Well Brett, you're a little right about the projected surplus but didn't mention the assumption made in 2000 was leaving the tax rates alone. President George W Bush pushed for and received a tax reduction that was supposed to bring us tremendous job growth. I think everyone agrees that didn't happen. And the last two Clinton yearly budgets were balanced, no myth involved there. I also noticed how you stayed away from commenting on the national debt built up under Republican administrations. Those pesky facts just won't go away no matter how hard the right tries to reinvent history.
Occupy Wall Street
- Thread starter 804brown
- Start date
brett636
Well-Known Member
The CBO is an organization whose rules are written by and designed for the benefit of the politicians in Washington. Thats why Obamacare was originally scored as being deficit neutral as the bill was written to cause the CBO to count revenues and cost cuts twice in order to come up with a false budget analysis. The CBO gets many things wrong, and the surplus is no different. There was a "projected" surplus assming that the economy continued to grow like it did in the late 90s, that there would be no natural disasters, no military conflicts, no major terrorist attacks on our soil, etc. A lot has changed since that projection was made wiping out the surplus, but that doesn't stop some from blaming Bush even though it was a bad projection.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Its an undisputed fact that tax revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts as did jobs. After the final round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 we had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth. Those pesky facts sure are annoying aren't they?
Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com
804brown, you sound just like the usefull idiots squatting on public properties all around America. Get your facts straight too. It wasn't the TEA party who called OBabble a kenyan born socialist. The TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already. That's it. If you feel you need to pay more taxes go ahead. Send it to the Treasury dept. though not the IRS. Also now that the Nazi's,Communists, Pelosi and OBumble have endorsed these protests I guess you are all in exclusive company. Your right there with the other supporters of these protests such as Castro, Chavez, Kim and Putin. Great work *.
Mr. Riedl is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
And you want us to take this seriously?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Gov't is bad so let's give it more money!
Where in the hell is the logic in that? Oh wait, it's logical if you really are a big gov't guy hidden behind a small gov't mask!
That's why gov't and debt still grow under republican administrations.
It was probably expected that in the case of wars that taxes would be increased to pay that bill. Historically, that was the case. But hell, if you have the credit card, may as well use it, right?
52 months doesn't get you to the inauguration of BHO, does it?
brett636
Well-Known Member
Gov't is bad so let's give it more money!
Where in the hell is the logic in that? Oh wait, it's logical if you really are a big gov't guy hidden behind a small gov't mask!
That's why gov't and debt still grow under republican administrations.[/QUOTE]
Hardly, it shows that if the government takes less it can get more. At some point in the future if the government can get its fiscal house in order that higher revenue can he translated into more tax cuts and an even more free society.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Mr. Riedl is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
And you want us to take this seriously?[/QUOTE]
His case is far better made than yours. So the answer to your question is yes.
Point was CBO is unbiased. No one said it didnt make mistakes at times but it is nonpartisan and its numbers are always closer to reality than both parties' numbers. Fact is the CBO did predict by 2012 that the entire national debt would be paid off assuming of course continued growth . A matter of fact the budget people were afraid that the debt would be totally gone . It was spelled out in a memo titled "Life After Debt" dated the year 2000. I heard it on NPR today. They said it was a potential crisis if the US paid off its debt because there would be no more US treasury bonds in the world. Since the US borrows $$ selling bonds, the end of debt would mean the end of treasury bonds which are a safe place to put your $$. Much of the world economy depends on them. They are the "pillar of the global economy". Banks put their $$ in them, mortgage rates are tied to the interest rate on US treasury bonds.
They spoke about what would the govt do with the $$ that comes out of our paychecks for social security?? Right now that surplus gets invested in treasury bonds. They continue what would they invest that $$ in?? Stocks?? Then who picks ?? In the end the expert on this issue says it is good to pay down the debt but just not all of it.
Ah, actually the emTea wing of the republican party did call Obama all those moronic names. Didnt you read some of their ridiculous signs at their book burning rallies?? LOL. And the name of the "tea" party got their name of course from the Boston Tea party of 1773. It wasant about being taxed too much. It was because the colonists were taxed by the british parliament and had no representation!!It wasnt an objection to the "size of govt" either.
Anyway, who cares if nazis or communists "endorse" it. Even romney says he is with the 99% too!! "Castro, chavez,kim,"?? LOL You sound like you listen to alot of fox "news" and rush limbaugh.
Facts are in bush jr's 8 years he "created" only 3 million net jobs while clinton "created" 23 million net jobs. Also when bush was leaving the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month!!
brett636
Well-Known Member
Point was CBO is unbiased. No one said it didnt make mistakes at times but it is nonpartisan and its numbers are always closer to reality than both parties' numbers. Fact is the CBO did predict by 2012 that the entire national debt would be paid off assuming of course continued growth . A matter of fact the budget people were afraid that the debt would be totally gone . It was spelled out in a memo titled "Life After Debt" dated the year 2000. I heard it on NPR today. They said it was a potential crisis if the US paid off its debt because there would be no more US treasury bonds in the world. Since the US borrows $$ selling bonds, the end of debt would mean the end of treasury bonds which are a safe place to put your $$. Much of the world economy depends on them. They are the "pillar of the global economy". Banks put their $$ in them, mortgage rates are tied to the interest rate on US treasury bonds.
They spoke about what would the govt do with the $$ that comes out of our paychecks for social security?? Right now that surplus gets invested in treasury bonds. They continue what would they invest that $$ in?? Stocks?? Then who picks ?? In the end the expert on this issue says it is good to pay down the debt but just not all of it.[/QUOTE]
The CBO may be listed as nonpartisan, but the rules it is supposed to go by are written by partisan politicians who know how to write legislation to get the budget scoring they were shooting for therefore the CBO is still partisan.
Heres some info off of Fact check.org:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
Also, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told journalists at the Washington Times last October that the tax cuts prompted economic and stock market growth. But, the paper reported, “they conceded that the tax cuts…cut deeply into government revenue.”
Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue."
In the year 2000, the Congress was controlled by repubs and the CBO was under repub leadership!!
brett636
Well-Known Member
In the year 2000, the Congress was controlled by repubs and the CBO was under repub leadership!!
Irrelevant, its projection was wrong.
So let me get this straight, the non-partisan, republican controlled CBO of 2000 thru ?? was biased so therefore not credible, yet you cite the "Heritage Foundation" and youtube as your source of unbiased info. I must have stumbled into a different dimension.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
REALLY! Since 1980' republicans have continued to make that claim but let's look at the facts. Yes, revenues have indeed gone up but yet republicans (not that democrats didn't get their licks in) have only borrowed even more money on top of the increased tax revenue and even worse has grown gov't to such an extent that gov't direct costs to taxpayers have only gone up year to year to make any increase in revenue meaningless. In that fiscal environment, it's impossible to, how did you put it?
Funny how the Bush tax cuts increased revenue (Obama so far has left them in place) and yet the debt zoomed and this during a period when republicans controlled the WH, both houses of Congress and even a clear majority of Supreme Court justices and yet the debt went up, gov't got bigger so has that limited gov't, fiscal responsibility myth working out for ya?
And you wonder why Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, co-founder of Reaganomics and David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB have both called the Reagan years a farce and a fraud when it comes to it's fiscal responsibility claims. You love to call some here kool-aid drinkers and on some levels you are correct but belly up to the bar there baby boy because you've had your own snoot fulls too!
And the OWS protestors are just a bunch of brainwashed idiots? Appears it takes one to know one!
Similar threads
