Did record low taxes lead to a greater deficit?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
On one side of the escalating budget debate is the premise, offered up by a generation of politicians and tax policy wonks since Ronald Reagan, that government spending is dangerously "out of control" and needs to be restrained. Even if the cure means starving the Treasury Department of cash.

One the other side is a promise, dating back to the Great Depression and expanded through Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, to divert a greater share of the nation's hard-earned resources to care for the oldest and most economically vulnerable Americans.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/facing-fiscal-cliff-american-taxpayers-have-had-it-easy-decades-1C7378082?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

I dont have to read further than this, since theres only one cause to our fiscal demise according to his words.
Wheres the spending will send us off that edge? One sided POVs are only half fast

PS
Since the middle and lower classes have it so easy, then why do some politicians lie?
 
PSS
This is sooo bad, it makes my eyes hurt.
What states do other countries have> Whats the federal contributions to states compared to back when, as state taxes have risen, as well as municipalities.

This hole, this left out fact finding again discredits the author
 
That article is an apologetic piece and written in such a way to excuse Congress from doing what is politically unfavorable but morally obligated to bring America back to sound financial footing. It is preparing the tax payer to continue to eat $hit while giving elected official a pass for not following the principle of this republic and generations of Constitutional abuses.

Until the day comes when the government collects enough taxes to pay its bills, it will have to borrow more money.
Click to expand...
This line says it all. If the government is not collecting enough taxes to cover it's bills then the obvious solution is NOT RAISING TAXES TO INCREASE REVENUES or BORROWING MORE MONEY but REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING!

Americans hate paying taxes. They also want Congress and the White House to balance the budget.

They can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
It is our right as Americans to have it both ways! Cut government expenditures to meet the revenues and put any and all surplus towards paying down the debt.

Yes, it is that simple!
 
He cites this to confirm every American having it easy, http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=21699 And everyone I have read or listened to from NBC has denied this is socialism, our current direction, and yet they use it to prove how easy weve had it, all the while, many here and abroad think fair share mindsets, as we all have to pay more.
As Ive said in many a thread, its coming, higher taxes, more costs, an ever growing government "giving" us free things, yet when the bills are to be paid, and its Uncle Sam come a knockin, many will change their tune.
 
The proposal right now is increase tax revenue by 1.6 TRILLION dollars over 10 years and additionally cut spending by $600 BILLION over 10 years. Over 10 years the proposal will save 2.2 TRILLION dollars... 10 years.

The government is currently spending $1.1 TRILLION dollars more per year than revenue.

They're talking about $220 billion dollars in savings a year? You know what.. we'll be having this same debate again in a year when we hit the deficit level again.

Oh wait, they're also talkin gabout a 1.4 TRILLION dollar stimulus again to revive the economy for 2013 and on. There goes all the supposed savings right there........
 
Roughly 2000$ per person per year over 10 years
Now, of course this wont break down this way, but it does give people an idea of the costs on the supposed savings alone, almost triple that for new taxes, and it only slows it
 
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/270649-house-republicans-make-22t-counter-offer-to-obama-in-debt-talksklj

Turns out the Dem's plan for part of their "savings" is ending the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.. which are already going that route. This means they're just pulling the fleece over and not really doing anything different to curb the issue.

The Republican plan is more on par. $800 billion raised from the wealthy by closing loopholes. On top of that a reduction in real spending, not including the two wars since law has already passed on those.. totaling $4.4 trillion over 10 years. $440 billion a year. Twice as much as the Dems have offered.. infact, even more since they used a numbers game to make it appear that they're cutting money when infact they're just not paying for a war (that isn't cutting spending).
 
Exactly.. the ghost math. On paper it is there, in reality it doesn't exist. They're moving numbers around.

If you google Paul Ryan dissect budget, you can get the YouTube video of him ripping apart the budget and how they played with the numbers.
 
How to pay off your debt:

Quit eating out every night and get a second job.

simple economics. However, economics is all theory. No matter what you do, the consequences will never be known until action is taken.
 


Thats the problem doggy republicans refuse to have tax increases on the table. They've even been signing pledges against tax increases, makes coming to a bi-partisan deal kinda hard....
 


Interesting. I guess the $800 billion in new revenue by tax increases (closing loopholes, not a rate increase) doesn't count? Dems put down $1.4 or $1.6 trillion but that was simply by raising the tax rate, not closing loopholes. I bet closing loopholes would generate more money than raising the tax rate. Didn't good old Romney prove that raising the tax rate wouldn't work.. but closing the loopholes would have had him paying more in taxes.

Fact is, Republicans are willing to raise the tax rate..... as long as spending cuts happen. Reality of it is Democrats don't want to cut spending, they just want someone to give them more money.
 
Yes. It will hurt but we will quickly adapt to the immediate spending cuts. Pulling a band-aid off quickly. It'll hurt for a short bit, not long term. Right now, we're avoiding the pain that we need to endure in order to fix things.
 
Okay, so as a college student, how will this affect me?

Would this reduce college tuition and/or reduce financial aid?

I cannot afford to spend 40,000 a year at a 4 year on debt that the bank has on me...with interest at 6-7 percent!
 
When times were good under Clinton, loan rates were 8% and higher.

How does it affect you? You will likely see higher interest rates on your loans, get less government money by loans/grants and have to rely on private loans more. You know, the way I went to college. 😀

If you're spending $40,000 a year at a 4 year school, you're making a mistake. Engineers top out around $120k a year after a long career. Figure you'll be pulling in $75k a year for a while.

Supply/Demand and price point. I bet you can get the same education at a cheaper schoool. Unless you're the best of the best where the School name like Harvard gets you in the door, the education is what matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom