Why Republicans refuse to trade immediate tax hikes for long term spending cuts

[ProfJohn]

Darn Democrats blocking the Republicans' demand to increase taxes for hedge funds.

How dare they have 1 or 2 or 3 people in the party who let the Republicans filibuster?

Want to know who supports increasing the hedge fund taxes?

The progressive caucus. So, if you want to pretend you support it, praise progressives.

Otherwise, your answering the question why the tax hasn't been raised not with any answer but just saying 'Democrats didn't pass it', is not answering his question - and misleading.

Craig, Democrats had complete control of congress WITH a filibuster proof majority. They used that majority to pass Obamacare, but not a tax increase.

Why not? The answer is real simple.

 

[Engineer]

Under Clinton spending went from 22% of GDP down to 18% of GDP. Why can't we do that again?

We can....just name a "new" bubble and we're all over it. Clinton rode the stock market boom bubble to budget prosperity. Of course, you probably knew that and have even brought it up at times, no doubt.

 

[ProfJohn]

We can....just name a "new" bubble and we're all over it. Clinton rode the stock market boom bubble to budget prosperity. Of course, you probably knew that and have even brought it up at times, no doubt.

What did the bubble have to do with spending??

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Craig, Democrats had complete control of congress WITH a filibuster proof majority. They used that majority to pass Obamacare, but not a tax increase.

Why not? The answer is real simple.

Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a sec.

You want to know why a President didnt raise taxes at the height of the second worst recession ever? Its like everything the President did happened in a vacuum.

The previous moron who was in charge did things despite the evidence, no more please.

Its one thing for you to be numerically illiterate...but come on now.

 

[mchammer187]

Here is the big question.

If all this extra spending is related to the recession then how come it doesn't go away when the recession goes away?

According to Obama's forecast used to create that link the deficit should be completely over by the end of this year. Which means all that extra spending should be going away too, right?

And explain to me how we went the past decade with spending below 20% of GPD, but now that Obama is in office spending has to be over 22% of GDP?

Under Clinton spending went from 22% of GDP down to 18% of GDP. Why can't we do that again?

Point to all this extra recession spending. The increases in defense, SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest etc are all mandatory spending which would increase regardless of whoever is president. That's why its called "mandatory spending" and it is written into law. The only thing that is voted on each year is discretionary spending which has increased but that is around 100 Billion or less.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, Democrats had complete control of congress WITH a filibuster proof majority.

I repeat:

How dare they have 1 or 2 or 3 people in the party who let the Republicans filibuster?

Democrats have had super-majorities before, and passed the best legislation in our nation's history that couldn't be passed when they didn't.

This isn't one of those times, with no margin, without unanimity, with Republican abusing the filibuster like never before in American history to deny the majority its rights.

I've posted before dozens of policies the Democrats wanted to pass, which passed the House where Republicans can't filibuster, that did not get passed for lack of votes.

The Democrats did not have the 'super-majority' to get those things passed, period. It doesn't matter if there are technically just enough D's, if some D's vote with R's.

A functional 'super-majority' is like in the 30's or 60's when they got their agenda passed.

They used that majority to pass Obamacare

No, they didn't. Obamacare failed because of a handful of Democrats who failed to vote for it, and the Republicans who abused the filibuster to oppose it.

What passed was a largely compromised bill with all kinds of concessions and bribes to drag along those handful - done because it was a political and policy imperative.

But it was far from the bill most Democrats said they wanted, far from the public option the House passed.

And in fact, it didn't pass until after Scott Brown was elected, removing a critical vote.

 

[Engineer]

What did the bubble have to do with spending??

Because it inflated the economy (i.e. GDP) so spending as a portion of GDP "looked" like it was being cut. Grow the economy faster than spending and you're all set, bubble's be damned.

 

[dca221]

Here is the big question.


According to Obama's forecast used to create that link the deficit should be completely over by the end of this year. Which means all that extra spending should be going away too, right?

And explain to me how we went the past decade with spending below 20% of GPD, but now that Obama is in office spending has to be over 22% of GDP?

Under Clinton spending went from 22% of GDP down to 18% of GDP. Why can't we do that again?

Dude, this is getting really tiring. Are you really a Prof? If you are, are you a prof in English Lit or something that prohibits you from looking up any data by yourself and talking about facts, rather than continuing to believe in what you want to believe?

Here are some more facts for you, not that they will change your mind. Here is outlays as % of GDP for 2008 and 2016 (estimated):

2008 2016Est
National defense 4.3 3.4
Human resources 13.2 15.1
Physical resources 1.1 0.8
Net interest 1.8 2.8
Other functions 1.0 0.9
Undistributed offsetting receipts -0.6 -0.6
Total, Federal outlays 20.7 22.6

Like you point out, the outlays are estimated at 22.6% of GDP in 2016. Note that that's a 1.9% increase over 2008, which was already way past your magical 18%. (PS: George W. Bush was the president then, in case you forgot)

The big increase in Human Resources: that's Social Security and Medicare growing almost twice as fast as GDP (5.6% and 6.3%, vs. 3.6% for GDP growth assumption). There is also the Healthcare investment, and Veterans Benefits.

Because we have accumulated so much debt, net interest payment is going up by 1% of GDP as well over 2008

ALL discretionary spending, including Defense, goes down as % GDP in the plans

So, I ask you again, where is Obama's crazy spending binge??? (dont' even try blaming the interest payments on him alone, when the tax revenue dips over $500B per year and there is the deepest recession in our lifetimes, we had to borrow-and-spend)

Now, let's see what you think of these outlays as % GDP:

The first one, shows 8 years of a President's outlays as % GDP:
22.2
23.1
23.5
22.2
22.8
22.5
21.6
21.3

Looks like that spend-crazy Obama numbers, doesn't it? That's the Republican Saint Ronny (Reagan), 81-89

How about these?

21.4
21.0
20.6
20.2
19.5
19.1
18.5
18.2

that's 8 years for President Clinton. He reduced outlays as % GDP by 3.2% !!! (Is he your hero for doing that?) You know why? Because the GDP grew by 6.7% annually during those 8 years, faster than spending did! After he INCREASED TAXES (gasp!!!)

How do you like these numbers?

18.2
19.1
19.7
19.6
19.9
20.1
19.6
20.7

That's the Republican president George W. Bush, increasing outlays by 2.5% of GDP during his 8 years


I hope all these facts are not making you too dizzy. But it's helpful to confront reality sometimes, even if it doesn't agree with your ideology and what you have convinced yourself.

Next time, before you ask rhetorical questions, please look up a few facts to educate yourself

 

[PingviN]

!snap

 

[Tom]

If you want to know why Republicans refuse to look at raising taxes then here is your answer.

Twice in the past Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats that involved immediate tax increases in return for long term spending cuts and BOTH times the spending cuts didn't happen.

The 1990 Bush deal is the best example of this happening.
The promise:

Reality:

You can read the rest at the link below. But the key points are already quoted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269397/read-my-lips-won-t-happen-again-ryan-ellis

This is not really fair. Comparing projections, ie budgets, with acutal spending. There are lots of rerasons these wouldn't match up, disasters, changing priorities, differences in actual revenue due to growth.

Those numbers are actually pretty close, $22 billion out of trillions ?

Anyway, a tax increase doesn't have to be anymore immediate than anything else, in fact I think the proposal by Obama wasn't immediate ?

 

[ProfJohn]

Now, let's see what you think of these outlays as % GDP:

The first one, shows 8 years of a President's outlays as % GDP:
22.2
23.1
23.5
22.2
22.8
22.5
21.6
21.3

Looks like that spend-crazy Obama numbers, doesn't it? That's the Republican Saint Ronny (Reagan), 81-89

And the left constantly attacks Reagan for his spending. But now that Obama wants to spend like that it's no big deal?

How about these?

21.4
21.0
20.6
20.2
19.5
19.1
18.5
18.2

that's 8 years for President Clinton. He reduced outlays as % GDP by 3.2% !!! (Is he your hero for doing that?) You know why? Because the GDP grew by 6.7% annually during those 8 years, faster than spending did! After he INCREASED TAXES (gasp!!!)

Since Clinton is worshipped by the Democrats it sounds like we should follow his lead when it comes to spending.

How do you like these numbers?

18.2
19.1
19.7
19.6
19.9
20.1
19.6
20.7

That's the Republican president George W. Bush, increasing outlays by 2.5% of GDP during his 8 years

Bush sucked at spending and there are tons of threads in which I called him out for that spending.
But right now I'd be very happy to return to his spending levels.

BTW Obama's spending levels according to his own 2012 budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
25.0
23.8
25.3
23.6

Notice that the lowest number from him is higher than the highest number by anyone else.
Would you call that a spending problem?

 

[Tom]

"Would you call that a spending problem?"

I'd call it lets not have another Great Depression plan. And his plan wasn't substantially different than the Republican plan.

And it worked. It's arguable that the mistake was not spending enough, or fast enough.

 

[Engineer]

Since Clinton is worshipped by the Democrats it sounds like we should follow his lead when it comes to spending.

Did Clinton really cut spending or did he have a fast growing bubble economy to make it look like he cut spending?

 

[Tom]

Did Clinton really cut spending or did he have a fast growing bubble economy to make it look like he cut spending?

Is Google real ? Apple ? the internet ? cell phones ?

The boom of the 90's wasn't all bubble. And some of the prosperity, maybe most of it, was directly the result of government investment in research and technology.

The boom that burst in 2007-8, was a long time coming; it wasn't all Bush's fault, but he didn't make it any better either. Having Bush at the wheel was functionally the same as no driver at all, hence wild banking and insurance schemes coupled with unwarranted real estate values that had been going on for decades.

 

[dca221]

And the left constantly attacks Reagan for his spending. But now that Obama wants to spend like that it's no big deal?

That's news to me. AFAIK, the left attack Saint Ronny for cutting taxes ridiculously and for his vodoo economics. At least Saint Ronny recognized part of his mistake and presided over the highest tax increases

Since Clinton is worshipped by the Democrats it sounds like we should follow his lead when it comes to spending.

Bush sucked at spending and there are tons of threads in which I called him out for that spending.
But right now I'd be very happy to return to his spending levels.

Do you not seriously get it or are you being obtuse on purpose? Outlays as % of GDP are a function of two things: one, spending and two, GDP! When the GDP actually falls down, like in a recession in 2009, you cannot cut spending fast enough to keep up with the decline (see "mandatory spending" which is mandatory by definition), so the % goes up temporarily

Over the longer term, the % outlays is growing because the entitlement and net interest expense is growing faster than the GDP. It is not because Obama is spending like a drunken sailor (which would put him on par with Saint Ronny anyway)

BTW Obama's spending levels according to his own 2012 budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
25.0
23.8
25.3
23.6

Notice that the lowest number from him is higher than the highest number by anyone else.
Would you call that a spending problem?

Yes, nice of you to stop at year 4, and not post the next four years:

22.5
22.4
22.3
22.6


Since you are the guy claiming "Obama's spending binge", and I have shown you where the spending is projected to increase (entitlements and net interest), why don't you now tell us what Obama has done to drive up the spending??? What would President McCain and "Carribou Barbie" Palin have done differently to "rein in the out-of-control spending"? Cut Medicare? (see Paul Ryan and his ass being handed to him)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -- stephen colbert

 

[ProfJohn]

Did Clinton really cut spending or did he have a fast growing bubble economy to make it look like he cut spending?

Spending growth under Clinton was very low any way you look at it.

In constant dollars his spending went from $1.8 Trillion in 1993 to $2 trillion in 2000.
That is not much growth at all.

Bush went from $2 trillion to $2.7 in the same time frame.
Reagan $1.4 to $1.7

Obama (taken out to a full 8 years) would be $3.1 to $3.5
But the Obama numbers aren't completely comparable since spending jumped $400 billion in his first year. So it would make more sense to say that Obama will go from $2.7 to $3.5.

All those numbers are constant 2005 dollars.

 

[zsdersw]

A few things must never be forgotten:

1. Republicans and Democrats will always say one thing to get elected and then do another.

2. Everyone who posts in P&N and doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

3. No one in here has any real idea what's good for the country, what's bad for the country, and what will actually happen to the country in the future.

 

[ProfJohn]

Did Clinton really cut spending or did he have a fast growing bubble economy to make it look like he cut spending?

Let's not forget that the Clinton bubble was a stock bubble which is very different from a housing bubble.

It effected a much smaller group of people and much of the gains leading to it were never realized.

aka poor 25 year old college grad got a job at comedy.com became a millionaire and then went back to being poor with a couple years. Unless they were smart (which few were) they never got a chance to benefit from their new found wealth.

 

[Engineer]

Let's not forget that the Clinton bubble was a stock bubble which is very different from a housing bubble.

It effected a much smaller group of people and much of the gains leading to it were never realized.

aka poor 25 year old college grad got a job at comedy.com became a millionaire and then went back to being poor with a couple years. Unless they were smart (which few were) they never got a chance to benefit from their new found wealth.

While true, there was a "wealth effect" that came over many....and also don't forget that the stock bubble was really a "tech bubble" in which tech companies spent like hell and had huge valuations (i.e. stock bubble). This led to a much higher GDP than would have happened normally....until it popped.

 

[kage69]

More partisan fail from ProJo? Who woulda thunk it?

 

[ProfJohn]

Do you not seriously get it or are you being obtuse on purpose? Outlays as % of GDP are a function of two things: one, spending and two, GDP! When the GDP actually falls down, like in a recession in 2009, you cannot cut spending fast enough to keep up with the decline (see "mandatory spending" which is mandatory by definition), so the % goes up temporarily

Temporary being the key term, but with Obama it is NOT temporary as you so clearly point out.

We had a bad recession in 1982-3 and spending jumped to 23.5% of GDP and then it declined and then the 1992/3 recession came and spending jumped up again and then declined. In both cases post recession spending was lower than pre-recession.

And then Bush came along and when we had a recession and spending went up and it came down, but never below its pre-recession levels and now we are seeing the same thing with Obama. Spending has gone up and will go down, but it will never get to its 2008 level.

Also, mandatory is NOT mandatory. We just call it that in order to avoid dealing with it. But we will have to cut or control mandatory or else it will destroy the economy in the next 20-30 years.

What we are doing now is small stuff compared to what we should be doing. We are arguing over a $100 cable bill while ignoring the car that is about to fall apart, the leak in the roof and the new furnace we need before winter or else we'll freeze to death. But hey! If we cut back HBO then we can survive for a few more months...

 

[ProfJohn]

While true, there was a "wealth effect" that came over many....and also don't forget that the stock bubble was really a "tech bubble" in which tech companies spent like hell and had huge valuations (i.e. stock bubble). This led to a much higher GDP than would have happened normally....until it popped.

Except that GDP never popped.

GDP never actually shrank under Clinton or Bush (pre this recession)

 

[Engineer]

Except that GDP never popped.

GDP never actually shrank under Clinton or Bush (pre this recession)

GDP didn't pop, the bubble did. I see that Clinton's economy started at zero% REAL growth GDP and ended in the 4.5 ish range (for several years) and started declining as he left office. Being that the graph is of "REAL" GDP (inflation adjusted), looks like it's quite a bit of growth to me.

 

[ElFenix]

the real growth rate of government spending from 1992 to about 1997 or so slowed compared to the years both before and after. you can see it as a bend in this chart
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

[Jhhnn]

the real growth rate of government spending from 1992 to about 1997 or so slowed compared to the years both before and after. you can see it as a bend in this chart
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Of course it did- those were boom years after the recession of the preceding period. Unemployment was falling, so the automatic stabilizers in govt spending weren't in force. It affects attitudes & options, as well. When you're 62+, employed, and things are looking good, the tendency to settle for SS is small. When your unemployment runs out & prospects are dim, SS looks pretty tempting. When the economy is doing well, when you're not supporting or worried about supporting family members, the idea of spending money on most anything gains appeal, further stimulating the economy around us. When things are uncertain & times are tough, saving seems like a much better idea...

Cut spending? Here's how that works out-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/27/255010/chart-states-cut-most-spending-jobs/

"conservative" economists and thinkers are also beating the drums to raise interest rates, too.

Hold the middle and working classes on an anvil, beat 'em with a hammer... and Profit!