Nancy Pelosi's First 100 Hours

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, tax revenues are way up. It’s the reason the Budget deficit is close to half, of what it was projected to be. The tax revenues aren’t a problem. In fact, they’re damn good. Now if we could only cut some of these wealth distribution programs…[/quote]

Not to mention congress appropriating cash for building bridges to nowhere.

Revenue is only half of the equation - and the republicans are every bit the whores that the dems are when it comes to spending my money on bullshit.

42

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Not to mention congress appropriating cash for building bridges to nowhere.

Revenue is only half of the equation - and the republicans are every bit the whores that the dems are when it comes to spending my money on bullshit. [/quote]

Exactly. That’s why I laugh when someone says I’m “towing the party line.” I dislike the republicans less than I dislike the democrat party. Nothing more than that. I’m basically a libertarian on fiscal issues. And somewhat libertarian socially.

The only benifit I see to voting for the present republican party, is to grow the size of the federal government slower than the dems. After all, they damn sure haven’t been fiscally conservative.

43

[quote]harris447 wrote:
If we lower taxes, revenue increases?

The, if taxes were reduced to nothing, then revenue would be infinite?

No. That would be stupid.

Like this whole “when taxes lower, revenue increases” bullshit that your hero Hannity pushes like old lasies down steps, but has ben refuted innumerable times.[/quote]

Actually, tax cuts equating larger revenues is quite true, and is evident in the federal revenues being up right now as a result of tax cuts. I’m not sure what the numbers are right now and will try to get them, but they are up.

But, common sense dictates that, like many thing, there is a point of diminishing returns. Just like you can’t tax nation into prosperity, certain services need to be funded. I guess like so many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The only benifit I see to voting for the present republican party, is to grow the size of the federal government slower than the dems. After all, they damn sure haven’t been fiscally conservative.[/quote]

This is a very good point. I read a book once that stated the very same thing, backed up by figures. The GOP leadership, over the years, has only inreased the size and scope of the federal government at a slower rate than the Dems.

The Bush administration certainly has allowed the federal government to grow and spend prodigiously. This should sadden all conservatives.

That more prominent GOP leaders aren’t shocked by this is discouraging to say the least.

45

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
That more prominent GOP leaders aren’t shocked by this is discouraging to say the least.
[/quote]

What bothers me is that that most of those that signed on for the Contract With America back in 1994 are still in office. And they are now the fat cats that light their cigars with my $100 bills.

They seem to have forgotten what they were sen to Washington to do.

This is precisely why I think we need a democrat president - to keep the right in check. It has been demonstrated that the republicans are incapable of running the country while holding 2 of the three branches of gov’t.

46

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
That more prominent GOP leaders aren’t shocked by this is discouraging to say the least.

What bothers me is that that most of those that signed on for the Contract With America back in 1994 are still in office. And they are now the fat cats that light their cigars with my $100 bills.

They seem to have forgotten what they were sen to Washington to do.

This is precisely why I think we need a democrat president - to keep the right in check. It has been demonstrated that the republicans are incapable of running the country while holding 2 of the three branches of gov’t.

[/quote]

A JFK type democrat.

47

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, tax revenues are way up. It’s the reason the Budget deficit is close to half, of what it was projected to be. The tax revenues aren’t a problem. In fact, they’re damn good. Now if we could only cut some of these wealth distribution programs…[/quote]
Still debunked…check the OMB!
Way up…from what? The previous 4 years of low revenue. Congrats to returning them to pre-recession levels in 5 years. If you’d check with the OMB (Bush’s OMB) you’d see tax revenues are still not paying for taxcuts and the future still bleak—budget wise.

By the way the deficit is actually closer to double what you stated in that reductions from S.S. and government retirement plans have to be paid back…not good.

48

[quote]Sloth wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Not to mention congress appropriating cash for building bridges to nowhere.

Revenue is only half of the equation - and the republicans are every bit the whores that the dems are when it comes to spending my money on bullshit.

Exactly. That’s why I laugh when someone says I’m “towing the party line.” I dislike the republicans less than I dislike the democrat party. Nothing more than that. I’m basically a libertarian on fiscal issues. And somewhat libertarian socially.

The only benifit I see to voting for the present republican party, is to grow the size of the federal government slower than the dems. After all, they damn sure haven’t been fiscally conservative.

[/quote]
Well, that’s unforunated because on average Republicans grow the size of government much more than Democrats.

Total Federal Spending

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.31%, 4.20%, 6.48% and a reduction of 0.25% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 4.94%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.79%, 17.05%, 13.13% and 3.09%, respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 9.27%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 6.54%, 7.42%, 9.76%, 6.51%, 9.67%, 23.38%, 11.87% and 10.07%, respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 11.73%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the growth rate of total federal spending was 12.10%, 9.87%, 17.24% and 14.77%. Those four years average a growth rate of 13.50%

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.58%, 5.68%, 4.32% and 2.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 5.40%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%

Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 7.57%

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 6.96%.

Next, we look at the growth of non-defense Federal spending.

Growth of Non-Defense Federal Spending

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the percentage growth of Federal non-defense spending was 13.20%, 6.31%, 10.11%, and 6.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 8.91%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.04%, 12.60%, 11.81% and 5.13% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 10.65%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 12.67%, 15.22%, 15.38%, 11.60%, 12.38%, 29.37%, 14.79% and 10.56% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 15.24%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.55%, 9.44%, 17.87% and 13.96% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 13.70%.

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.

Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.

So there goes your benefit.

And since Democrats historically beat Republicans on every single economic issue, from growth to jobs…really there is no benefit.

Welcome sloth to the democratic party! good to have you.

49

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The only benifit I see to voting for the present republican party, is to grow the size of the federal government slower than the dems. After all, they damn sure haven’t been fiscally conservative.

This is a very good point. I read a book once that stated the very same thing, backed up by figures. The GOP leadership, over the years, has only inreased the size and scope of the federal government at a slower rate than the Dems.
[/quote]
Nope. Debunked.

50

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The only benifit I see to voting for the present republican party, is to grow the size of the federal government slower than the dems. After all, they damn sure haven’t been fiscally conservative.

This is a very good point. I read a book once that stated the very same thing, backed up by figures. The GOP leadership, over the years, has only inreased the size and scope of the federal government at a slower rate than the Dems.

Nope. Debunked.

[/quote]

Umm, keep up here. This is going to be tough for you to understand. Clinton had a Republican congress underneath him. One that shoved a balanced budget bill down his throat, shoved welfare reform down his throat, shut down the Universal Health care (think of the costs there)plan, etc…Before that you had Democrat congresses writing budgets. Interesting how the smallest growth came under the Contract for American congress…

51

Budget Deficit Drops to $250 Billion, CBO Says
"In its monthly budget review, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that for fiscal 2006, which ended Sept. 30, the federal government had a deficit of $250 billion, well below the $318 billion recorded for the previous year. A month earlier, CBO had said it anticipated a $260 billion deficit for fiscal 2006. The official tally is expected to be released next week by the Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget.

CBO said it estimates the government ran a surplus of $54 billion in September, a month in which the government usually is in the black because of quarterly tax payments. That would be $18 million more than the surplus in September 2005"

Two years running. Deficit cutting through tax cutting! Get the spending under control!

52

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, tax revenues are way up. It’s the reason the Budget deficit is close to half, of what it was projected to be. The tax revenues aren’t a problem. In fact, they’re damn good. Now if we could only cut some of these wealth distribution programs…
Still debunked…check the OMB!
Way up…from what? The previous 4 years of low revenue. Congrats to returning them to pre-recession levels in 5 years. If you’d check with the OMB (Bush’s OMB) you’d see tax revenues are still not paying for taxcuts and the future still bleak—budget wise.

By the way the deficit is actually closer to double what you stated in that reductions from S.S. and government retirement plans have to be paid back…not good.
[/quote]

Actually, the tax revenues are some of the highest in history. But, thanks for trying.

Umm, I bet you counted SS and government retirement plans under Clinton’s stewarship. Right?
No, the tax revenues are actually paying for the tax cuts. In fact, the deficit is shrinking. Now it’s time to cut all these bloated social programs.

53

A graph of tax revenues since the 2003 act. Just get spending under control.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A graph of tax revenues since the 2003 act. Just get spending under control.

[/quote]

Terrific post, absolutely.

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A graph of tax revenues since the 2003 act. Just get spending under control.

[/quote]
Well, as you can see not great. Revenues are up because the admin chooses to compare them to 2004 levels (after 3 straight drops) where measured as a share of the economy, revenues were at their lowest level since the 50’s?(oops 1959). With such a low, low, low ,low bar anything looks good.(Hilarious–your bragging!)

or as the cbpp puts it:

“Measured since the current business cycle began, however (in March 2001, shortly before enactment of the President?s first tax cuts), total per capita revenue growth has been near zero after adjusting for inflation and population growth, even after taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for 2006 (see Table 1). Based on OMB?s revised revenue estimate, real per-capita revenues in 2006 still will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue ?surge? is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago. And in the case of individual income tax revenues, real per-capita revenues are 11 percent below where they were at that time.”

at the cost of 1 trillion dollars of revenue in the past 5 years!

Yeaaaa!!! We’re finally back to where we were 5 f–king years ago! And only blew 1 trillion to do it! Hip hip hooray!

56

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A graph of tax revenues since the 2003 act. Just get spending under control.

Terrific post, absolutely.

[/quote]
yeah terrific. well more like lackluster. or considering the cost in revenues to get this tiny gain over 2000-- 6 years later, downright depressing.

57


Yup, 2001-2003 saw a decline in tax revenues. That’s factored into your chart. Of course, we saw a recession in that period excacerbated by the impact 9/11 had on our economy. Make no mistake, 9/11 had a temporary, but large impact. And no, it wasn’t a “Bush recession.” GDP had already shrank in 3 consectutive quarters.

I’d also point out that your graph is comparing hard historical data to projeccted estimates. Well, as I’ve pointed out, for two years running tax revenues and debt shrinkage have exceeded the projections by a hefty margin. I’d say your graph is rather flawed for anything remotely like as side by side comparison.

Revenues are doing just fine. Cut the size of government and return individual fiscal freedom and responsibility back to the people.

I did notice, however, that your graph shows a higher economic growth rate under Bush.

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yup, 2001-2003 saw a decline in tax revenues. That’s factored into your chart. Of course, we saw a recession in that period excacerbated by the impact 9/11 had on our economy. Make no mistake, 9/11 had a temporary, but large impact. And no, it wasn’t a “Bush recession.” GDP had already shrank in 3 consectutive quarters.

I’d also point out that your graph is comparing hard historical data to projeccted estimates. Well, as I’ve pointed out, for two years running tax revenues and debt shrinkage have exceeded the projections by a hefty margin. I’d say your graph is rather flawed for anything remotely like as side by side comparison.

Revenues are doing just fine. Cut the size of government and return individual fiscal freedom and responsibility back to the people.

I did notice, however, that your graph shows a higher economic growth rate under Bush.[/quote]

Another good post Sloth, but your facts and figures will be lost on 100m I’m afraid.

Oh well. You can’t help everyone :-]

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
That more prominent GOP leaders aren’t shocked by this is discouraging to say the least.

What bothers me is that that most of those that signed on for the Contract With America back in 1994 are still in office. And they are now the fat cats that light their cigars with my $100 bills.

They seem to have forgotten what they were sen to Washington to do.

This is precisely why I think we need a democrat president - to keep the right in check. It has been demonstrated that the republicans are incapable of running the country while holding 2 of the three branches of gov’t.

[/quote]

Yes. I was an ardent Republican when they actually said they were going to do those things, like the Contract. I think they got scared of voter backlash if they actually followed through, not realizing that that’s why in hell we voted for 'em in the first place. They’re now competing with the Dems in ‘Me-too’ -ism, as far as spending is concerned.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yup, 2001-2003 saw a decline in tax revenues. That’s factored into your chart. Of course, we saw a recession in that period excacerbated by the impact 9/11 had on our economy. Make no mistake, 9/11 had a temporary, but large impact. And no, it wasn’t a “Bush recession.” GDP had already shrank in 3 consectutive quarters.

I’d also point out that your graph is comparing hard historical data to projeccted estimates. Well, as I’ve pointed out, for two years running tax revenues and debt shrinkage have exceeded the projections by a hefty margin. I’d say your graph is rather flawed for anything remotely like as side by side comparison.

Revenues are doing just fine. Cut the size of government and return individual fiscal freedom and responsibility back to the people.

I did notice, however, that your graph shows a higher economic growth rate under Bush.[/quote]

So you’re agreeing that revenues, even now are nothing to brag about, which was my point? And in light of the cost of the tax cuts (1 trillion plus 850 billion in further costs(interest))plus their cost to our foreign policy, really, really, really not worth it.

So yeah roll back the tax cuts to the 2000(appropriate) levels, fix the budget, then readjust levels–you know that whole common-sense thing–