports that said it would be significantly less (anywhere from 30-50%) today. So lets call it a clean $50B, I would hardly call $50B (5% or less of the deficit) a year a "primary driver of this debt going forth".