The truth behind the nation’s massive fiscal problem
Political narratives are precious things these days. They give people a story line, an explanation for why the world is as it is and why their side isn’t to blame. And at the moment, the right’s most important narrative is that the nation’s dangerous and unsustainable budget deficit is the fault of Barack Obama.
Well, it isn’t, as the chart on the right demonstrates. “Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years,” Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney conclude in a study published by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
The CBPI is a liberal policy-analysis group, and those who are more interested in preserving their faith in conservative narrative than in discovering the truth can and will dismiss its findings on those grounds alone.
But numbers are numbers. If the numbers driving this chart are “liberal,” if the assumptions behind those numbers are “liberal,” then it should be possible for conservatives to explain how and where they’re wrong. The center “shows its work,” as our math teachers used to say, which should make it possible for others to come along and rebut it.
Take, for example, the impact of the economic downturn on the deficit. As the CBPI report notes, the Congressional Budget Office issued projections on Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before President Obama even took office — putting the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion.
“The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety-net programs,” the CBPI reports. “Using CBO’s August 2008 projections as a benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic outlook accounts for over $400 billion of the deficit each year in 2009 through 2011 and slightly smaller amounts in subsequent years. Those effects persist; even in 2018, the deterioration in the economy since the summer of 2008 will account for over $250 billion in added deficits, much of it in the form of additional debt-service costs.”
Significant tax cuts enacted in a time of war — the first time in U.S. history that such cuts have been enacted — also had a predictable effect:
“Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.
Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.
Of course, what happened in the past doesn’t get President Obama off the hook for what happens next. If Obama did not create this problem, he will certainly be judged on whether and how he gets us out of it. Ruffing and Horney also acknowledge that fact.
“While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them,” they write. “Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem.”
That’s going to require both serious budget cuts and significant tax increases, neither of which will be politically popular. But after the G-20 summit in Toronto, Obama noted that a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that he appointed is expected to produce its report this December, setting the stage for real debate.
“I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it,” Obama said. “And I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I’m calling their bluff. And we’ll see how much of that — how much of the political arguments they’re making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
451 comments Add your comment
neo-Carlinist
June 29th, 2010
11:44 am
and i was not defending Bush. because when Obama “creates” a government job, he is also creating a debt to U.S. taxpayers.
Gordon
June 29th, 2010
11:44 am
S.S. would have been a good idea if it were actually funded. As it is now, it is only a good idea for people born before 1965. If not, you are paying 6 or 7 percent AFTER TAX dollars into something that will only pay you anything if you 1) can take advantage of the insurance aspect, 2) are not otherwise well off, or 3) live to a VERY old age. How much money has NOT been saved by people thinking it would provide the bulk of their retirement income?
BryanW
June 29th, 2010
11:44 am
Russ555, if the GOP wins control of congress it won’t make a bit of difference. For the most part, they are not willing to make the hard political choices necessary to pay for the tax cuts they always make. Notice how in the recent health care debate, the GOP actually tried to use the Medicare cuts in the bill against it. In other words, they positioned themselves as DEFENDERS of Medicare spending for political advantage. They are not going to raise the Social Security age or close military bases or do any of the really important things that would make a real difference.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
11:46 am
To charge or not to charge……That is the question. Whether tis nobler at the time to accept financial responsibility, or to aquire goods and support the economy. AHH to sleep , perchance to dream. To dream of iPhones and Lexuses ( Luxi? ) , or by avoiding them, to sleep the sleep of a person with no debt? There lies the rub !
Jay
June 29th, 2010
11:46 am
No Pat, you were not correct. Your use of 2003 as your base year is dishonest.
Let’s review:
You claimed that the Bush tax cuts increased federal revenue by 20 percent. The only way to gauge the accuracy of that claim is to compare gov’t revenue BEFORE the tax cuts and gov’t revenue AFTER the tax cuts. Before and after: That’s the only logical approach.
The tax cuts were enacted in 2001. Therefore, that must be the base year. And we’ve already covered what happened from 2001 onward.
You have chosen instead to use 2003 as your base year, which is well after the tax cuts had taken effect. You are comparing revenue AFTER tax cuts to revenue in another year AFTER tax cuts, which tells us nothing about your original claim.
Outhouse GoKart
June 29th, 2010
11:47 am
One of our most liberal, bleeding heart, caring, comforting, tolerant States is behaving in a SHAMEFUL manner.
Lawmakers Want State Money To Ship Out Homeless
Homeless Mainland Men Come To Hawaii For Benefits
http://www.kitv.com/news/24076002/detail.html
jewcowboy
June 29th, 2010
11:48 am
mike,
“Don’t forget when jobs are eliminated due to automation and improved productivity.”
An interesting article that I read the other day:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/science/25voice.html
USinUK
June 29th, 2010
11:49 am
jo nix – “I had a professor in college who used Boris and Natasha in his class on propaganda and the left’s circumvention of the McCarthy era…”
out of curiosity – did he ever talk about Horton Hears a Hoo?? I always thought that was a mighty subversive story …
me, I liked my macro econ professor who started every Friday class with a Yogi Berra quote.
had nothing to do with the lesson, but it made discussions about the Laffer curve on Friday afternoons a lot easier to take …
dougmo2
June 29th, 2010
11:49 am
Jay;
1. Cuts yes, more taxes no.
2. Republicians were in control, NOT conservatives.Big differance.
mike
June 29th, 2010
11:51 am
“That is not what I said, and I would hope you would realize that.”
Well, that was the summation of the point I was making. I noticed that you steered clear of the substantive part of the argument and moved on to the least relevant point. Yes, now that you have demonstrated that you are a serious chap, you can actually address the argument I was making about the relative merits of SS vs a Wall Street based plan.
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2010
11:51 am
“How do we make SS solvent? Any clue?”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fortune/index2.htm
I disagree with him on one thing, I would suggest we increase the SS payment to include ALL income. I see his arguments against that, but I don’t agree with them.
Gordon
June 29th, 2010
11:51 am
Jay,
If tax rates were cut in 2001, how do you explain revenue reaching the same levels in 2006 as they were that year? Is it a bad thing that the government had the same amount of income adjusted for inflation, and millions of people had more money than they otherwise would have? Aren’t you making the case that tax cuts over the long haul raised government revenue? Where does the money go that people keep with lower taxes?
Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns, but are you saying we haven’t reached that point?
Jay
June 29th, 2010
11:52 am
“Better yet, I want my retirement to come from that magical money tree that liberals seem to think exists somewhere.” — Mike.
“And mindless partisans make gross overgeneralizations. LOL” — Mike.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
11:52 am
A financial question. If I were to spend money today like there was no tomorrow, and the World ended tonight, would I be a genius or what?
ty webb
June 29th, 2010
11:52 am
“How do we make SS solvent? Any clue?”
What SS becoming insolvent? Not my money. Half is in “SS trust fund” and the other half is in a “lockbox”. And I’m calling BS on all the commenters saying they’re pleased with SS. With that return? you’ve got to be kidding me.
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
11:53 am
JAy
Pat is asking you to take an intelligent look at RESULTS.
RESULTS. RESULTS.
Get it?
Not promises that the democrats were going to fix everything when they were elected in 2006. But THE RESULTS of what Republicans actually accomplished. Not promises. that’s what democrats live for: Promises.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS. See? If you start looking at the actual results of what politicians do, you might become smart enough to become a Republican, too.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
11:54 am
Funding SS? Well, it’s all them d*mned illegal aliens…
http://loyalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/do-illegal-aliens-receive-social.html
mike
June 29th, 2010
11:55 am
jc –
The productivity issue is a real one. At my company, I have implemented a strategy of hiring as few people as possible and preferring instead to spend the money upfront on infrastructure.
This is a trend that has been escalating for a long time. The recession only sped it up because layoffs and automation go hand in hand. Not to sound too partisan about it, but I have become even more convinced of the need to minimize headcount because I am concerned that the government will continue to make it more expensive to hire and retain employees.
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
11:55 am
JAy
Wasn’t it your half wit president that just got put in his place by trying to tell European leaders that the way out of this mess was to spend even more money that they didn’t have?
Maybe that’s not a magic money tree, but it’s damn close.
USinUK
June 29th, 2010
11:55 am
Polite golf clap for Jay’s 11:52 …
well played, sir …
Normal
June 29th, 2010
11:55 am
“How do we make SS solvent? Any clue?”
By keeping people from dipping into the fund and using the money for purposes not associated with SS.
AmVet
June 29th, 2010
11:56 am
Amazing. Otherwise, supposedly educated Americans contending that the economy was good up until ____. (fill in the blank with your favorite cherry picked year.)
Nope, no War on the Working Class here in the perfect USA.
Too bad the factually averse can never quite bring their sorry selves to understand that the facts prove that for the vast majority of “middle class” Americans, their income, in adjusted inflation dollars, has DECREASED. And this has been the case for three decades now.
CEO pay went up by 250% in the 1990s. American workers? 4%
And the Reaganista idiots still contend they know what they are talking about…
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
11:56 am
mike
**I am concerned that the government will continue to make it more expensive to hire and retain employees.**
Bingo!!! And that’s exactly what they are doing.
Normal
June 29th, 2010
11:57 am
Good ol’ Mike…look out after himself instead of his fellow man…I do wonder what Jesus would say…
Jay
June 29th, 2010
11:57 am
Gordon asks:
“If tax rates were cut in 2001, how do you explain revenue reaching the same levels in 2006 as they were that year? Is it a bad thing that the government had the same amount of income adjusted for inflation, and millions of people had more money than they otherwise would have? Aren’t you making the case that tax cuts over the long haul raised government revenue? Where does the money go that people keep with lower taxes?”
Here’s the problem, and it’s embedded in your question that “Is it a bad thing that the government had the same amount of income adjusted for inflation, and millions of people had more money than they otherwise would have?”
The only way those two things were achieved were by adding $1.6 trillion to the national debt between 2002 and 2006. “(M)illions of people had more money than they otherwise would have” because it was borrowed money.
T
Gordon
June 29th, 2010
11:57 am
Doggone,
Of course you don’t agree with them, because it will be someone else paying for it. The benefits are limited, so why shouldn’t the price each person pays be limited as well? What about the promises made? Is it okay that you promise take 6 or 7 percent of a person’s pay AFTER taxes for 30 years and then say to them: “You’ve done well on your own, so never mind.”?
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
11:57 am
USinUk
Yep! He could (and did) recite Dr. Seuss…
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
11:59 am
AmVet
Grab a clue. The middle class had a 4.7% unemployment rate under Republicans.
So who’s getting screwed now?
jewcowboy
June 29th, 2010
11:59 am
mike @ 11.55,
I do prefer to go through the self-checkout lines @ Kroger
stands for decibels
June 29th, 2010
11:59 am
From DGA’s link:
Inflation protection, if you can find it, is ultra-expensive. Vanguard, which offers a lifetime inflation-adjusted annuity in conjunction with — shudder! — an AIG insurance company called American General, quoted me a staggering price for an annuity mimicking my wife’s and my Social Security benefit. Would you believe … $774,895? Yes, that was the number.
in case you were wondering.
@@
June 29th, 2010
12:00 pm
Normal:
What’s going on with you? You’re beginning to sound like a conservative.
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:00 pm
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
11:56 am
mike
**I am concerned that the government will continue to make it more expensive to hire and retain employees.**
Bingo!!! And that’s exactly what they are doing.
Well y’all, maybe we really should become a Socialistic Nation, just to make sure everybody gets their fair share…of food, healthcare, education…you know, all of that Communist stuff.
stands for decibels
June 29th, 2010
12:00 pm
about SS: Ezra does some interesting number crunching
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_could_r.html
…in response to this question/challenge:
Back during the GWB years and the push to privatize Social Security, I did a bit of a thought experiment. What if Social Security was changed so companies no longer had to contribute their portion of Social Security, but Social Security was collected on all individual income with no cap? From what I found, it seemed like this would easily solve any “problem” with the funding of Social Security. Finding data for this was difficult and I wasn’t sure of the veracity of some of the data so I kind of chalked it up to “too good to be true” and forgot about it.
if such things interest you.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
12:01 pm
Normal
What would Jesus say? See 11:52
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2010
12:01 pm
“The benefits are limited, so why shouldn’t the price each person pays be limited as well?”
Because SS is an insurance plan. For the same reason that insurance premiums are calculated so that those who HAVE insurance have to pay more because of those who don’t have insurance. Plus, I’m a heartfelt believer in the Biblical principle: from him to whom much is given, much will be asked.
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
12:01 pm
Jay
**The only way those two things were achieved were by adding $1.6 trillion to the national debt between 2002 and 2006.**
And this is how you justify Obama adding as much in a time of less than six months?
Is there a liberal anywhere that has the education required to perform basic math?
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:02 pm
@@,
I’ve always been a slightly left of center moderate independant…and always will. It’s the nature of this beast, I guess…
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
12:02 pm
Little Ozzy the octopus was concerned. All of his neighbors in the reef were being evicted. The homes in his little subdivision, Coral acres, were being taken over by the evil banks. In a panic, he swam over to talk to his little finny friend, Clara the Clownfish. Clara had an idea, “Let’s go ask Clampers, the wise old clam”. Clampers was surprised to see them when they arrived. Clampers listened to their concerns, and proceeded to tell them that he had been warning all the inhabitants of the reef that they were spending too much money, but nobody would listen. Little Ozzy was listening now.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:02 pm
Jay –
Nice to see that you are lurking about, ready to pounce on the least relevant comments, particularly when taken out of context.
My “magic tree” comment was specific to the notion that SS is less subject to the whims of the economy than the Wall Street plan that the vast majority of liberals do oppose.
So when making your “point”, you were either incapable of understanding the context or willfully distorting the context. As you make your sad living exclusively doing one or the other, it is hard to guess which.
BTW: Thanks for jumping in with your random and invariably irrelevant “points”. It only demonstrates that you are lurking out there and are just too cowardly to address any substantive points. Say for instance, your lionizing of Klan member and Civil Rights opponent Robert Byrd while smearing others as racist for saying the term “uppity”.
Now get back to your lurking, pundit.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:03 pm
And watch Jay slink back off . Lame.
Gordon
June 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
Jay,
We’re talking about revenue! Government revenue reached the same level in 2006 as is was in 2001, adjusted for inflation, while at the same time people were paying less in taxes. That extra money in people’s pockets, which was not at the expense of government revenue, cannot be anything but positive for the economy.
You switched the context of the discussion to deficits. What do deficits take into consideration that revenue doesn’t? SPENDING.
The United States government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, in my opinion. As I said in an earlier post, we tax as if we want a government that treats us as free men and women, and we spend as if we want a government that attempts to solve our problems. We have to decide which we want to be, and be consistent on both sides of the equation.
stands for decibels
June 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
“(M)illions of people had more money than they otherwise would have” because it was borrowed money.
but, but, Bush let me keep what I earned!
wahhh! also.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
12:05 pm
Jay, speaking of Money Trees, where can I buy one and how much should I pay for it?
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
12:05 pm
Normal
Or we could just become wards of the state. The government has lots of money. let’s just stop working and use that money. Free food. free housing. free everything.
I’m all for it, except when the government buys it, it sucks. When I can choose what to buy myself, I live a much better life.
The government standards might be good enough for you. Castro has lots of beans all ready for you. he;;, he probably has transportation ready for you. How are you on a bicycle? I would rather pay my own way if that’s OK with you.
AmVet
June 29th, 2010
12:06 pm
For those in desperate need of remedial mathematics, the 95.3% who work to redistribute income UP the ladder.
neo-Carlinist
June 29th, 2010
12:06 pm
mike and jewcowboy, anyone who works in IT knows this, and most of the rust belt residents as well. and therein lies the rub; markets don’t care about jobs, they care about profitablity. if eliminating a job helps feed the beast, it is eliminated. if a new technology or skill set helps feed the beast, it is created. the government isn’t part of the beast anymore than it is part of us. it is the conduit by which the We the People feed the beast.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
“Good ol’ Mike…look out after himself instead of his fellow man…I do wonder what Jesus would say…”
That’s what children who have never had a real job, let alone run a business think.
Here is a clue for you, oh self-righteous one: I can’t give anyone a job if I am out of business.
Tell you what. Why don’t you go start a business that is going to hire all of the out of work people? Apparently it is so easy that anyone can do it, or at least silly people think so.
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
I told ya Sailors had class…
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/navy_cosby_award_062810w/
Where's My Party?
June 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
Bush’s fault….tax the rich….blah, blah blah.
Pathetic.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
Did I hear somebody say “uppity?” Yes, what can I do for you.
Jay
June 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
Mike, the point remains. You claim that only mindless partisans make overgeneralizations about their foes, and then you made an overgeneralization about liberals.
Slam dunk. You have convicted yourself as one of these mindless partisans whom you are always chastizing. Nobody else had to do a thing; it was entirely self-inflicted.
Mike, you’re a mindless partisan, by your own definition. A one-trick pony.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:09 pm
“markets don’t care about jobs, they care about profitability”
Shoot, in bad times, markets are willing to care about basic viability. Some people don’t seem to get that.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
12:11 pm
BADA BING
Here ya go!
http://www.swallowtailgardenseeds.com/perennials/money_plant.html
@@
June 29th, 2010
12:11 pm
Normal:
Make that sometimes, like this:
By keeping people from dipping into the fund and using the money for purposes not associated with SS.
Not, this:
Good ol’ Mike…look out after himself instead of his fellow man…I do wonder what Jesus would say…
If that was intended for mike…if he’s not able to employ all of them, he can, at least, do what’s necessary to employ some of them. He’s indirectly employing those who produce the automation needed.
I’m outta here. Discussing this topic is like beating a dead horse.
Overkill!
Nothing is Free
June 29th, 2010
12:12 pm
Jay
Great argument Jay.
He has treated you like a farm animal on every count where actual policies and actual numbers are mentioned, but yes-siree. You really got him with that mindless partisan comment.
And as we all know, there is nothing mindless or partisan about you.
Intown
June 29th, 2010
12:12 pm
Say whatever you want about Obama. He ain’t full of B.S. He’s working Congress to get them to propose the comprehensive reforms he was elected to get done. I just wish it was faster and that he had tackled climate change/energy policy before taking a year on healthcare.
NJ
June 29th, 2010
12:13 pm
Of course it was Bush’s fault. It takes time for bad economic planning to have an effect.
20 percent of the base debt resides in the Bush tax cuts alone. Add in the estimated 3 trillion dollars spent for Iraq (the indirect cost on other government departments like Energy and Education and NASA are never figured in) And you get Bush being responsible for 40 percent of the base debt. Add in the debt servicing and you get fifty percent.
The real elephant in the room is not Medicare or Social Security. In fact almost 5 trillion dollars is what the government OWES back to Medicare and Social Security by borrowing from it’s surpluses.
These plans are well designed to be self supporting. All that has to happen is that the Republicans have to keep their promises to pay it back. Because this is what they asserted. Supply side economics would boost the economy so much that every cent that was BORROWED from Social Security and Medicare trust accounts would be paid back with interests.
Republicans LOVE to forget this little detail about the national debt.
It was THEY who asserted that Tax cuts would make all these programs magically solvent.
In 2000, the entire fiscal argument was over what to do with “projected” Social Security Surpluses between 2000 and 2010. These were real surpluses. They existed in the sense that the government knew that with average rates of employment, and average wages, they would be collecting an excess of money every year in payroll taxes. Bush decided that every year, he would take that money and give a huge income tax cut with them. To the total degree of 2.3 trillion dollars.
After Bush spent all of it, Republicans were then asserting that the Social Security Surpluses did not exist. Of course they didn’t. After the Republicans gave them away.
The simplest solution is to lock the box. Create a law that says that payroll taxes can only be used for the programs they were designed to pay for. Social Security, Medicare, etc. And there are FIVE OTHER trust funds that the government borrows from. Lock these as well. Borrowing from them accounts for 8.5 TRILLION dollars of the current debt.
Then get the other government departments to “pay for themselves”. Which means raising the top income tax levels up to a pre Reagan 70 percent.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:15 pm
Jay –
“Slam dunk”
Well if you are trying to demonstrate that you are incapable of processing basic logic, then yes.
As I pointed out in detail, and as you in your typical cowardly fashion selectively ignore, my comment was not a general comment and was instead about a specific argument. A specific argument which you choose to ignore in favor of this juvenille excercise;.
Please continue to keep the conversation at this level. It only demonstrates how pathetic your contribution to this paper and this community truly is. I am having an adult conversation about the economy with the other adults. You are on the AmVet/RW level of pettiness. Congrats.
BTW: Is this what you imagined you would be doing with your journalism careers? Aren’t you embarrassed? I mean I do what you do in my spare time while running a business. I even do it better.
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:15 pm
@@,
Mike’s glib, meaningless, pontifications sometimes gets my goat, so I pull his chain…and he never fails to respond. It’s amusing to me.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
12:16 pm
josef, what denominations do those trees come in?
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:16 pm
LOL. You have to love a blog where the trolls have to tell the host to take the discourse up a notch.
Talk about a “slam dunk”. LOL
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2010
12:16 pm
“Which means raising the top income tax levels up to a pre Reagan 70 percent”
This I don’t agree with. In “normal” times it should never be necessary to anyone to pay more to the government in taxes than they earn for themselves. I think the upper rate can be increased some, but not by this much.
williebkind
June 29th, 2010
12:17 pm
Why dont you liberals talk about something you understand. Tax and spend! Cutting the debt is way out of your league. You can not lead and you do not know how to follow. Stick with something you are good at like rioting, burning cars, destroying buildings, and indoctrinating kids in school. Yes I just saw some of your kind at work in Canada–you know the G20 summit.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:19 pm
“Mike’s glib, meaningless, pontifications sometimes gets my goat, so I pull his chain…and he never fails to respond. It’s amusing to me.”
Yes, as opposed to your meaningful posts like all of the ones on this page. LOL
Yammer what you want. You give the lame retorts that you do because you are incapable of nothing more.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
12:19 pm
BADA BING
Granny called ‘em Silver Dollars…
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:19 pm
headed out…THE VAMPIRE NURSE AWAITS…
Matti
June 29th, 2010
12:19 pm
“Or we could just become wards of the state. The government has lots of money. let’s just stop working and use that money. Free food. free housing. free everything.”
Even for sarcasm, this constant drone of regurgitated hyperbole is lame. If you don’t have any useful insight, postive suggestions, or at least a willingness to listen, then I’m sure there’s a pool noodle somewhere just waiting for you to float on it all afternoon.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2010
12:20 pm
josef, should I plant a few $100 trees, or should I plant a lot of $20 trees and make it up in volume?
Normal
June 29th, 2010
12:20 pm
did somebody just pass gas?
TM
June 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
“You have chosen instead to use 2003 as your base year, which is well after the tax cuts had taken effect. You are comparing revenue AFTER tax cuts to revenue in another year AFTER tax cuts, which tells us nothing about your original claim.”
It tells me that the governmnet still got a boat load of money and has no idea how to manage it.
NJ
June 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
The most hysterical part of the Tea Partier movement as well as Republican voters and Conservative voters is that a recent poll of what they believe should be cut in order to balance the budget shows their IGNORANCE of how much is spent on what. 71 percent believe the budget can be balanced by eliminating foreign aid. Which comes to about one percent of the federal budget.
The Washington Independent pointed out the FUTILITY of attempting to balance the budget by asking the public what they wanted cut:
“The most expendable programs, according to poll takers, were mass transit, housing, agriculture, environment and foreign aid, the runaway winner at 71 percent. The problem? These programs together barely comprise 3 percent of the federal budget. Even if the programs were entirely eliminated, the cuts would do nothing to solve the United States’ long-term entitlement program. Indeed, the responses had no obvious correlation with spending size.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/81684/the-futility-of-budget-cuts
Defense, the REAL defense budget, the REAL amount of dollars spent by the government directly or indirectly on defense is the real problem. Even the lowest estimates show it eating up 54 percent of government spending. The TOTAL amount of government spending on what are called “entitlements eats up way less than this. Government spends a total of about 680 billion on ALL medical programs. Not just medicare and medicaid, but CDC, Health and Human resources, National Library of Medicine, Veterans, Federal employees, the works.
The lone solution is improbable cuts to defense, medicare and medicaid with defense taking up a lot more than the “entitlements”
The ONLY solution is tax hikes.
History has proven over and over again, that the asserted stimulative effect of tax cuts to the rich are mythological. They have NEVER created a job or improved a business or created a new business.
Not rarely, but never.
mike
June 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
Got a plane to catch. It was nice to reduce Jay to sputtering, incoherent and illogical rage. Just took a few minutes too. LOL
Cheers all and thanks for the laughs.
@@
June 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
Normal:
sometimes gets my goat, so I pull his chain…and he never fails to respond. It’s amusing to me.
I’m not even gonna ask what purpose you have in keeping a goat…you being the guy who throws Crisco parties and such. To each his own, I suppose.
I doubt seriously that mike has need of your goat.
How’d I do in the “yankin’” department?
pat
June 29th, 2010
12:22 pm
Again Jay:
Tax reciepts between 2000 and 2008:
2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.1
2002 1,853.1
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,406.9
2007 2,568.0
2008 2,524.0
The intake in 2008 was 25% higher than 2000.
The avaerage annual intake during Clinton was $1682.83 B. The average anual intake during Bush was $2144.89 B. This is an average of 21.5% more tax revenue intake than during the same time frame of Clinton. All numbers are adjusted for today’s dollars. I am correct. Here is the proof AGAIN:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/Excel/fed_receipt_sum_historical.xls
AmVet
June 29th, 2010
12:23 pm
Republicians (sic) were in control, NOT conservatives.Big differance (sic).
I am 124.63% in agreement.
The outcome of not having any conservatives in the GOP for nearly 40 years…
AmVet
June 29th, 2010
12:23 pm
Republicians (sic) were in control, NOT conservatives.Big differance (sic).
I am 124.63% in agreement.
The outcome of not having any conservatives in the GOP for nearly 40 years…
Mick
June 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
nif
Why are you so blind to what the last administration left us? Two wars off the books, tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, regulators of markets and environment looking the other way, and finally the housing bubble caused by the fed and the ownership society. I get tired of repeating the litany of debt but I just don’t understand why anyone could think that last administration was anything but an abject failure. The coup de grace was, ” this sucker could go down” thanks W, thanks a lot.
josef nix
June 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
BADA BING
That depends…are you looking for a quick return or are you in it for the long haul…I think I’d go for the $20 ones and reinvest…and if the blight hits a few, those that survive are more resistant…
AmVet
June 29th, 2010
12:26 pm
Hmmmm. The dreaded double past.
I don’t care how many times mike says otherwise, I am the only non-mindless partisan here!
I am King of the World!
Jay
June 29th, 2010
12:26 pm
Writhe and wriggle as you wish, Mike. You remain impaled on your own hook.
It is not a specific argument to say that liberals believe in a magic money tree. It is an overgeneralization. If you had named specific people who believe that, that would be a specific argument.
And I do appreciate you patronizing my place of business so often, and am glad to see you support the AJC as you do. I thank you, and our advertisers thank you.
A CONSERVATIVE
June 29th, 2010
12:26 pm
FOX NEWs NEIL CAVUTO….knows a hell of a lot more about the ECONOMY than simple minded Jay Bookman….still you are amusing…just like JOE BIDEN…but then poor ol’ Biden is paid to be amusing..
Scout
June 29th, 2010
12:26 pm
DO you know what happened 159 years ago this fall… back in 1850?
California became a state
The people had no electricity.
The state had no money.
Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
There were gunfights in the streets.
Southern Comfort
June 29th, 2010
12:27 pm
I’m not even gonna ask what purpose you have in keeping a goat
One could use a goat as a kinda “green” lawnmower. If the goat has a bad disposition and a good set of horns, it could be used as guard dog. Or, as they do in the country, fatten him up and he’ll make one hell of a 4th of July bar-b-que.
Outhouse GoKart
June 29th, 2010
12:27 pm
Intown
June 29th, 2010
12:12 pm
LOL…at best, Obama is a bad joke played upon the US citizenry. And he will be a one-term loser!!
jewcowboy
June 29th, 2010
12:29 pm
mike,
“you can actually address the argument I was making about the relative merits of SS vs a Wall Street based plan.”
Well, to be frank I didn’t see much of an argument, but my view of privatizing SS has to do with stability. SS is a last form of insurance, a safety net, not a retirement account. Yes, I do have retirement savings, which are at the mercy of the market, and as such are at the mercy of the reckless buffoons in charge of the market who are willing to drive the entire international economy into the ditch to ensure the Cristal won’t stop flowing for themselves.
I bet Ruth Madoff never gave SS or Medicare a second thought…until 2008.
NJ
June 29th, 2010
12:29 pm
Raising the TOP MARGINAL rates does not mean raising the taxes on the middle classes much or at all. It means that the richest either keep their money inside of a business creating jobs and new products, or they lose a ton of it if they decide to take a million dollar bonus this year.
Businesses benefit massively from the government and services created by government and the infrastructure created by government. Therefore there is a price to pay for those services.
No one should pay the government more money than they earn from their OWN labor. When you are making millions off of the labor of others, this is another question. The government allows businessmen to basically take a portion of the “fruits of the labor of others” when they create businesses. The price for this is to pay for those privileged. And starting a business is not a constitutional RIGHT, It is a privilege granted to a person or group, not just by the government, but by the society the government represents. When what the business owners earn massively exceeds that earned by those whose labor he uses is, then it is appropriate for government to “rebalance” the equation.
Indeed that is what government exists for in a representative Republic. To repair the problems created by past decisions it has made. And lowering the top tax rate is one of those errors.
It is responsible for every speculative market bubble that has happened. The excess capital allowed by those tax cuts is always used speculatively and the result is huge harm to millions who do not have the resources to do this.
Basically lowering the tax rate is a Ponzi scheme that allows the rich to get rich while screwing everyone else.
Mick
June 29th, 2010
12:29 pm
Neil cavuto is a dweeb and a disgrace to the italian heritage along with nino scalia.
NJ
June 29th, 2010
12:30 pm
A good example is that the tax code is so written that two out of three American corporations pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
Yet they use government resources at a huge rate.
RGB
June 29th, 2010
12:31 pm
“The truth behind the nation’s massive fiscal problem: Overspending.”
Next column…
Southern Comfort
June 29th, 2010
12:32 pm
It’s time for this mindless partisan to go get domestic. Uniforms don’t press themselves.
Later y’all…
williebkind
June 29th, 2010
12:33 pm
Dow 9902.80 –235.72
Nasdaq 2153.76 –66.89
S&P 500 1046.59 –27.98
The truth behind the nation’s massive fiscal problem is Obama and his socialist cohorts.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
June 29th, 2010
12:35 pm
Here’s your truth:
a government proposal to upgrade immigration detention centers to include unmonitored phone lines, dance and cooking lessons, continental breakfasts, freedom from lockdown and other amenities.
Jay
June 29th, 2010
12:35 pm
Pat, a 25 percent growth over nine years is less than the rate of inflation.
And that little trick of “average revenue” is particularly nasty bit of business, since it gives Bush all the credit for the revenue increases that actually occurred under Clinton.
When Clinton took office in ‘93, revenue was $1.15 trillion. When he left office it was $1.99 trillion. So of course the average of his time in office was between those two numbers.
When Bush took office, revenue was $1.99 trillion. When he left office, it was $2.1 trillion. His average is higher ONLY because of the growth that occurred under Clinton.
Your desperation shows when you twist numbers is such an obviously dishonest manner.
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
June 29th, 2010
12:35 pm
Maybe next time we hire a leader we will at least have one with the experience of running a fruit stand.
Did I mention, JOBS!
NJ
June 29th, 2010
12:38 pm
Neal Cavuto is an idiot. He and others like him were telling people to do the stuff that led to the housing collapse right up until it happened and still kept touting it.
The best person to pay attention to is Joseph Stiglitz. This guy has NEVER been wrong about the economy. Not once. Ever. If he says the market is gonna crash, take your money and put it under your mattress.
He is completely ignored by both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. is respected in France, and of course is the god of Economics to the Chinese. The Premier of China calls him his muse.
Joseph
June 29th, 2010
12:39 pm
Love the liberal argument- the real issue is that over 40% of folks don’t pay any tax and this % keeps growing. I will save the liberals from responding. First they will yell “but they pay payroll tax”- yes, but they then get that back and them some through refundable credits. Second they will say the rich can afford it- easy response, everyone but a % that is less than 5% should pay tax because a) they want to be productive citizens and b) everyone, including the rich, should PAY their fair share. Lastly, the libs like to pick and chose when a company/institution or not. When it comes to taxes- by gosh they are living things, when it comes to campaign finance, they are not.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
June 29th, 2010
12:39 pm
Well, everybody’s in a panic about the economy because they don’t see the big picture. See, here’s how things is:
1. We pass big tax cuts and start two wars while borrowing money. The economy goes in the tank. We get voted out of office.
2. We spend two years opposing everything Obama tries to do to fix the economy and blame the economy on him.
3. The stupid taxpayers put us back in charge in 2010 and we try to pass more tax cuts that Obama opposes while we also try to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and the health care bill. We blame Obama when the economy keeps going bad.
Uh, give me a minute. I got to think thru the rest. Anyways, don’t panic till I get back.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Libertarian
June 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
There aren’t many (logical) people who would defend everything Bush did. Yes, his wars were/are expensive. However, you cannot deny that Obama is adding to the deficit problem, rather than trying to fix it. I believe he shattered all records for first year spending by a president. So rather than point fingers and have another 4-8 years of fiscal irresponsibility why don’t he and the dems figure out a way to cut spending across the board? One suggestion would be to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely and stop wasting money on ridiculous wars that can’t be won against an enemy that can’t be quantified because they are breeding new members of their army on a daily basis. Bring home the troops, secure the boarders, cut spending across the board.
Scout
June 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
Jay:
I didn’t do it !!
Headline: “Four vehicles were damaged Tuesday by a car fire that spread through part of an Atlanta Journal-Constitution parking lot.”
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2010
12:41 pm
“the real issue is that over 40% of folks don’t pay any tax and this % keeps growing”
I’d like to see your proof of this. No one else who has made this claim can prove, see if you can do better.
And here’s a clue for you: they pay more than payroll taxes, they also pay sales taxes and fees for government services.