PDA

View Full Version : The Clinton surplus myth has been brutally slain!



LWW
07-23-2010, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth</span></u>
Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.

By BRIAN RIEDL
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer.<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative.</span> Consider the three most persistent myths:

• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." <span style='font-size: 11pt'>That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters,</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels</span>

The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I've analyzed CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits <span style='font-size: 11pt'>(and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).</span>

.The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007. <span style="color: #FF0000">Which just happens to be the last FY before the new regime's bursars ran the budget.</span>

• The next decade's deficits are the result of the previous administration's profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his January State of the Union Address that by the time he took office, "we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

In short, it's all President Bush's fault. But Mr. Obama's assertion fails on three grounds.

First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)


Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.

Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).

There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit up.

• Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 2020—slightly above the historical average. They will continue growing afterwards.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won't remain as stable.</span> Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter.</span>

Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>This will result from Washington taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but spending 6.2% above its historical average.</span>

Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

Mr. Riedl is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...831199046.html </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>DIE MYTH DIE</u></span>

LWW

Stretch
07-23-2010, 10:42 AM
Your link is not available or no longer exists. They must have deleted it before the cooked numbers had a chance to put real fact finders into a state of uncontrolled laughter. Sorry to break it to ya. Did you find this information on the Disney channel? St.

Qtec
07-23-2010, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your link is not available or no longer exists. </div></div>

Probably because its total BS.

Q

eg8r
07-23-2010, 12:06 PM
Come on guys, I mean how hard is it to do a search on the WSJ website to find the correct link?

Link to page no one else was willing to search for because they did not like what it had to say... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704738404575347302831199046.html?K EYWORDS=The+Bush+Tax+Cuts+and+the+Deficit+Myth)

Now how about we start hearing some posts, from those who object, attacking the author's character instead of just the subject?

eg8r &lt;~~~surprised qtip the google queen couldn't find this

pooltchr
07-23-2010, 12:19 PM
Q only knows how to do the google for things that he supports...his fingers freeze on the keyboard if he were to look for something other than the leftist slant.

Steve

LWW
07-23-2010, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your link is not available or no longer exists. They must have deleted it before the cooked numbers had a chance to put real fact finders into a state of uncontrolled laughter. Sorry to break it to ya. Did you find this information on the Disney channel? St. </div></div>

Which of the numbers do you dispute and what evidence do you offer disputing there veracity?

What's that?

You don't actually have a cogent rebuttal?

You never do.

LWW

Stretch
07-23-2010, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your link is not available or no longer exists. They must have deleted it before the cooked numbers had a chance to put real fact finders into a state of uncontrolled laughter. Sorry to break it to ya. Did you find this information on the Disney channel? St. </div></div>

Which of the numbers do you dispute and what evidence do you offer disputing there veracity?

What's that?

You don't actually have a cogent rebuttal?

You never do.

LWW </div></div>

History tells me it would be a waste of mine or anybody elses time to reason with you as your tunnel vision and ego would never grasp even a slam dunk victory. When was the last time your tortured mind admitted it was wrong. Never? i rest my case. Babble on. St.

LWW
07-23-2010, 01:46 PM
History tells us that you can't rebut a single point, but your hyper partisanship won't allow you to admit it.

LWW

cushioncrawler
07-23-2010, 07:59 PM
Dubb -- A long time ago googling revealed that the usofa official deficits and surpluses are komplete bullshit.
Deficits hav every year been much bigger than the official figures. Surplusses (were there any official surplusses), werent surplusses at all.

But this sort of bullshit woz behind every prez -- but praps some worse than others. I think Clinton's real figures were better (ie smaller) ("better" and "smaller" here referring to the Krappynomical outlook, not mine).

The truth iz that usofa iz little different to greece -- official figures are just Greazynomix -- Greazynomix rules.
madMac.

Stretch
07-23-2010, 09:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dubb -- A long time ago googling revealed that the usofa official deficits and surpluses are komplete bullshit.
Deficits hav every year been much bigger than the official figures. Surplusses (were there any official surplusses), werent surplusses at all.

But this sort of bullshit woz behind every prez -- but praps some worse than others. I think Clinton's real figures were better (ie smaller) ("better" and "smaller" here referring to the Krappynomical outlook, not mine).

The truth iz that usofa iz little different to greece -- official figures are just Greazynomix -- Greazynomix rules.
madMac. </div></div>

Mac, Government has a million ways to screw you over. For instance the latest slight of hand up here is to proudly say they will not raise the taxes, which is true, but then they just make it up by adding NEW taxes on things that were formerly exempt. So then they can claim that yes, we didn't raise the tax rate, but the overall result was that you payed more because more was taxed than before. I'm sure if they could they would tax breathing. So you could pay less by breathing less and of course you would not pay anything provided you could quit breathing altogether. Then you would be dead....but still eligable to vote apparently. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

LWW
07-24-2010, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dubb -- A long time ago googling revealed that the usofa official deficits and surpluses are komplete bullshit.
Deficits hav every year been much bigger than the official figures. Surplusses (were there any official surplusses), werent surplusses at all.

But this sort of bullshit woz behind every prez -- but praps some worse than others. I think Clinton's real figures were better (ie smaller) ("better" and "smaller" here referring to the Krappynomical outlook, not mine).

The truth iz that usofa iz little different to greece -- official figures are just Greazynomix -- Greazynomix rules.
madMac. </div></div>

Thanks CC ... I've been saying that all along. The social security system has been plundered by congress for many decades to make deficits appear much smaller.

The myth of the Clinton surpluses rest upon this foundation of lies.

The far left in America has clung desperately to this lie for over a decade now.

LWW

LWW
07-24-2010, 02:57 AM
How's that fact based rebuttal of the author's research coming along?

I'm looking forward to reading it.

LWW

Stretch
07-24-2010, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How's that fact based rebuttal of the author's research coming along?

I'm looking forward to reading it.

LWW </div></div>

At any one time you have like 10 differant topics juggeling at the same time. Before the day is over you will have 10 more. So before you challenge anyuone to disproove any of the topics you cut and paste faster than a nascar driver on Crystal Meth let me put it in perspective for you. I JUST DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!! Haveing said that, seriously, WTF do you expect to hear from me concerning `theories on complicated socio-economic issues, do you want a cut and paste debate on someone elses ideas to counter idea`s you find from other people. Sounds like a huge waste of time to me. I pick what i waste my time on, not you. But nice try, if you want to take victory of stupidity over apathy be my guest. If it`s one thing i`ve learned you will cling to your own misconceptions tighter than a barnacle on a garbage barge anyways so i`m affraid you`ll have to continue your baiting game of endless BS on this topic with someone else. St.

hondo
07-24-2010, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How's that fact based rebuttal of the author's research coming along?

I'm looking forward to reading it.

LWW </div></div>

At any one time you have like 10 differant topics juggeling at the same time. Before the day is over you will have 10 more. So before you challenge anyuone to disproove any of the topics you cut and paste faster than a nascar driver on Crystal Meth let me put it in perspective for you. I JUST DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!! Haveing said that, seriously, WTF do you expect to hear from me concerning `theories on complicated socio-economic issues, do you want a cut and paste debate on someone elses ideas to counter idea`s you find from other people. Sounds like a huge waste of time to me. I pick what i waste my time on, not you. But nice try, if you want to take victory of stupidity over apathy be my guest. If it`s one thing i`ve learned you will cling to your own misconceptions tighter than a barnacle on a garbage barge anyways so i`m affraid you`ll have to continue your baiting game of endless BS on this topic with someone else. St. </div></div>

Excellent post, Stretch.
I usually don't even read his cut and paste jobs.
That's little Stevie's job.

Qtec
07-24-2010, 07:42 AM
OUCH! LOL


Tap Tap Tap.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
07-24-2010, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How's that fact based rebuttal of the author's research coming along?

I'm looking forward to reading it.

LWW </div></div>

At any one time you have like 10 differant topics juggeling at the same time. Before the day is over you will have 10 more. So before you challenge anyuone to disproove any of the topics you cut and paste faster than a nascar driver on Crystal Meth let me put it in perspective for you. I JUST DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!! </div></div>

Yet this is somehow reply #4 by you in this thread?

LWW

LWW
07-24-2010, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Haveing said that, seriously, WTF do you expect to hear from me concerning `theories on complicated socio-economic issues, do you want a cut and paste debate on someone elses ideas to counter idea`s you find from other people. St. </div></div>

Yes they are complex, but what I expect is for you to either live up to your own words and show how the numbers were "COOKED" as you claim:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your link is not available or no longer exists. They must have deleted it before the cooked numbers had a chance to put real fact finders into a state of uncontrolled laughter. Sorry to break it to ya. Did you find this information on the Disney channel? St. </div></div>

or confess that in reality you dismissed the data because it wasn't spoon fed to you by the regime's state ran media.

Is that too much to ask from you stretch?

If you really don't care what I post, that's cool. But you come across as someone who is more concerned about sliming people who actually do try to understand these complex issues.

LWW

hondo
07-24-2010, 01:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How's that fact based rebuttal of the author's research coming along?

I'm looking forward to reading it.

LWW </div></div>

At any one time you have like 10 differant topics juggeling at the same time. Before the day is over you will have 10 more. So before you challenge anyuone to disproove any of the topics you cut and paste faster than a nascar driver on Crystal Meth let me put it in perspective for you. I JUST DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!! </div></div>

Yet this is somehow reply #4 by you in this thread?

LWW </div></div>

True, but it was his best one.
Cut right to the core of the matter.
I wish I had said it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
07-26-2010, 08:40 AM
qtip, now you have the link are you going to comment on it or was that all you had to say?

eg8r