Right Thinking From The Left Coast
I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. - Thomas Jefferson

The Prez’s New Plan

A few thoughts on Obama’s volley on the Burgeoning Budget Battle.  I will not describe it as a “plan” since it clearly isn’t one.  It’s more of a rebuttal with a little ground given.

First, I think conservatives are wrong to respond to this so negatively.  While the President isn’t giving as much ground as I’d like, his proposal has three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax hikes.  It’s a huge step from his earlier joke of a budget proposal and a big step toward the Simpson-Bowles plan that is, I think, clearly becoming the most likely thing to happen.

(To be fair, the Democrats went completely non-linear when Ryan unveiled his proposal.  Compared to Pelosi et al.’s rhetoric about starving seniors to death, the GOP response to Obama has been comparatively mild).

The main conservative opposition stems from an opposition to any tax hikes whatsoever.  While I sympathize, I just don’t think that’s a realistic point of view.  We’ve made commitments to seniors, to our creditors and to the defense of this country.  That alone can not be sustained at the current tax rates. However, any tax hikes, as I said below, need to come with enough reform to, on balance, reduce the deadweight loss to the economy—that being the bargain Reagan struck when he raised taxes to attack the deficit. And they need to be broad-based.  The pitiful returns one gets from raising taxes on just “the rich” exposes the main driver of Democrat support for tax hikes—economic control, not revenue.

The biggest problem with the Obama proposal, for me, is its reliance on magical thinking for reducing Medicare spending.  It doesn’t raise the retirement age and certainly doesn’t cap spending the way Ryan’s plan does.  It relies on Congress to control itself in issuing coverage mandates and for Committees of Wise Men to decide what treatments should be covered.  Obama and his liberal allies support these ideas because they believe that people are stupid, the market is useless and government is benevolent and wise.  My attitude can be easily discerned from my tone.  If we leave spending restrain in the hands of Congress, rather than the market, there will be no spending restraint whatsoever.  And committees of wise men will not decide healthcare spending based on science or cost-benefit analysis; they will decide based on politics and influence peddling.

Finally, it’s important to remember something in this budget debate—anything we do is only binding today.  Relying on future Congresses to somehow show the spending restraint we refuse to exercise now is simply kicking the can down the road.  Increasing spending now, projecting that future Congress will rein it in and counting that as a “spending cut” is simply bullshit.  While long-range plans are the key to deficit control, the commitment to that control is what Congress does right here and right now.  That’s why raising the retirement age or cutting current spending or even raising taxes is important—it’s something that would actually happen right now rather than something we kinda sorta hope future leaders will make happen.

In the end, this is not really a serious proposal or a serious speech.  It does not even attempt to project spending over the timeline that Ryan does nor does it restrain spending as sharply.  Indeed, it has the usual blather about pointless “investments” in useless stuff like high-speed rail.  I suspect that if the CBO scored this, they would find that it doesn’t work at all without a broad-based tax hike.

All that having been said, I think today’s speech is a good sign.  It’s a sign that we’ve got the Democrats pointed somewhat in the right direction.  Every time the President speaks, he’s moved a little bit closer to reality.  The Democrats have now admitted the scale of the problem—something they spent years denying.  They’re acknowledging the kinds of steps that need to be taken.  They’re still laboring under the delusion that tax hikes on the rich and magical medicare thinking can fix the problem.  But the CBO will continue to put the lie to that.

As I said, the Democrats are getting pointed in the right direction.  A bit more turning and a strategically placed boot in the ass and we might actually get somewhere.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/13/11 at 06:56 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 04/13/11 at 09:53 PM from United States

Cripes Hal, you love taxes so much I’m to start calling you moogoo 2.

Yeah, we’re all doing so fucking wonderful that even more taxes are going to help.  Every time I fucking turn around someone is going “more taxes”.  Well, those taxes are generally NOT HELPING because when things are this fucked up those extra taxes just make it ever harder to dig out.

No, the solution is CUTTING SPENDING BY MASSIVE FUCKING AMOUNTS and stop being apologetic about it.

Posted by on 04/13/11 at 09:59 PM from Australia

This reminds of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy. Going back to the 2001 recession, anyone with a brain could see the business model of the Big 3 was unsustainable. It wasn’t if they would file for bankruptcy, but when. Mulally turned Ford around by slashing expenses, improving quality and selling assets. At this point, short of a slash and burn policy combined with transformational leadership, I don’t see any way out other than default.

The fact that more people aren’t demanding cuts to entitlements to prevent default shows just how stupid the general public are and that they don’t realize the gravity of the situation. They just want to get back to watching Dancing with the Stars and Jersey Shore.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:00 AM from United States

The problem is not the revenue, it’s the spending. Duh!

87 various administrations for education? Seriously?

Even if we seized all profits from Fortune 500, ALL OF THEM, we would only be able to pay for the government for around 2 months! Gov is spending $10 Billion a day!

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:07 AM from United States

While the President isn’t giving as much ground as I’d like, his proposal has three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax hikes.

this sound familiar, didn’t Bush 41 break his no new taxes pledge for the same thing, aren’t we still waiting for the tax cuts.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:23 AM from United States

The main conservative opposition stems from an opposition to any tax hikes whatsoever.  While I sympathize, I just don’t think that’s a realistic point of view.  We’ve made commitments to seniors, to our creditors and to the defense of this country.  That alone can not be sustained at the current tax rates. However, any tax hikes, as I said below, need to come with enough reform to, on balance, reduce the deadweight loss to the economy—that being the bargain Reagan struck when he raised taxes to attack the deficit. And they need to be broad-based.  The pitiful returns one gets from raising taxes on just “the rich” exposes the main driver of Democrat support for tax hikes—economic control, not revenue.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ Hal…

The tax rates don’t mean dick.  The tax revenue is what matters.  Time and time again, in theory and in practice, the best way to boost revenues is to broaden the tax base and cut rates.  This is the proposal from Simpson-Bowles.  This is the proposal from Paul Ryan.  This was the reason for the success of the Reagan tax cuts.

If I have to givve up my mortage interest deduction in order to drop my overall tax rate to 25% and it gets MORE PEOPLE to get some skin in the game by paying their 10% (or 8% under the most likely of the Simpson-Bowles scenarios) I’m all for it.

But raising rates?  Are you fucking serious?

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:26 AM from United States

I should clarify:

Tax rates don’t matter from the perspective of the government trying to maximize their revenue

They clearly matter from the perspective of the tax payer.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:27 AM from United States

First, I think conservatives are wrong to respond to this so negatively

Really? Did you see Ryan’s response?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-cyIlM8ZwE

Is he exaggerating? Ryan, bereft of any hyperbole and one of the most measured controlled leaders we have showed total class in not walking out on that “high tech. lynching”, again proving, just like when Obama slammed the SCOTUS in his last SOU, that he is the most petty. petulant and begrudging president we have ever had.

I just don’t think that’s a realistic point of view.

And therein lies the rub. Ryan’s budget proposal (already scored to reflect increased revenue) will lower taxes and one hand, and raise more tax revenue on the other. Leveling the playing field and removing the tax dodges and shelters will not only bring in more money, it will foster a more business friendly culture, where the true dynamic growth engines, the private sector, can flourish and grow, not only will employment grow but the rest of the world will see that we are serious about debt reduction and will be more willing to invest in America and buy our products.

All that having been said, I think today’s speech is a good sign.

I did not see that way. If the president said anything resembling ,” A dramatic change in thinking is essential to our survival, and although I commend Rep. Ryan for his proposals and welcome more help in this area, we think that we can do better, so I am implementing a number of ideas and solutions put forth by my debt commission”. Sadly, we got more finger pointing (that same old tired “Purina” tactic) and more kicking the can with that lame idea of creating yet another debt commission that he will ultimately ignore.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:51 AM from United States

First, I think conservatives are wrong to respond to this so negatively

Comparing Republican budget cutting ideas to sacrificing Down’s syndrome children in favor of the Republicans’ beloved millionaires and billionaires.. Why are you Republican wingnuts steamed over that? Obama was simply reaching out with an olive branch.

Can anyone cite any comparable remark from a Republican President in modern history that compares to the caustic smears which Obama threw out yesterday? Because I can’t think of anything that comes remotely close

Obama gave no specifics which would indicate that he has “changed” his thinking in the right direction, since he wants to give govt. carte blanche right to raise taxes ‘as needed’. No checks on spending, no fiscal discipline, and no cuts other than in defense spending.. just magical fairy dust solutions and continued massive spending increases.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/14/11 at 10:00 AM from United States

The main conservative opposition stems from an opposition to any tax hikes whatsoever.

The problem with this is that the left and people like you seem to believe we have an issue with taxes, and while we do, it isn’t the big problem. My problem, and I expect of any sane person viewing this charade by the commiecrats and their crusade to tax us more, is that they jack up taxes than drastically jack up spending right after. Every time we let them raise taxes it all but assures they double whatever the tax revenue would be in spending. It’s been the case since the demcorats figured they could force Reagan to sign their deficit budgets if they held his lower taxation for investments and military growth to block the USSR hostage back in the 80s. It’s become worse now.

Remember that the only reason we are in this desperate bind we are right now, with the future looking like bankruptcy, is that the demcorats and Obama decided to spend trillions more than we have over the last 2 years, after they turned Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into laboratories for their idiotic collectivist policies and regulations, to force investment agencies to loan to bad creditors, and then had to resort to a speculations market, ginned up by idiots like Franks, so they could make the shit sandwich more palatable. It’s not because the crooks in DC aren’t taking away enough of our money already. I hated Bush for the deficit spending he allowed to go on while he and republicans owned government, but in hindsight what used to drive me bonkers now looks so tame, I wonder why I worried.

Obama didn’t do anything more than issue a piss poor campaign speech, devoid of details, full of bullshit class rhetoric, and guaranteed to make idiots think he and the demcorats are not hell bent on destroying America so everyone has to depend on government, and hence them, to make a basic subsitence. Fuck them and all the morons that believe they mean well.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 10:27 AM from United States

While I sympathize, I just don’t think that’s a realistic point of view.  We’ve made commitments to seniors, to our creditors and to the defense of this country

I’d like to hear a coherent explanation as to why some “commitments” are untouchable, but others should be on the chopping block. With unsustainable decifits, WHO made those decisions? To my knowledge, no one has suggested cutting bloated govt. pension payouts which often start full payouts when the retiree is in their 40’s and 50’s.. yet my social security contributions are continually increased and I’m told that I will likely have to wait until I’m 67 to begin receiving benefits.. if there’s anything left to receive. The idea that govt. pensions are “more equal” than social security is an idea that needs to come to an end, and it’s unhelpful, and quite un-libertarian to claim that unfunded commitments to seniors cannot be touched given our current financial situation.

Given that we have no money, and unsustainable debt, EVERYTHING must be on the table. We can’t exempt seniors, or defense, from the possibility of cuts. We can argue that welfare spending, 2-year unemployment payouts, govt. pensions, and govt. agencies like the EPA, DEA, FCC need to be slashed or eliminated first, but everything needs to be on the table.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/14/11 at 10:49 AM from United States

The tax rates don’t mean dick.  The tax revenue is what matters.  Time and time again, in theory and in practice, the best way to boost revenues is to broaden the tax base and cut rates.  This is the proposal from Simpson-Bowles.  This is the proposal from Paul Ryan.  This was the reason for the success of the Reagan tax cuts.

I agree with this entirely.  You said it much more clearly than I did.  Thanks.

One of THE problems with our current tax structure is that is has become so progressive and twisted that revenues crash anytime the economy isn’t booming.

I’d like to hear a coherent explanation as to why some “commitments” are untouchable, but others should be on the chopping block. With unsustainable decifits, WHO made those decisions?

Mook, government pensions are a tiny part of the problem.  Medicare and SS are everything.  We can’t say to people who are in their 50’s and 60’s that we’re suddenly going to jerk the rug out from under them (indeed, even Ryan’s plan doesn’t do that).  Cutting the rate of growth --- something we can do now—can help.  But with a rapidly aging population, I just don’t see that we can maintain revenue levels that are, at present, the lowest in decades.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 11:41 AM from United States

Mook, government pensions are a tiny part of the problem.

Let’s define tiny in the context of this discussion:

That means every US household (including the half that normally pay no taxes) would have to kick in $81,500 today to enable federal, state and local governments to meet just their current pension commitments.

And given the growth of govt at every level over the past 10 years, those “current” unfunded levels in the trillions of dollars are slated to grow much more. Contrary to what you asserted, govt. pensions, and govt salary payrolls too, are a MASSIVE part of the deficit problem, not some tiny insignificant spending issue as you claim. The author mixes “per household” with absolute amounts, but it amounts to $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities for federal employee pension benefits and another almost $4 trillion in unfunded liabilities for for state, local and municipal govt pensions. Again, not “tiny” in any sense of the word. Just because it’s off-budget in govt. accounting, doesn’t make it any less real or any less massive.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 11:42 AM from United States

Please fix links in my previous post. thanks

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/14/11 at 11:45 AM from United States

I agree with this entirely.  You said it much more clearly than I did.  Thanks.

One of THE problems with our current tax structure is that is has become so progressive and twisted that revenues crash anytime the economy isn’t booming.

The second problem IMO is that 50% of Americans now don’t have to pay taxes. When you don’t pay but get a benefit from those that do, you are very inclined to believe taxes are not an issue. Making others pay more doesn’t harm you a bit. That’s when the class warfare shit that the rich should pay more also resonates with you. When you get hit in the pocket by politicians that waste it, taxes become evil.

Link fixed BTW Mook. If you are going to use the link utility that’s part of the comment submission options make sure that there isn’t a period at the end because this confuses the script it fires. I prefer to use HTML tags and type the thing out, but I write software for a living, so that tells you how insane I am.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 01:18 PM from United States

Angry Boy Hannity is frothing at the mouth over the prez’s speech. LOL… i think his head is really going to blow this time. He’s so funny… I love listening to him spew.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 02:05 PM from United States

L the f O L...BOENER on the budget bill, “it’s like were driving down the highway and through it into reverse.” Thats his analogy to the budget bill. perfect!

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 03:19 PM from United States

this sound familiar, didn’t Bush 41 break his no new taxes pledge for the same thing, aren’t we still waiting for the tax cuts.

Bush 41 was promised by Ted Kennedy to not mess with Bush’s court nominations in exchange for signing off on tax increases, and once Bush delivered on the taxes Kennedy promptly reneged on his end of the deal.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/14/11 at 03:33 PM from United States

Posted by muirgeo1 on 04/14/11 at 12:18 PM from

Posted by muirgeo1 on 04/14/11 at 01:05 PM from

The country is being destroyed by demcorats and what does our resident moonbat do? Show us why the left isn’t serious about anything other than their power, even when that power comes at the cost of our future. Thanks for the reminder Moogoo.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/14/11 at 06:14 PM from United States

Mook, agreed on pensions generally—but you’re including states and localities, which actually have a larger workforce.  If I remember correctly, federal pensions are about 5% of future outlays.  Altough that number could blow up if states go bankrupt and the Feds bail out their pensions.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 07:19 PM from United States

Altough that number could blow up if states go bankrupt and the Feds bail out their pensions.

As in California, Illinois and New York all seem to be ripe for a federal bailout while a dem senate is in power…
yeah, it could happen.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 08:57 PM from United States

Mook, agreed on pensions generally—but you’re including states and localities, which actually have a larger workforce.

Perhaps you missed the part

$7 trillion in unfunded liabilities for federal employee pension benefits

Contrary to your assertion Hal, I’m not conflating state pensions with Federal pensions. I’ve been very specific in the numbers. They’re both disasters, but I’ve kept the numbers seperate

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 04/14/11 at 09:14 PM from United States

Isn’t this all just a bigger argument for eventually privatizing SS and Medicare?

BTW I tend to agree that Boehner doth protest too much, especially since he’s the one who apparently asked for Hoyer’s help in getting Democratic votes for this same budget.

Posted by on 04/14/11 at 09:18 PM from Germany

L the f O L...BOENER on the budget bill, “it’s like were driving down the highway and through it into reverse.” Thats his analogy to the budget bill. perfect!

Quiet Moogoo, men are talking.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 10:02 AM from United States

"Quiet Moogoo, men are talking.”

No. Men are not talking. Men children are yapping. Men child who have been taught the number one problem is the deficit are repeating the talking points they’ve been indoctrinated to chit chat about.

The deficit is far more a result of a poor economy and tax cuts than it is of any spending increases from the current administration.

The number one problem is the economy. We need jobs and improved wages. The republican policies that favor the already wealthy, that favor those in finance and banking and that favor mulinational corporations have destroyed our economy, bsted the budget and rewarded corporations over hard working Americans.

Cutting spending will in no way fix the econonmy… the current man child debate is simple a successful distraction that keeps the wealthy elite with a little more time to keep the status quo.

If we did what you Tea Partiers wanted eventuallly the economy will crash even further and the regular people will be forced to the streets in protest like we are seeing all over the world. Asecond wave of revolution is under way.

It was but a hurried parting in the common street, yet it was a sacred remembrance to these two common people. Utilitarian economists, skeletons of schoolmasters, Commissioners of Fact, genteel and used-up infidels, gabblers of many little dog’s-eared creeds, the poor you will have always with you. Cultivate in them, while there is yet time, the utmost graces of the fancies and affections to adorn their lives so much in need of ornament; or, in the day of your triumph, when romance is utterly driven out of their souls and they and a bare existence stand face to face, Reality will take a wolfish turn, and make an end of you! ...

CD

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 10:50 AM from Germany

What an asshole......

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 11:44 AM from United States

rather a free thinking asshole then an inculcated man child.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 11:50 AM from United States

None of you can even begin to put forward a cogent economic explaintion showing how cutting spending will improve the economy. What we see here is a visceral misguided uniformed knee jerk reaction to government mis management mostly a result of corporations and wealthy donor influences on policy ignoring the needs of the larger population.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 12:02 PM from United States

The deficit is far more a result of a poor economy and tax cuts than it is of any spending increases from the current administration.

Let’s examine this… Let’s look at the 2000’s in constant 2005 Dollars (in Billions):

-In 2000, the Federal Government took in $2310.0B (20.6% GDP) and spent $2040.6B (18.2% GDP)

-In 2001, the Federal Government took in $2215.3B (19.5% GDP) and spent $2072.7B (18.2% GDP)

-In 2002, the Federal Government took in $2028.6B (17.6% GDP) and spent $2201.3B (19.1% GDP)

-In 2003, the Federal Government took in $1901.1B (16.2% GDP) and spent $2303.9B (19.7% GDP)

-In 2004, the Federal Government took in $1949.5B (16.1% GDP) and spent $2377.5B (19.6% GDP)

-In 2005, the Federal Government took in $2153.6B (17.3% GDP) and spent $2472.0B (19.9% GDP)

-In 2006, the Federal Government took in $2324.1B (18.2% GDP) and spent $2563.8B (20.1% GDP)

-In 2007, the Federal Government took in $2414.0B (18.5% GDP) and spent $2565.1B (19.6% GDP)

-In 2008, the Federal Government took in $2286.8B (17.5% GDP) and spent $2702.3B (20.7% GDP)

-In 2009, the Federal Government took in $1898.3B (14.9% GDP) and spent $3172.2B (25.0% GDP)

-In 2010, the Federal Government took in $1919.0B (14.9% GDP) and spent $3066.7B (23.8% GDP)

SOURCE

For those less mathematically inclined, this mean that the net changes from 2000-2010 were:

Receipts = - $391.0B (-5.7% GDP)
Outlays = +$1026.1B (+5.6% GDP)

So, rather than “deficit [being] far more a result of a poor economy and tax cuts than it is of any spending increases”, we can see that it’s almost exactly equal effects of spending increases and revenue reduction (in terms of % GDP).  However, in terms of actual dollars, spending increased 2.6 times the decrease in revenues, so spending has roughly two and a half times MORE to do with our current situation than revenue reduction - at least since the “golden days” of the Clinton Era budget surplus.

So as not to rain too much on muirgeo’s parade, I won’t point out that the two largest increases in spending were 2008 and 2009.  Otherwise known as the Speaker Pelosi Congress and Obama Presidency…

Sorry, try again :-)

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 12:20 PM from United States

None of you can even begin to put forward a cogent economic explaintion showing how cutting spending will improve the economy.

Simple:

It is not that a true cut in spending by itself will improve the economy.  Infact, it could very well have a negative impact.  HOWEVER, because of the rampant spending of the last - roughly - 50 years, our debt-to-GDP and deficit-to-GDP ratios have reached a critical point.  That point is where confidence in the Government’s ability to make good on its’ commitments is being called into question.

And since we cannot wave a magic wand to increase revenues, we MUST control the other side of the equation (i.e. - spending).  Theory and history have shown repeatedly that broadening the tax base while lowering rates and simplifying the tax code is the only reliable way to increase government revenues for the long term.  However, it takes time for the engine of capitalism to generate this increased revenue.  But because of the aforementioned critical nature of our current situation, we literally cannot afford to maintain the rate of growth of governement we have had while we wait for more revenue to roll in from a growing GDP.

Thus the need to control spending by - at the very least - no longer growing government expenditure.  In Washington D.C., this is known as “cutting spending”.

The way this helps the economy is by restoring confidence that the governemnt is solvent and will be able to meet its’ obligations going forward, which helps to keep interest rates in check and keep the currency stable, both of which encourage investment that grows the economy.

Posted by InsipiD on 04/15/11 at 12:57 PM from United States

(23.8% GDP)

If that alone doesn’t scare you a lot, I don’t know what could.  Regardless of how good or bad everyone’s doing, spending consistently close to a quarter of GDP is seriously irresponsible.  Doing so while taking in less than 15% is stupid.  Obama is stupid, Reid is stupid, and anyone who defends that as a sustained long-term plan is stupid.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/15/11 at 02:02 PM from United States

None of you can even begin to put forward a cogent economic explaintion showing how cutting spending will improve the economy.

Talk about a piss poor attempt at a diversion and a whole lot of bullshit, Moogoo. It’s an unavoidable reality that our government consistently spending money they don’t have, with the demcorats setting new highs for this idiotic behavior - even though they already confiscate a massive chunk of our money to feed that ravenous machine- is certainly going to destroy the economy. And only a leftists twits starts off with the premise that without big government any economy is doomed, but you are par for the course.

And it’s simple to show why cutting spending will improve the economy BTW. Cut spending and force government to shrink. Then force that government to stop trying to pick the winners and losers in their attempt to regulate outcome, and watch the economy grow. The problem we have now is the idiots that have straddled our country with a government that’s abused by an elite power hungry political class that uses the nebulous concept of schemes like “social justice” and “wealth redistribution” to steal from the productive and buy power from the base jealousy and greed morons like you feel towards the productive and are driven by. You can pretend all you want that your motives are pure but you are nothing but a bunch of lowlife and lazy scumbag thieves that use government to steal from your betters. Take your kind out of power, by shrinking that government, and the economy will fly.

If that alone doesn’t scare you a lot, I don’t know what could.

Moogoo is a fucking communist and thinks the money is all the government’s anyway, so to him stealing “only” this much - especially if you pretend you are doing so from the wealthy - is just peachy.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 07:43 PM from United States

Retloucc1,

What? I said decreasesd GDP and tax cuts
(basically decreased recipts)explain the deficit far more than spending in general or Obama spending in specific.

And you refute me by showing data that shows reciepts dropped by $400 billion over a 10 year period??  Huh? This is pretty much UNHEARD of since WW2. And the reason reciepts are down is because of failed tickle down economic policies that lead to the economic collapse and tax cuts plane and simple.

I think YOU need to try again. And in fact trying again won’t matter as my claim is a matter of fact. YOU provided the numbers. Thank you very much.

Spending did go up over the same period but most of that was Bush’s war spending and Medicare part D and Bush’s stimulus and bailout packages. ut again increased spending explains little of the debt and deficit problems.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 07:50 PM from United States

retloucc1,

“It is not that a true cut in spending by itself will improve the economy.  Infact, it could very well have a negative impact.”

Thanks again.

and;

“The way this helps the economy is by restoring confidence that the governemnt is solvent and will be able to meet its’ obligations going forward, which helps to keep interest rates in check and keep the currency stable, both of which encourage investment that grows the economy.”

Pure conjecture… inculcation from the talking point makers to the men children…

Every business survey shows poor sales is the big reason for poor investments and market uncertainty is of little significance. You are paroting what yoyur handlers and overlords and implanted into you unthinking brain. It’s non-sense typica;l republican scare tactics to motivate its base which is ignorant and scared of their shadows… like men children.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 08:01 PM from United States

"The problem we have now is the idiots that have straddled our country with a government that’s abused by an elite power hungry political class that uses the nebulous concept of schemes like “social justice” and “wealth redistribution” to steal from the productive and buy power from the base jealousy and greed morons like you feel towards the productive and are driven by.”
Alex

Who are the power elites? You talking about the powerful WIC lobby? Maybe the ACORN lobby? How bizzarre… this makes NO sense. There is a class war going on and it is clear the wealthy elites are kicking the shit out of the poor and the middle class and THEY own the govenrment and THEY are setting the policy agenda that is making THEM ever more wealthy and powerful while bankrupting the country.

They are so powerful they control minds like yours to defend them and do their bidding. Unless you are extremely wealthy your position is bizzarre.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/15/11 at 08:22 PM from United States

Who are the power elites? You talking about the powerful WIC lobby? Maybe the ACORN lobby?

Considering how many elections ACORN has helped demcorats steal yeah, they are a dangerous bunch of criminals. But I was talking about people like Franks & Dodd, or the Carter Administration, Moogoo. You know, some of the idiots that gave us this recession? The ones that used the power of government to force lending to bad risk people? Then used Freddie & Fannie to lend that whole scam where banks loaned money to people sure to default, some credibility? Then had to invent a security trading scheme to make the shit loans palatable to wall Street, whom they promptly also blamed for the whole scam. And even more disgusting was the way they defended the house of cards they created, by of all things leveling accusations of racism at anyone daring to point out the scheme was doomed. And then, once the house of cards came tumbling down, destroying our economy and wiping out the lives & fortunes of many, robbed the tax payers blind to bail out the people they forced to do stupid loans. But they didn’t stop there! Oh, no! These bastards demanded that they be the only ones allowed to fix the problem! Of course, that then meant that they setup the most contorted piece of bullshit legislation – which BTW completely ignored the fundamental and underlying problems with their stupid ideology and guarantees we will see a repeat – thus helping set them up to continue stealing more tax payer money for their buddies and fellow elites.

Or do you want to talk about the elites that ignored the people and the fact that they had no clue what they were doing and poured close to a trillion of our dollars – when it is all paid it will be almost a trillion and a half - down the shitter? Well not really. That money lined the pockets of their friends, their lobbyists & donor buddies – like the unions and ACORN – and most importantly, the campaign coffers of the demcorats in the 2010 elections. Can you imagine how2 much worse the left would have gone down in that election if they had not stolen all that money from the American tax payer to help them push their junk around?

Maybe you meant to bring up the elitist scum that straddled us with one of the worst and most costly pieces of legislation in American history, after rigging the rules & lying through their teeth to force the CBO to score the piece of shit as a good deal, in a partisan, one sided vote, so government could control 1/6th to 1/5th of the American economy?

Or was it the scum that keep pretending they mean to help the little people while really helping themselves and their friends – like GE – to our money?

Maybe those are the elite you have ahard time with?

How bizzarre… this makes NO sense.

No Moogoo, nothing is bizarre. You are just too stupid for simple to make sense. That’s the problem.

There is a class war going on and it is clear the wealthy elites are kicking the shit out of the poor and the middle class and THEY own the govenrment and THEY are setting the policy agenda that is making THEM ever more wealthy and powerful while bankrupting the country.

If the wealthy elites screwing the middle class are the demcorats then you got it right. Because nobody has done more damage to the middle class of this country, while pretending to be helping them of all things, than these bastards.

They are so powerful they control minds like yours to defend them and do their bidding. Unless you are extremely wealthy your position is bizzarre.

Says the Marxist moron. Where you looking in a mirror when you spewed that nonsense that applies to you, at others? Heh!

And no, I am not extremely wealthy, but I have worked my ass off to make a very decent living for my family. And the people trying their best to destroy all of that, hold me back, and keep me from becoming as rich as they have made themselves, under the guise of “social justice” or whatever you want to call their crooked wealth redistribution schemes, are your commarades and fellow marxists. The very ones that say that they only want to tax the wealthy, knowing full well that their increases to the income tax never will touch their wealth, the really wealthy have no income to speak off, but will make sure most of the rest of us trying to become wealthy, won’t be able to. And you are either a greedy and jealous asshole that goes along with their lies or a dunce for thinking they give a rats ass about you. Stalin loved isiots like you just like Obama, Reaid and Pelosi do.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 08:58 PM from United States

Cutting spending will in no way fix the econonmy…

Your messiah begs to differ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8&feature;=player_embedded#at=13

You may need to listen to it 3 or 4 times, listen to his words, even he says you are talking out of your ass.

Posted by on 04/15/11 at 09:04 PM from United States

Let’s fix that link

Posted by on 04/16/11 at 09:34 AM from Germany

And you refute me by showing data that shows reciepts dropped by $400 billion over a 10 year period??

Is the $391B reduction in receipts MORE or LESS than the $1026B increase in spending?

I’ll give you a minute…

That’s right!  Spending went up by more than revenues went down.  Therefore my contention that the growth in debt is more attributable (not entirely, but more) to spending increases than revenue reduction.  Never said that reduced receipts weren’t a problem.

Spending did go up over the same period but most of that was Bush’s war spending and Medicare part D and Bush’s stimulus and bailout packages.

Total spending 2000-2008 (Bush) = $21,299.2B

Average spending 2000-2008 = $2662.4B/yr

Total spending 2009-2010 (Obama) = $6238.9B

Average spending 2009-2010 = $3119.45/yr

I’m not sure what else needs to be said about who spends more.

Pure conjecture… inculcation from the talking point makers to the men children…

Every business survey shows poor sales is the big reason for poor investments and market uncertainty is of little significance.

Naturally you have sources for “every business survey"… And why do people invest?  Is it because they think the future will be better or worse?  The fact that you believe that uncertainty about the future is not a factor in investment decisions proves that you are not an investor - or that you would be a bad one.

You are paroting what yoyur handlers and overlords and implanted into you unthinking brain. It’s non-sense typica;l republican scare tactics to motivate its base which is ignorant and scared of their shadows… like men children.

Who - precisely - are my “handlers and overlords”?  Can you provide additional insight without parroting the rhetoric of the left about “corporations” and “Wall Street”?

And I’m sorry, but I’m not scared of my shadows or of the future.  We will outlast you and your philosophy of class warfare and hatred, as we have throughout history.

Posted by on 04/16/11 at 10:02 PM from United States

Is the $391B reduction in receipts MORE or LESS than the $1026B increase in spending? I’ll give you a minute…

Retluocc1

I don’t need a minute… it took me a nano-second to see your .... was it illogic or knowing deception?

The answer is the reduction of receipts is WAY MORE than the increase in outlays. And that reduction in receipts almost totally explains the huge deficits we now have even with the need for increased spending set in motion by the Bush recession.

So for a base line of average receipts and expenses ( outlays) from 1960 to 1999 the average rate of increase in receipts was 3.1% For the same time the average rate of increase in outlays (expenses) was 2.9%.

Had theses averages continued the next 11 years from 2000 to 2010 receipts would have been 2988 ( not 1919) and the expected outlays would have been 2729 ( not 3067).

So receipts dropped by 1069 billion MORE then would be expected while outlays only went up only by 338 billion more than would be expected.

Put another way had receipts kept normal pace they would have been 2988 with expenses of 3067 and a deficit of only 79 billion in 2010.

Again receipts fell off during the Bush year because of his slow economy and his tax cuts.

You are wrong on this mother fucker and I am not gonna let you get away with bullshit lying.

Posted by on 04/16/11 at 10:07 PM from United States

Total spending 2000-2008 (Bush) = $21,299.2B

Average spending 2000-2008 = $2662.4B/yr

Total spending 2009-2010 (Obama) = $6238.9B

Average spending 2009-2010 = $3119.45/yr

I’m not sure what else needs to be said about who spends more.

You are really despicable. Do you really feel OK lying to make your point. Some of the people reading this blog may be dumb asses but I am not one of those.

The year 2000 was CLINTONS budget and the year 2009 was Bushes budget.

Now go back and recalculate you dishonest SOB.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 12:10 AM from United States

Once again, moogoo fails basic math.

Give up and go home you little lying goob....

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/17/11 at 07:07 AM from United States

muirgeo, FY 2009 included the stimulus and lots of Obama spending initiatives as well as the expansion of TARP to the auto-makers.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 07:42 AM from United States

Hal,

Bottom line is it is dishonest to claim that spending increases are the cause of the deficit. The major reason we have a huge deficit is a decrease in receipts from the tax cuts and from the recession.

I will win the debate because unfortunately republicans plans to take this out on the poor, the elderly, the retired and the working class while offering huge tax breaks to billionaires and corporations will end in disaster that eventually will sink into minds like yours as you see your parents basically lose their medical coverage and your kids jobless with diplomas.

Trickle down is BS… it brought us this disaster and more of the same will make things worse.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 08:55 AM from United States

Muirgeo, why did you totally ignore the fact that your own president told you that you are full of shit? Did you even watch the clip?

So tell me, is he:

1)Clueless about all things economic in nature? I realize that everything he has done in this area is anathema to anything sane or rational, but is he wrong when he linked our deficit problem to out of control spending?

2)Just campaigning, telling people what they want to hear bereft of facts and causation? Since Obama the president has repudiated almost everything Obama the candidate stood for, one could say that he doesn’t really believe any of this himself.

But you still can not ignore the simple that that he says you are wrong, chew on that for a moment.

I will win the debate

To tell you the truth, I keep hoping you will eventually win a debate here, it would make the site more interesting to have someone, anyone from your side persuasive and compelling, but I can not remember you ever winning anything here. Maybe you can ask one of your grown up friends at one of those loony prog sites you obviously visit, someone with as bit more understanding of the facts, to come over and try their hand, you unfortunately has been nothing but disappointing in championing the other side.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/17/11 at 10:49 AM from United States

I don’t need a minute… it took me a nano-second to see your .... was it illogic or knowing deception?

That was almost funny Moogoo except that coming from you, whom does the posts all of us experience this with for real, it kind of makes me a little sad for you. Are you just this hardcore brainwashed and immune to reality and facts that you think you are right even when it is blatantly obvious you are not?

Hal,

Bottom line is it is dishonest to claim that spending increases are the cause of the deficit. The major reason we have a huge deficit is a decrease in receipts from the tax cuts and from the recession.

The funny thing Moogoo is that since the tax cuts went live in 2001 government has been taking in a ton more cash than it did before, that is, until the housing collapse we repeatedly pointed out happened because the same people that now tell us the problem isn’t spending, but the fact they are not confiscating the wealth from the productive, occurred. In fact, the tax cuts prevented the economy from plunging into the abyss after the 9-11 attacks, and the threat of them being removed by your Marxist assholes in charge, was the major reason that the economic slump went from really bad to worse.

These deficits you continue to pretend are caused solely because government isn’t confiscating more wealth from the citizens for some reason, didn’t materialize until those doing the spending in said government decided to tack trillions in new spending, not just annually, but for the foreseeable future, and all of it to increase the size of government and the dependant populous that they then believed would keep them in power. Those facts can only be disputed if you are immune to reality. Even Obama has admitted at as richtaylor kindly showed you, but you seem to have ignored.

I will win the debate because unfortunately republicans plans to take this out on the poor, the elderly, the retired and the working class while offering huge tax breaks to billionaires and corporations will end in disaster that eventually will sink into minds like yours as you see your parents basically lose their medical coverage and your kids jobless with diplomas.

How many lies can one pack in one sentence Moogoo? You seem to be going for the record. First off, you can’t win the debate, because you refuse to face reality. Kind of like the morons that refuse to accept the fact we do not have the money to keep spending at the rate they want, even if they were to confiscate all private wealth. The second lie, and it is a whopper, is that republicans are stealing from the poor, the elderly, the retired, and the working class. The system is broke, as everyone but the insane have figured out, and unless it is changed the US economy will collapse, government will collapse, and unless you are one of the ones that believes the living conditions in the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea, and other such bastions of the economic philosophy you preach are great to have, you can not seriously say that the demcorats that are precipitating this and hoping a miracle will save them from their disastrous policies, are on the side of good in this fight.

The third lie is that republicans are the ones stealing from anyone to make the rich richer.
If anything, the last 2 years of example after example of these crooks steering tax payer moneys to their buddies, operatives, lobbyists, and own campaign coffers and whatever else you can clearly see that the demcorats have done for their rich buddies, should disprove anyone but the most insane marxist fool from that notion. In fact, that they have fooled so many into believing that their intent to hike INCOME taxes will be on the rich, and not those actually working hard to become rich and the backbone of the American economy, in a despicable attempt to limit whom gets rich and ten a member of that elite crowd they fancy themselves members off, is a clear sign of how many idiots like you still live despite natural selection.

My parents will not lose their coverage or their wealth – unless your kind just plain abandons the façade of legitimacy and steals it outright or ends up collapsing the economy we have now as they seem hell bent on doing – because they planned to make sure they could afford it in their own age, just like I am. And kids today have such a though time getting jobs because haters like you have corrupted the economy with your toxic Marxist bullshit, all in the pretense of helping the middle class or the poor, while doing the most damage possible to them, to the point that job creators are sitting out this disastrous government in the hopes that things will eventually get back to normal once they are all sent packing in the next election.

But you keep pretending the problem is that government doesn’t have more power and confiscates more of our wealth, and not that the left is moronic when it comes to economic reality.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 12:27 PM from United States

.... but is he wrong when he linked our deficit problem to out of control spending?

Yes he is wrong. He should present the data to the American people just like I presented it to you.

Absolutly we need to cut unnecassary spending. But spending from his or even the Bush administration is not the main factor causing our deficit to balloon.

The economy is in the tank because trickle down is BS and because the money that went for tax cuts is now all sitting in off shore accounts and in corporate holdings rather then circulating through our economy because NO ONE has any money to buy things to get the economy going and to get the wealthy to invest their mney. So the best way to get what money the rest of America does have is to force it out of them with a little good ol fashion oil speculting.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 01:37 PM from United States

The funny thing Moogoo is that since the tax cuts went live in 2001 government has been taking in a ton more cash than it did before, that is, until the housing collapse we repeatedly pointed out happened because the same people that now tell us the problem isn’t spending

What are you talking about you nincoompoop?  That decade had the most anemic growth of any post WW2 decade by a LONG SHOT. And you don’t get to go blamingthings on others when your guy was the president presiding over the crash… man up and take some responsibility for your disasters you low life.

Adjusted for 2005 dollars reciepts were DOWN over the whole year of Bush’s disasterous presidency you lying SOS.

The numbers are right here you liar!

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 01:51 PM from Germany

You are really despicable. Do you really feel OK lying to make your point. Some of the people reading this blog may be dumb asses but I am not one of those.

The year 2000 was CLINTONS budget and the year 2009 was Bushes budget.

Now go back and recalculate you dishonest SOB.

O.K.:

2001-2009 (Bush) Total Spending = $22,430.8B
2001-2009 (Bush) Average Spending = $2492.3B

2010 (Obama) Total Spending = $3066.7B

Last I checked, 3066.7 > 2492.3

What was your point?

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 02:03 PM from Germany

Adjusted for 2005 dollars reciepts were DOWN over the whole year of Bush’s disasterous presidency

You know what, let’s try it this way…

Let’s assume that GDP and tax revenues did not drop after 2000.  In other words, tax receipts would have stayed steady at $2310B/year.  If spending was the same as actual throughout the past decade (2001-2010), we’d have ended up with total receipts of $23,100B and total spending of $25,497.5B which is a $2397.5B deficit for the decade.

Now let’s consider the reverse.  Spending gets frozen at 2000 levels and tax receipts are actual.  We’d have had total receipts of $21,090.3B and total spending of $20,406B which is a $684.3B surplus.

Finally, go back and look at my initial argument, which is that you are wrong in thinking that the problem is the drop in revenue and not the increase in spending.  What I’ve just laid out here is the proof that the increases in spending are far more significant than the reductions in revenue.  In fact, a little more than $4T in debt over the 2001-2010 decade can be attributed to spending increases and revenue reduction.  But the increase in spending alone is very nearly $3T of that.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 03:55 PM from United States

2010 (Obama) Total Spending = $3066.7B
Last I checked, 3066.7 > 2492.3
What was your point?

2009 (Bush) $3172

Last I checked 3172 > 3066

Obama walked into Bush’s disastereous economy with many atuamatic spending increases like those for unemployment.

Again even with Bush’s reckless spending the main reason he added 3+ trillion to the debt was because he cut taxes and shrunk the economy.

I have no idea wft you are talking about in your last post.

Again if receipts were consistent with prior history and we DON’T change the outlay numbers ( those you consider massive increases in spending) the current deficit would be < $100 billion dollars.

Are you disagreeing with my assumption that if reciepts grew from 2001 to 2010 at the pace they did for the prior 40 years they would have totaled 2988… just 78 billion under outlays?

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/17/11 at 07:03 PM from United States

What are you talking about you nincoompoop?  That decade had the most anemic growth of any post WW2 decade by a LONG SHOT.

You are a moron. Let’s look at your own numbers then to prove that. In 2000 the adjusted government take was 2025.2 billion, as Clinton was ridding high on the budgets a republican congress forced on him and the .net bubble was in full force. The bubble bursts in 2000, and then to top that, we get the 9-11 attacks, and that take still only drops to 1991.1 billion, and keeps dropping because of the economic impact of that and tax cuts to 1782.3 in 2003.

Then, when the effects of the tax cuts finally take effects and the economic effects of the 9-11 attacks are put behind us, things turn around. By 2005, with the Bush tax cuts still in full fucking effect, government is taking in 2153.6 billion and the economy is on fire. Bush warns us of the whole lending mess around this same time only to have Barney accuse him of being an evil racist bastard to keep anyone from finding out how his boyfriend whose running Freddie or Fannie is hard at work setting up the stage for one of the worst economic hits in our history. By 2008, with those same evil tax cuts still in full force, the government is now taking in 2,524.0 billion dollars. Then we get the left’s present to our economy, and in one fell swoop, they wipe out half a trillion dollars of income as the economy goes into free fall. And because of the current idiotic fiscal policy and hostile anti-business environment, government’s take remains piss poor.

That’s what the numbers tell us.

And you don’t get to go blamingthings on others when your guy was the president presiding over the crash… man up and take some responsibility for your disasters you low life.

I get to blame the crash on the people that caused it, whether you like it or not. Your idiotic side did that. You can pretend it is Bush all you want, but we all know better.

Adjusted for 2005 dollars reciepts were DOWN over the whole year of Bush’s disasterous presidency you lying SOS.

Down compared to what fool? BTW, look at those adjusted dollars as well as the numbers in current dollars for 2009 & 2012. Pay special attention to the number in the “Receipts” column, and then look at the “Outlays” columns. Since you are also too stupid to do math look at the differences. That big dip in receipts? That’s the crash you idiots caused, coupled with the hostility to the private sector – all the talk about fleecing the productive with higher taxes in case your pea brain can’t figure that out - and current insane spending policies that Pelosi and the left has been on are the reason for that massive jump in “outlays”. Go back and look at the jump in spending, a number which I bet doesn’t include a lot of the real spending that went on under these retards. That’s your demcorats that have been at it since 2009.

The numbers are right here you liar!

What the numbers without fault show, and what happened, seems to disagree with what you want to pretend it was Moogoo. The problem now isn’t reciepts, it is clearly the massive jump in outlays.

BWT, go back and take a look at the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts and what happened. They were just lucky that they didn’t have Franks, Dodd, Pelosi and Reid hell bent on destroying the economy for them.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/17/11 at 07:10 PM from United States

Obama walked into Bush’s disastereous economy with many atuamatic spending increases like those for unemployment.

Let me correct that for you Moogoo, even if it has to be a bit long winded to cover the important facts.

In an epic display of cosmic justice, Obama and the demcorat controlled congress got handed the consequences of 50 years of stupid, unrealisitc, and abysmal fiscal policy, driven more by ideology, than economic reality. After decades of forcing lending instutitions to mae bad loans, several rackets to make these bad loans palatable to the security trading industry, and successfully protecting their racket from all eyes, the house of cards, as everyone that had a glimps inside saw and warned, came crashing down.

Obama and the demcrats then promptly blamed everyone but themselves for this economic collapse. Lucky for the American people, but a short 2 years of watching the demcorats rape the conomy and the country, awakoe all but the most insane people to the facts and the truth.

Sorry to bust your talking point for ya.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/17/11 at 07:18 PM from United States

Are you disagreeing with my assumption that if reciepts grew from 2001 to 2010 at the pace they did for the prior 40 years they would have totaled 2988… just 78 billion under outlays?

Forget the fact that your premise rests on an impossible premise that government has to grow its receipts regardless of whether there is an economy to support that growth, and let us take a look at the growth in outlays over the last 40 years. Do you see a problem there?

The fact that you want to blame tax cuts for the massive debt and want us to agree that government is entitled to expect income to keep growing, because it intends to keep spending growing, proves my point that the issue is the spending. I bet you would tell your credit card company that it’s not your fault that your are tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but that the fault lies with your employer whom wouldn’t just guarantee you annual pay increases regardless of whether the ability to pay for those were there or not.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 07:19 PM from Germany

The answer is the reduction of receipts is WAY MORE than the increase in outlays. And that reduction in receipts almost totally explains the huge deficits we now have even with the need for increased spending set in motion by the Bush recession.

Maximum receipts in my data were in 2000 and were $2310B.  Minimum receipts in my data were in 2009 and were $1898.3B.  That’s a maximum year-to-year reduction of $411.7B in revenue.

Maximum outlays in my data were in 2009 and were $3172.2B.  Minimum outlays in my data were in 2000 and were $2040.6B.  That’s a maximum year-to-year increase of $1131.6B in spending.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that, regardless of who was in office or what policy was in effect, the fact is that spending went up by MORE than revenue went down?

And given that fact, the lion’s share of the deficit from the last decade is due to increases in spending.

I have no idea wft you are talking about in your last post.

What I’m saying is that if we had never spent a penny more each year than we did under the 2000 budget and had suffered the same reduction in revenue that we actually did over the following 10 years, the government would have realized a $684.3B surplus.  And if the government had taken in as much money every year as they did in 2000 (before the “disasterous” tax cuts) but we spent like we actually did over the following 10 years, the government would have accrued $2397.5 in debt.

So for a base line of average receipts and expenses (outlays) from 1960 to 1999 the average rate of increase in receipts was 3.1% For the same time the average rate of increase in outlays (expenses) was 2.9%.

Actually, the average year-to-year changes for that time period were +3.62% receipts and +2.98% revenues, but whatever… What I question are your choices of dates.  Why up 1960 until 1999?  Why not, say, 1965 - beginning of LBJ’s Great Society programs - until 1995 which was the first year in 40+ years that the Democrat party didn’t control congress?  Well gosh, those numbers don’t look so good: average +3.00% growth in receipts and +3.15% growth in outlays.  Now look at the figures from the 1995 budget until the 2006 budget (Democrats out of power).  Averages for those years are +3.29% growth in receipts and +2.44% growth in outlays.

Had theses averages continued the next 11 years from 2000 to 2010 receipts would have been 2988 (not 1919) and the expected outlays would have been 2729 ( not 3067).

So receipts dropped by 1069 billion MORE then would be expected while outlays only went up only by 338 billion more than would be expected.

Ah, Washington accounting… So even if revenue had increased over the last 10 years - but by less than you expected - that would have been a drop in revenue?

But let’s take off the kid gloves and I’ll tell you how these things are (sort of) actually figured and I’ll even use your dates.  If you take a linear trend (which nobody uses because logarithmic and multi-degree polynomials are more predictive but linear is good enough for this) of receipts (GDP%) and outlays (GDP%) from 1960 through 1999, you get these equations:

Receipts - y=0.0747x+18.846 with an R^2 value of 0.2858

Outlays - y=0.025x+17.627 with an R^2 value of 0.1429

Since you apparently can’t do math, that means that the slope of the outlay line is about triple that of the receipt line which means that if you’re using these trendlines for forecasting (and it’s done with trends on actual data, not trends on year-to-year changes) you will get outlays increasing at roughly three times the rate of receipts.  But that’s really not the interesting part; this is: the R^2 values mean that neither of these equations is terrible reliable because the variability of the underlying data it too great to allow accurate predictions.  Which means that you’re agrument about what receipts and outlays “should have been” based on historical values is a gigantic load of bullshit.

Of course, as you no doubt will point out, this is all VERY dependent on what your start and end dates are.  So let’s try looking at 1990-1999 as our baseline.  The equations from this data are:

Receipts - y=0.2648x+17.033 with an R^2 value of 0.8005

Outlays - y=-0.4242x+22.993 with an R^2 value of 0.9504

Note that the slopes of these lines indicate a virtually guaranteed surplus - at least in the short term - and that’s in fact what we had in the last couple of years of the 90s and the first year or so of the 2000s.  Moreover, the R^2 values are very high and indicate a robust basis for forecasting short term future data.

But predictably (pun intended) the forecasts were almost immediately invalidated due to a spike in spending and - yes - a reduction in receipts.  But let’s look more closely.

The equiations for 2000-2010 are:

Receipts - y=-0.3682x+23.282 with an R^2 value of 0.4632

Outlays - y=0.5482x+11.584 with an R^2 value of 0.7144

The swing in slope for receipts was from 0.2648 to -0.3682 which is a change of -0.633.  The swing in slope for outlays was from -0.4242 to 0.5482 which is a change of 0.9724.  So the degree of change in rate of spending was about 50% greater than the degree of change in rate of receipts.

Now where does this leave us?  For the 2000-2010 timeframe:

1) The change in total 2005 dollars collected over the time period was greater on the spending side than the receipt side;
2) The difference in minimum/maximum values in 2005 dollars during the time period changed more on the spending side than the receipt side;
3) The rate of change in spending was greater on the spending side than the receipt side than the receipt side.

Which leads to the obvious conclusions:

Spending has had more to do with the deficit in the last 10 years than revenue reduction.

End. Of. Fucking. Story.

You’re out of your depth on this one son… Why don’t you run off and lick your wounds.  Come back and berate us about being mean to Muslims or gay people or something next week.  Just don’t try to run with the big dogs when it comes to numbers.

Posted by on 04/17/11 at 07:20 PM from Germany

I bet you would tell your credit card company that it’s not your fault that your are tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but that the fault lies with your employer whom wouldn’t just guarantee you annual pay increases regardless of whether the ability to pay for those were there or not.

Thanks Alex, this is perfect.  I had been trying to think of a descriptive analogy to help educate the retard.

Posted by AlexinCT on 04/18/11 at 09:30 AM from United States

You’re out of your depth on this one son… Why don’t you run off and lick your wounds.  Come back and berate us about being mean to Muslims or gay people or something next week.  Just don’t try to run with the big dogs when it comes to numbers.

My fear is that despite the logic, facts, and numbers backing us up on the spending being the problem, that Moogoo’s need for the tax cuts and evil Boosh-Chimpy-McHitler to remain the bad guy will cause him to simply ignore the beatdown you just gave him. It’s not like he hasn’t done this a dozen other times, been schooled every single time, then pretended he still was correct in blaming tax cuts instead of spending for our fiscal woes. Moogoo isn’t much affected by logic and facts when they get in the way of his marxist talking points.

Thanks Alex, this is perfect.  I had been trying to think of a descriptive analogy to help educate the retard.

Heh, after the schooling you gave him with the above post, I bet he simply pretends it didn’t happen and goes right back to blaming Bush for the economic problems lefitst policies caused, and tax cuts for the fact that government isn’t getting enough money to keep the great and ever expanding, out of control expensive nanny state that the powers the left in business.

Posted by on 04/18/11 at 10:09 AM from United States

Don’t be too hard on Muirgeo for whiffing economics, he had a tough time of it last week at his lemonade stand

The kid across the street ate his lunch and did not share in the profits.

Next entry: The Sandy Springs Model

Previous entry: How Budget Cuts Tally

<< Back to main