So we hit the debt limit...

[Martinus]

There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.

But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"

At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.

Do you really think Tea Baggers can be characterized as "fiscal conservatives" as opposed to "fiscal ignoramuses"?

[Martinus]

Why aren't I surprised that you're making shit up about what I'm saying and what I'm thinking?  The graph looks exactly like the graph I posted for the common period, which is the graph of federal revenues as percentage of GDP, so why I exactly should I question it?  I know exactly what it is graphing.  It's valid to question graphs without titles and labels, but it's not obligatory if you already know the answer.

It's especially funny considering I posted the graph with "I found this" immediately after my post in which I asked for a graph like the one you posted, but showing tax revenue instead of expenses. I wonder if Berkut can get ever more transparent with being deliberately obtuse.

[Cecil]

So could anyone be so kind and give me a rundown on this cut cap and balance amendment the teabaggers are suggesting? And does it mean that the federal government will be banned to ever run a deficit even during individual years?

[Admiral Yi]

So could anyone be so kind and give me a rundown on this cut cap and balance amendment the teabaggers are suggesting? And does it mean that the federal government will be banned to ever run a deficit even during individual years?

My understanding is it could be overridden by a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers.

[crazy canuck]

I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics.  Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system.  Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means.  I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible.  Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?

[Razgovory]

Berkut's just shit flinging again.  And projecting, quite a bit as well.  Dguller's a numbers guy, I'm going to have side with him on this.  I don't understand statistics very well.

[MadImmortalMan]

Eliminate some of the tax loop holes while bringing the tax rate down. As it is now many corps pay much less than the highest tax bracket due to taking advantage of tax breaks, and something like 30% or more corps pay no taxes.

I'll repeat a post I did on the other forum about this. I don't know what the data suggests specifically, but it's a bit interesting.


On the revenue side of things, here is a post on CR about it:




A couple of things stand out, looking at the linked data (except CBO, their site is still down :p ).

First of all, corporate tax receipts dropped over the same period way faster than corporate tax rates dropped. I think that's all the deductions and loopholes growing over the period in question. Almost all of the decline in receipts happened in the period of years before the significant rate reductions took place. These rates bottomed out during the Clinton Administration. There seems to be very little correlation between the actual rates and the receipts during the period, as the top marginal corporate income tax rate stayed between 45 and 55% all the way up to 1987.

Second, personal income tax seems to be primarily driven by economic factors and not by tax rate. The top marginal rate in this category was in the 80 to 94% range until 1963 (Kennedy lowered it), 70% until 1981, and dropped to 50% and then 35% where it is presently. Yet receipts don't match the rate changes here either. I suspect it would be more closely tied to a chart of the unemployment rate, or especially in later years, a chart of the Dow Jones. That suggests that tax receipts are more dependent on job creation than they are tax rates.

The purple line SSA/Medicare receipts seem somewhat more straightforward. The rates for those taxes has steadily increased over the years and so have the receipts. There are very few tax credits or exemptions for them.

[Admiral Yi]

I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics.  Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system.  Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means.  I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible.  Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?

Bernie Saunders I believe is a self-proclaimed Socialist, although he sought election as an independent.

I think in order to answer your question it would be helpful to know first what an actual socialist is.  The US has semi-socialized pensions, socialized elementary and secondary education, semi-socialized health care, and semi-socialized higher education.  Is the US socialist?  Is Canada?

[MadImmortalMan]

Reid: "Cautiously optimistic".

McConnell: "We're very close to a deal".


Hurry up fuckers. Overseas markets open really soon.

[Martinus]

I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics.  Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system.  Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means.  I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible.  Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?

Bernie Saunders I believe is a self-proclaimed Socialist, although he sought election as an independent.

I think in order to answer your question it would be helpful to know first what an actual socialist is.  The US has semi-socialized pensions, socialized elementary and secondary education, semi-socialized health care, and semi-socialized higher education.  Is the US socialist?  Is Canada?

Having socialized this or that does not make you a socialist.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. I don't believe any modern Western country is socialist.

Poland, pre-1989 was socialist. Cuba is socialist. Chavez's Venezuela may be socialist (I don't know enough about it).

The main practical difference between socialism and communism is that socialism takes a much more lax view towards private property, including private ownership of small businesses or farms and the like.

[DGuller]

Meh, we are back to the basic old DG-Berkut argument. You are a True Believer in the rightness of your clan, and anyone who does not believe as you must be stupid or deluded.

And you are someone who drinks half the conservative kool-aid, and declares yourself to be a rational moderate.  After all, Republicans drink all the conservative kool-aid, Democrats drink none of it, therefore the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.

[DGuller]

Who are you arguing with? What is funny is that your data and your analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that right now the federal government is consuming the greatest proportion of the GDP than it has ever since WW2, and you posted that in an effort to refute the basic claim that the feds are kind of spending a shitload of money, and this is valid cause for concern.

I posted it in an effort to refute the basic claim that federal spending has been constantly growing over the last few decades (as opposed to the last few years).  You know, I've repeated it so many times, only for you to come back to yet again repeat the argument you made retroactively, that I'm not willing to give you a benefit of the doubt anymore that we're just talking past each other.

Your problem is that you like to pretend that your "valid analysis" says things it does not, then call other people liars when they point that out. What is sad is that we do in fact know that you are smart enough to failry evaluate data, and yet choose to present it in in an inaccurate manner anyway.

Good, calling me dishonest, we all knew it was just a matter of time.  Ironic that it comes from a guy who retroactively changed his argument from saying that spending has been always growing over the last several decades, to saying that in the last few years we're spending a lot, and pretending that my original graph was addressing the latter point.  I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to conclude which one of us has been more forthright here.

[Admiral Yi]

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

Then the answer to Crazy's question is no, there are no socialists of importance in the US.

But it also defangs the counterargument to the accusers of Socialism that the US is already socialist.

[The Brain]

Milwaukee was the first city in America to elect a Socialist mayor.

[CountDeMoney]

You know, I said a long while back, right here on Languish, that the Tea Party's position on the debt and spending was ridiculous in the particular, but in fact reflected a very valid and rational position. Namely, that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades, and they want it to stop. holding the economy hostage is a poor way of doing that perhaps, but on the other hand, it's not like anything else has worked.

Hitler liked dogs and children, so he really wasn't that bad of a guy.

No matter who is in charge over the last couple decades, the mantra from Washington is SPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPEND and then spend some fucking more.

The economy is doing great! Awesome, we can spend more cash!

Holy shit, the economy has gone into the shitter! Whatever shall we do? The answer is: SPEND SOME MORE!

If things are good, we should spend, but if things get bad, why, we have to quit fucking around and REALLY SPEND!

Feel better now?