Republicans flunk math

[Darwin333]

That says more about you than about the Progressive Budget, which balances the budget faster than the disastrous 'Ryan budget' and protects social programs.

With revenue that our country, as a percentage of GDP, has never been able to even come close to even when top rates where 90%.

 

[Darwin333]

More than 58 million retirees and disabled Americans will get no increase in Social Security benefits next year, the second year in a row without a raise.
I think SS indirectly got a cut.

lol, only in government can not increasing spending on something be considered a "cut". I didn't increase my budget for my house note this year yet I know of no sane people who would consider that to be a "cut".

Besides, haven't you been listening to the .gov? Things are not more expensive because there is no inflation so there is no need to increase the spending.

 

[Craig234]

With revenue that our country, as a percentage of GDP, has never been able to even come close to even when top rates where 90%.

Post your numbers. It's a valid criticism in theory, but that's not enough, you need some facts as well.

It's like saying 'the Paul Ryan budget would cut programs to a point of killing 25 million Americans'. Valid criticism - if it's right. Is it?

 

[Craig234]

lol, only in government can not increasing spending on something be considered a "cut". I didn't increase my budget for my house note this year yet I know of no sane people who would consider that to be a "cut".

Besides, haven't you been listening to the .gov? Things are not more expensive because there is no inflation so there is no need to increase the spending.

Not really. For example, population growth and inflation.

If you spend $250/month on food for one child, and then have two more but still spend $250/month on food for them, you have 'cut' the spending on food per child.

There are different kinds of 'cuts'.

 

[ProfJohn]

Post your numbers. It's a valid criticism in theory, but that's not enough, you need some facts as well.

It's like saying 'the Paul Ryan budget would cut programs to a point of killing 25 million Americans'. Valid criticism - if it's right. Is it?

I already posted the numbers and a link to the Federal budget from the White House's own site.

While we had the 70% or even 90% brackets revenue NEVER exceeded 19.6% and it only exceeded 19% twice.

 

[her209]

I already posted the numbers and a link to the Federal budget from the White House's own site.

While we had the 70% or even 90% brackets revenue NEVER exceeded 19.6% and it only exceeded 19% twice.

And under the Bush tax rates?

2001 19.5
2002 17.6
2003 16.2
2004 16.1
2005 17.3
2006 18.2
2007 18.5
2008 17.5
2009 14.9
2010 14.9

 

[ProfJohn]

And under the Bush tax rates?

2001 19.5
2002 17.6
2003 16.2
2004 16.1
2005 17.3
2006 18.2
2007 18.5
2008 17.5
2009 14.9
2010 14.9

Hey look!!

Revenue goes up and down depending on the state of the economy... perhaps that is our problem?

 

[her209]

Hey look!!

Revenue goes up and down depending on the state of the economy... perhaps that is our problem?

Even at the peak of the Bush economy, it didn't take in as much as the Clinton economy.

 

[Craig234]

Even at the peak of the Bush economy, it didn't take in as much as the Clinton economy.

But tax rate cuts increase revenues!

That's why the new Republican plan is for a negative tax rate - they say it'll raise more in taxes than the size of the GDP!

Why was the best name for their bad economics supplied by a Republican, 'voodoo economics'?

 

[ProfJohn]

Even at the peak of the Bush economy, it didn't take in as much as the Clinton economy.

True, but the peak of the Bush economy wasn't as good as the peak of the Clinton economy either.

Keep in mind that the majority of our revenue comes from the rich and during the tech bubble there were huge amounts of money being made by the rich which is why there was as huge uptick in revenue in 1998-2000.

Essentially, the rich did much better under Clinton than they did under Bush and thus revenue to the government did better too.

 

[ProfJohn]

See the huge spike going into 2000?

That is where all the revenue came from

Democrats have created a huge paradox... We need the rich to pay all the bills, and yet they do everything they can to keep people from becoming rich...

 

[Darwin333]

Post your numbers. It's a valid criticism in theory, but that's not enough, you need some facts as well.

It's like saying 'the Paul Ryan budget would cut programs to a point of killing 25 million Americans'. Valid criticism - if it's right. Is it?

I would be happy to.

1944, 1945, 1946 was the only time in modern history that revenue was above 20% for consecutive years followed by a very sharp drop to below 15% by 1950.

1952 and 1954 we grazed 20%

2000 We went slightly above 20% for the first time since WWII and dropped down to 19% in 2001.

Thats it. Remove WWII from the numbers and we have only actually hit 20% twice technically (1954 was like 19.96% so if you want to call it 3 I am ok with that).

Here are the actual numbers as reported by the United States Government:

The forum does not make it easy to post tables like this so its not the easiest to read, last number is percentage of GDP the Feds collected in revenue. 1950-2010



Year GDP-US pct GDP Total Direct Revenue-fed pct GDP
1950 293.7 14.82 a
1951 339.3 16.72 a
1952 358.3 20.04 a
1953 379.3 19.57 a
1954 380.4 19.94 a
1955 414.7 17.34 a
1956 437.4 18.59 a
1957 461.1 18.88 a
1958 467.2 18.41 a
1959 506.6 16.87 a
1960 526.4 18.96 a
1961 544.8 18.60 a
1962 585.7 17.02 a
1963 617.8 17.25 a
1964 663.6 16.97 a
1965 719.1 16.24 a
1966 787.7 16.61 a
1967 832.4 17.88 a
1968 909.8 16.81 a
1969 984.4 18.98 a
1970 1038.3 18.57 a
1971 1126.8 16.61 a
1972 1237.9 16.75 a
1973 1382.3 16.70 a
1974 1499.5 17.55 a
1975 1637.7 17.04 a
1976 1824.6 16.34 a
1977 2030.1 17.51 a
1978 2293.8 17.42 a
1979 2562.2 18.08 a
1980 2788.1 18.55 a
1981 3126.8 19.17 a
1982 3253.2 18.99 a
1983 3534.6 16.99 a
1984 3930.9 16.95 a
1985 4217.5 17.40 a
1986 4460.1 17.25 a
1987 4736.4 18.04 a
1988 5100.4 17.83 a
1989 5482.1 18.08 a
1990 5800.5 17.79 a
1991 5992.1 17.61 a
1992 6342.3 17.21 a
1993 6667.4 17.31 a
1994 7085.2 17.76 a
1995 7414.7 18.23 a
1996 7838.5 18.54 a
1997 8332.4 18.95 a
1998 8793.5 19.58 a
1999 9353.5 19.54 a
2000 9951.5 20.35 a
2001 10286.2 19.36 a
2002 10642.3 17.41 a
2003 11142.1 16.00 a
2004 11867.8 15.84 a
2005 12638.4 17.04 a
2006 13398.9 17.96 a
2007 14077.6 18.24 a
2008 14441.4 17.48 a
2009 14119 14.91 a
2010 14508.2 14.91


source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...tack=0&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

BTW, that is a great site to make your own charts with all kinds of .gov related numbers (revenue, debt, deficit, state, local, Feds, etc...)

 

[Darwin333]

Not really. For example, population growth and inflation.

If you spend $250/month on food for one child, and then have two more but still spend $250/month on food for them, you have 'cut' the spending on food per child.

There are different kinds of 'cuts'.

Valid point but I think its semantics. We both know what politicians want people to think when they say that they cut spending or so and so program has been cut. The specific example I was replying to was that not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients was indeed a "cut". The program is simply not increasing the amount they pay to individuals and that is considered "cutting" spending on the program.

Like I said, I see that as not increasing spending which is far different than "cutting" (or reducing) spending.

 

[Darwin333]

See the huge spike going into 2000?

That is where all the revenue came from

Democrats have created a huge paradox... We need the rich to pay all the bills, and yet they do everything they can to keep people from becoming rich...

Edit: I didn't read the chart correctly, my mistake.

 

[ProfJohn]

That chart is income not taxes paid.

It shows how the rich saw a huge spike in income when Clinton was president. That spike is what led to that 20% of GDP revenue.

Due to the progressive nature of our tax system if the rich aren't raking in the dough their isn't much money going into our treasury.

 

[Darwin333]

And under the Bush tax rates?

2001 19.5
2002 17.6
2003 16.2
2004 16.1
2005 17.3
2006 18.2
2007 18.5
2008 17.5
2009 14.9
2010 14.9

I think you are missing the point. The point is that regardless of what the rates where we have never been able to extract more than 20% of GDP from the economy in Federal revenue for consecutive years (aside from 3 years during WWII).

That is historical fact. That means it is absurdly unlikely that any plan that calls for more than 20% of GDP to be taxed for a long period of time to actually work. We can sustain 19% but that would mean huge cuts to get our deficit under control. Hell, lets pretend that we can sustain 20%, we are still talking about huge cuts in spending and substantial entitlement reform.

 

[Darwin333]

That chart is income not taxes paid.

It shows how the rich saw a huge spike in income when Clinton was president. That spike is what led to that 20% of GDP revenue.

Due to the progressive nature of our tax system if the rich aren't raking in the dough their isn't much money going into our treasury.

I stand corrected, my apologies.

 

[woolfe9999]

Valid point but I think its semantics. We both know what politicians want people to think when they say that they cut spending or so and so program has been cut. The specific example I was replying to was that not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients was indeed a "cut". The program is simply not increasing the amount they pay to individuals and that is considered "cutting" spending on the program.

Like I said, I see that as not increasing spending which is far different than "cutting" (or reducing) spending.

Not increasing spending in accordance with inflation IS cutting spending. It isn't a semantic trick. A dollar is worth less every year. Hypothetically, if our budget was $1 trillion in 1980 and $1 trillion in 2010 then we cut spending, by a lot.

 

[werepossum]

Not increasing spending in accordance with inflation IS cutting spending. It isn't a semantic trick. A dollar is worth less every year. Hypothetically, if our budget was $1 trillion in 1980 and $1 trillion in 2010 then we cut spending, by a lot.

Base line budgeting is one big reason a dollar is worth less every year. Government is a major expense for most people and most businesses. If each department's budget must automatically increase each year, then this must be made up by some combination of higher taxes or increased borrowing. Both leave most people and businesses with less after-tax income, so people expect higher wages and businesses expect to charge more for their products and services. There's no free lunch, and automatically increasing government spending also drives the inflation that causes the increase.

 

[alkemyst]

More than 58 million retirees and disabled Americans will get no increase in Social Security benefits next year, the second year in a row without a raise.
I think SS indirectly got a cut.

Sadly today's sort of new voters think "more for me later on! profit!"

 

[Darwin333]

Not increasing spending in accordance with inflation IS cutting spending. It isn't a semantic trick. A dollar is worth less every year. Hypothetically, if our budget was $1 trillion in 1980 and $1 trillion in 2010 then we cut spending, by a lot.

The government says there is no inflation hence the reason they aren't increasing spending. If there is no inflation is it still a cut?

BTW, this is the reason we can not inflate our debt away. We would spend ten times as much in increased entitlement expenditures. It is also why Krugmans (and a few others) call for something like 7% targeted inflation is flat out insane.

 

[shira]

Here is some more math...

Highest revenue since the end of WW 2 occurred with Clinton's tax rates at the height of the dot.com bubble and still barely exceeded 20%

Current spending is nearly 25% of GDP


Do the math on that and get back to me...

No, you get back to us after you compute what the effect of 10 years of health-care inflation has added to the budget. Add that to two wars started and not finished by Bush. This isn't rocket science.

But why don't you and the rest of the rabid right tell us how to make health care in the U.S. as efficient as in the rest of the first world.

Crickets.

The only answer right-wingers have is to cut entitlements. Shift the costs onto the backs of the middle and lower classes, but pretend that what you're cutting is "big government." Never, ever take anything away from the wealthy, though.

 

[ProfJohn]

But why don't you and the rest of the rabid right tell us how to make health care in the U.S. as efficient as in the rest of the first world.

Ration care like the rest of the world does.

Cut back on medical research too.

Eliminate expensive experimental treatments as well.

Lower our cancer survival rates.

I am sure we can find a few more ways to make it worse and cheaper too.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Ration care like the rest of the world does.

Cut back on medical research too.

Eliminate expensive experimental treatments as well.

Lower our cancer survival rates.

I am sure we can find a few more ways to make it worse and cheaper too.

Efficiency, as anyone in business can tell you, is often at odds with effectiveness.

Don't pretend like we don't ration health care though. We do! we just do so with money instead of bureaucratic overlords.

 

[SparkyJJO]

But tax rate cuts increase revenues!

That's why the new Republican plan is for a negative tax rate - they say it'll raise more in taxes than the size of the GDP!

Why was the best name for their bad economics supplied by a Republican, 'voodoo economics'?

Troll harder.