Debt Limit Bottom Line

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Neither the Dems nor the GOP can make credible claim of hypocrisy on the debt. As I say, at this point, we sort of are where we are and finger pointing just slows down the process of reform.
Click to expand...

I agree and think that's were this article misses the point. It conveys a message that being fiscally conservative now is not important to our country's interests.
 
#27
#27
volinbham said:
I agree and think that's were this article misses the point. It conveys a message that being fiscally conservative now is not important to our country's interests.
Click to expand...


People are competitive. Politicians even more so. They feel like if they can point to a vote you made 7 years ago that is not 100 % consistent with what you are saying now, then by definition both your vote then and what you say now is void.

It doesn't work that way.

I can blather on about GOP sponsored spending or tax cuts as causing some portion of the deficit. You can point to Obama voting against raising the debt ceiling.

Got to get over ourselves and come up with a solution both sides can live with (and take credit for).
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
Raising the limit isn't about new spending. It does not authorize new spending.

It authorizes incurring debt to make interest payments on spending which already occurred.

There is a superficial appeal to tying the two together in concept, but that is more political than accurate.
Click to expand...

While I see where you're going with the part in bold I didn't say "new spending" in my post. If you have to authorize more debt to cover "incurring debt to make interest payments on spending which already occurred." then you are by God still spending too much money beyond your means elsewhere right here/right now.
 
#29
#29
hndog609 said:
While I see where you're going with the part in bold I didn't say "new spending" in my post. If you have to authorize more debt to cover "incurring debt to make interest payments on spending which already occurred." then you are by God still spending too much money beyond your means elsewhere right here/right now.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with you. But I believe the increase sought is $2.5 trillion.

Do you think the two parties are going to come up with a way to cover that without financing it? I don't.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree with you. But I believe the increase sought is $2.5 trillion.

Do you think the two parties are going to come up with a way to cover that without financing it? I don't.
Click to expand...

LOL! If it's simply a question of that then no, I don't see that happening either.
 
#31
#31
utvolpj said:
how is not raising taxes a tax cut?
Click to expand...

I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm not following you. 2000 levels were at X. 2001 breaks temporarily lowered them to Y and were set to expire. If allowed to expire they would have returned to X. Are you calling the return to original levels an increase?
 
#32
#32
CSVol said:
I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm not following you. 2000 levels were at X. 2001 breaks temporarily lowered them to Y and were set to expire. If allowed to expire they would have returned to X. Are you calling the return to original levels an increase?
Click to expand...

up from current levels = tax increase
down from current levels = tax cut
keeping them the same = no credit for either
 
#33
#33
CSVol said:
I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm not following you. 2000 levels were at X. 2001 breaks temporarily lowered them to Y and were set to expire. If allowed to expire they would have returned to X. Are you calling the return to original levels an increase?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is what he is doing. In absolute terms, that is accurate. In the context of the original cuts, it is not accurate. This is something always described in politically informed terms.
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
up from current levels = tax increase
down from current levels = tax cut
keeping them the same = no credit for either
Click to expand...

This would apply if the 2001 breaks had not specifically been termed temporary. There was an expiration date that should have been kept in light of the current budget situation. I don't like taxes anymore than anyone but expiration would have been the fiscally resposible thing to do IMO.
 
#35
#35
CSVol said:
I don't like taxes anymore than anyone but expiration would have been the fiscally resposible thing to do IMO.
Click to expand...

and why is that? It would have negatively affected every person paying taxes and would have killed even the modest recovery we have now. The less they spend the less they need.
 
#36
#36
tax revenues are not the problem. Its the spending.

US Treasury is bringing in $155 Billion per month. If we cant run a government on $155 Billion per month, then we have issues.
 
#37
#37
VolsNSkinsFan said:
tax revenues are not the problem. Its the spending.

US Treasury is bringing in $155 Billion per month. If we cant run a government on $155 Billion per month, then we have issues.
Click to expand...

If we want to talk about spending, we have to talk about the military (and foreign policy) at some point early in the conversation. Yet, that doesn't seem to happen.
 
#39
#39
I think this table is pretty telling - it shows revenues and spending. If you notice the revenue column, there is a drop associated with the tax cuts in question but it quickly recovers.

Then look at the spending side - it constantly increases and explodes over the last few years.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
 
#40
#40
utvolpj said:
and why is that? It would have negatively affected every person paying taxes and would have killed even the modest recovery we have now. The less they spend the less they need.
Click to expand...

Well they didn't expire so I guess that's a moot point. Do you think we'd be in a better situation (deficit wise) if people were still paying the rates they were accustomed to prior to the breaks?
 
#41
#41
CSVol said:
Well they didn't expire so I guess that's a moot point. Do you think we'd be in a better situation (deficit wise) if people were still paying the rates they were accustomed to prior to the breaks?
Click to expand...

no. the best way to increase tax receipts is job growth, not taxes.
 
#43
#43
CSVol said:
Well they didn't expire so I guess that's a moot point. Do you think we'd be in a better situation (deficit wise) if people were still paying the rates they were accustomed to prior to the breaks?
Click to expand...

absolutely not. Point out who would be better off in this scenario (please only include those who actually pay taxes):

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Click to expand...
 
#45
#45
utvolpj said:
absolutely not. Point out who would be better off in this scenario (please only include those who actually pay taxes):
Click to expand...

I meant "we" as a nation, not individuals, when referring to the National Debt. What was the long term rationale for the original breaks and do you think they achieved it?
 
#47
#47
CSVol said:
Did the breaks achieve this?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell for sure since we don't have the control experiment for the comparison.

However, if you look at the revenue from the link I posted on the previous page you can see that revenues were quite high a couple years after the tax breaks (lower immediately after).

Now the trillion dollar question is what would those revenues have been without the tax breaks?
 
#48
#48
The tax breaks saved or created thousands of jobs.

Without them, job loss would have been much worse.

:)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top