The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit

[Cancel 2016.2]

Uh, no. They increased created a deficit of about $400 billion during a period of economic growth.

No, they did not. Not according to your little chart. The market downturn lasted until 2002. That means capital losses were taken into 2003 and beyond. Gains didn't start in force again until 2004. If the tax cuts were the fuck up you proclaim then what caused the deficit to continue to shrink each year until 2007???

 

[Bonestorm]

1) We have been debating whether there was an actual deficit or not. There was. The money was still spent dung. That is the part you are not comprehending. It is funding a liability. It is an expense that must be paid. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it stupid.

No, we haven't been. You have been. I'm just defending this statement:

Not really. Those were vestiges of Reagan that GHWB got run out of office for trying to correct. It took some time, but Clinton finally managed to get the situation under control just in time for GWB to blow it all up.

And that statement has yet to be refuted (unless you're of the opinion that a deficit of 0.6% of GDP isn't "under control" even including intragovernmental transfers).

2) Again, you ignore the fact that there was an implosion in the tech/telecom/internet bubble that formed under Clinton and burst under Clinton. That a recession and 9/11 occurred right as Bush took office. Are you going to ignore the impact that has on deficits? According to your little charts above, after the recession ended, the deficits started being reduced yet again.

I actually haven't ignored anything. Go read my first post again. And the 2001 recession was extremely mild but we never managed to get out of the deficit hole. According to the data, we were still running $200 billion annual deficits.

3) You continue to ignore that Clinton didn't get anything 'under control' until there was a REP led Congress.

Whatever.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, they did not. Not according to your little chart. The market downturn lasted until 2002. That means capital losses were taken into 2003 and beyond. Gains didn't start in force again until 2004. If the tax cuts were the fuck up you proclaim then what caused the deficit to continue to shrink each year until 2007???

I love how you think you can belittle data by saying "your little chart." That data is the data is the data.

The recession began and ended in 2001. Deficits continues in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. The deficit shrank due to economic growth, but in the absence of the tax cuts, receipts would have been substantially higher.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I love how you think you can belittle data by saying "your little chart." That data is the data is the data.

The recession began and ended in 2001. Deficits continues in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. The deficit shrank due to economic growth, but in the absence of the tax cuts, receipts would have been substantially higher.

I know. He is masterful and manipulating language that way. Of course I suppose all his charts are "big charts". Honestly I don't know how I ever tolerated his bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I love how you think you can belittle data by saying "your little chart." That data is the data is the data.

The recession began and ended in 2001. Deficits continues in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. The deficit shrank due to economic growth, but in the absence of the tax cuts, receipts would have been substantially higher.

As I stated, the market continued in its downturn until the end of 2002. That affects capital gains taxes. Funny how you credit the deficit reduction to economic growth when Bush is President, but ignore the economic growth factor and proclaim that 'Clinton got it under control'. Economic growth was the largest driver of deficit reduction in the late 90's.

Deficits have 'continued' since Ike. They 'continued' every single year under Clinton.

 

[Bonestorm]

As I stated, the market continued in its downturn until the end of 2002. That affects capital gains taxes. Funny how you credit the deficit reduction to economic growth when Bush is President, but ignore the economic growth factor and proclaim that 'Clinton got it under control'. Economic growth was the largest driver of deficit reduction in the late 90's.

I didn't ignore anything. Economic growth and higher tax rates eliminated (or virtually eliminated for the obtuse) deficits. We had lots of growth under Reagan too but we still ran deficits as a percentage of GDP higher than at any time since the end of WWII.

Deficits have 'continued' since Ike. They 'continued' every single year under Clinton.

Clinton got them under control. Then Bush happened.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I didn't ignore anything. Economic growth and higher tax rates eliminated (or virtually eliminated for the obtuse) deficits. We had lots of growth under Reagan too but we still ran deficits as a percentage of GDP higher than at any time since the end of WWII.

Funny, because Clinton also lowered the capital gains taxes... after that, the deficits shrank.

Clinton got them under control. Then Bush happened.

LMAO... Clinton still had them. Then a recession happened along with 9/11. With the market correcting until the end of 2002. But yeah, lets keep ignoring the fact that the tech bubble burst. Ignore the impact on jobs (and thus revenue) that had in addition to the deductions people were able to take due to capital losses. Lets ignore all of that.

Tell us Dung... why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts if they were so bad for the economy? Why doesn't Obama propose putting all the brackets back in place?

 

[Bonestorm]

Funny, because Clinton also lowered the capital gains taxes... after that, the deficits shrank.

Capital gain taxes aren't the only taxes. In fact, capital gains receipts are a small percentage of individual income taxes. Clinton raised taxes on wages for top earners. The increase in wage taxes (largely due to high employment )more than made up for the decrease in the capital gain rate.

LMAO... Clinton still had them. Then a recession happened along with 9/11. With the market correcting until the end of 2002. But yeah, lets keep ignoring the fact that the tech bubble burst. Ignore the impact on jobs (and thus revenue) that had in addition to the deductions people were able to take due to capital losses. Lets ignore all of that.

Clinton's "deficit" under your numbers amounts to a deficit of less than 1% of GDP. That's under control by any measure.

Tell us Dung... why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts if they were so bad for the economy? Why doesn't Obama propose putting all the brackets back in place?

I didn't say they were bad for the economy. I said they were bad for revenues and led to deficits.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Capital gain taxes aren't the only taxes. In fact, capital gains receipts are a small percentage of individual income taxes. Clinton raised taxes on wages for top earners. The increase in wage taxes (largely due to high employment )more than made up for the decrease in the capital gain rate.

I never stated they are the only taxes. For the top earners, ie... the 1%, more of their money comes from capital gains and dividends than from earned income. Or have you already forgotten that Romney's effective tax rate was under 15%? Buffets under 18%? Raising the income brackets isn't going to alter that much.

Clinton's "deficit" under your numbers amounts to a deficit of less than 1% of GDP. That's under control by any measure.

Again... the point is he still had a deficit. Saying he had them under control is simply your way to squirm out of the fact that he didn't have a surplus as you and so many on the left continue to proclaim. Also, they are not MY numbers. They are the nation's debt figures. They are facts. Facts you wish to avoid with subjective phrases like 'he had it under control'. In addition, I have stated numerous times that Clinton, along with Congress, did an admirable job trying to be fiscally responsible. So your stomping of the feet shouting 'he had it under control' is really hilarious.

I didn't say they were bad for the economy. I said they were bad for revenues and led to deficits.

except that you don't know that. You are simply spouting left wing talking points that says higher tax rates = higher revenue. That is not necessarily the case. As lower taxes can lead to more growth which also can lead to higher revenue. the tax cuts did not lead to deficits. The deficits were already there. they were there under Clinton as well. They have been there for over 50 years with a variety of tax codes in place. Tax rates are not the problem. Spending, loopholes and deductions are the problem.

 

[Bonestorm]

I never stated they are the only taxes. For the top earners, ie... the 1%, more of their money comes from capital gains and dividends than from earned income. Or have you already forgotten that Romney's effective tax rate was under 15%? Buffets under 18%? Raising the income brackets isn't going to alter that much.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I was just pointing out that the increases Clinton's increases in the top marginal wage income tax rates more than made up for any decline in revenues from lowering the capital gains rate because we get a lot more income from wage income taxes than capital gains taxes.

Again... the point is he still had a deficit. Saying he had them under control is simply your way to squirm out of the fact that he didn't have a surplus as you and so many on the left continue to proclaim. Also, they are not MY numbers. They are the nation's debt figures. They are facts. Facts you wish to avoid with subjective phrases like 'he had it under control'. In addition, I have stated numerous times that Clinton, along with Congress, did an admirable job trying to be fiscally responsible. So your stomping of the feet shouting 'he had it under control' is really hilarious.

I'm not sure how to respond this. It's just stupid. According to official figures (it would be worse using your numbers, but I don't feel like calculating them). the year before Clinton took office we ran a deficit of 4.7% of GDP and when he left it was 0.6% (using your figure). To pretend that isn't under control is ludicrous.

except that you don't know that. You are simply spouting left wing talking points that says higher tax rates = higher revenue. That is not necessarily the case. As lower taxes can lead to more growth which also can lead to higher revenue. the tax cuts did not lead to deficits. The deficits were already there. they were there under Clinton as well. They have been there for over 50 years with a variety of tax codes in place. Tax rates are not the problem. Spending, loopholes and deductions are the problem.

This is insanity. Lower taxes = lower revenues. That's reality. I know that in Republican fantasy land tax cuts pay for themselves and everyone gets their own pony, but that isn't how it works in the real world.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not sure what your point is here. I was just pointing out that the increases Clinton's increases in the top marginal wage income tax rates more than made up for any decline in revenues from lowering the capital gains rate because we get a lot more income from wage income taxes than capital gains taxes.



I'm not sure how to respond this. It's just stupid. According to official figures (it would be worse using your numbers, but I don't feel like calculating them). the year before Clinton took office we ran a deficit of 4.7% of GDP and when he left it was 0.6% (using your figure). To pretend that isn't under control is ludicrous.

Well obviously you chose to run back to your straw man. I have stated over and over again that Clinton did a good job you dolt. I have not argued that the numbers improved during his second term. My point is that the numbers improved AFTER he had a Rep Congress and AFTER he lowered Cap Gains rates. That he benefited greatly from the tech/telecom/internet bubble and that he also presided over the bubble bursting. A scenario that in turn Bush inherited. Yet you pretend it was the Bush tax cuts that were the problem rather than the bubble bursting. You pretend it was something Clinton did... yet in reality it is CONGRESS that controls the purse string, NOT the President.

This is insanity. Lower taxes = lower revenues. That's reality. I know that in Republican fantasy land tax cuts pay for themselves and everyone gets their own pony, but that isn't how it works in the real world.

there is a balance. Revenues continued increasing despite Clintons tax cuts and despite Bush's. They increased when Kennedy cut them as well as Reagan. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well obviously you chose to run back to your straw man. I have stated over and over again that Clinton did a good job you dolt. I have not argued that the numbers improved during his second term. My point is that the numbers improved AFTER he had a Rep Congress and AFTER he lowered Cap Gains rates. That he benefited greatly from the tech/telecom/internet bubble and that he also presided over the bubble bursting. A scenario that in turn Bush inherited. Yet you pretend it was the Bush tax cuts that were the problem rather than the bubble bursting. You pretend it was something Clinton did... yet in reality it is CONGRESS that controls the purse string, NOT the President.

I used "under control" because I was hopeful that would avoid the argument that you want to have about whether there was an actual surplus or not. I don't care really if there was or not. My initial point still holds true.

there is a balance. Revenues continued increasing despite Clintons tax cuts and despite Bush's. They increased when Kennedy cut them as well as Reagan. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

Revenues will generally increase year to year. On Clinton's tax cuts, his cuts only effected only a small source of revenues, which again, were outstripping by increases from other sources of revenues. When Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenues decrease not only as a percentage of GDP, but in real dollars. In fact, following the Bush tax cuts, revenues fell and we didn't get back to 2000 levels until 2005.

The Republican mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves is total horseshit. That's the same bullshit argument that was trotted out in 2000 and look where that got us.

 

[dixon76710]

LOL. Here's a chart:

You just provided the evidence that proves you wrong. No surplus, only deficit.

 

[Bonestorm]

You just provided the evidence that proves you wrong. No surplus, only deficit.

Uh, no. 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 are all in positive territory. That means surplus.

 

[dixon76710]

The federal government deficit, far from being the cause of the lackluster economy, was actually a result of it. In 2007, the deficit was a manageable 1.7% of GDP. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast deficits of between 0.7% and 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011 and surpluses for the seven following years through 2018.

2012 deficit was 7.3% of GDP. Projections of a surplus in 2012, from 2008, are meaningless, other than to show how wrong your and the articles assertions are.

 

[dixon76710]

Uh, no. 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 are all in positive territory. That means surplus.

My bad, misread the chart. That would appear to exclude what we borrow from the SS trust fund. It doesnt include all the public debt. When SS collects a surplus over what is needed to pay benefits, the federal government borrrows that surplus and counts it as if it wasnt debt. Regardless, had little to nothing to do with Clnton, other than the fact he was as conservative as a democrat can be. Things like welfare reform were implemented by a Republican Congress, vetoed by Clinton before he finally accepted it.A Balanced budget requirement, tax cuts for small businesses, families and seniors, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform, were all a part of the Republicans Contract with America.

 

[Damocles]

Clinton didn't add to the deficit. He erased it. On-budget or off-budget, doesn't matter how you look at it. He erased the deficit. You can't change the facts, SF.

And Clinton used the funds from the intragovernmental transfers to aggressively pay down the debt held by the public, which is the smart, sensible and responsible thing to do. What's wrong with that?

LOL. With the help of Newt who controlled the purse strings... The President doesn't hold the purse strings, even if you really want it to be so.

And no, we didn't erase it. We borrowed money each of those years to pay interest on our debt. Less than in a long time, but no surplus was ever realized, no debt was ever paid, not since Eisenhower. And when you borrow money to pay for things it isn't a surplus no matter how many times somebody lies and tells you it is. Clinton worked well with Congress, too bad Obama can't follow that example.

I'd agree to go back to Clinton era tax rates if we also went back to Clinton era spending levels. That would be a compromise worth taking...

During Clinton's term we also came the closest to a Balanced Budget Amendment than we had ever been. One vote.. . Just one.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL. With the help of Newt who controlled the purse strings... The President doesn't hold the purse strings, even if you really want it to be so.

And no, we didn't erase it. We borrowed money each of those years to pay interest on our debt. Less than in a long time, but no surplus was ever realized, no debt was ever paid, not since Eisenhower. And when you borrow money to pay for things it isn't a surplus no matter how many times somebody lies and tells you it is. Clinton worked well with Congress, too bad Obama can't follow that example.

I'd agree to go back to Clinton era tax rates if we also went back to Clinton era spending levels. That would be a compromise worth taking...

During Clinton's term we also came the closest to a Balanced Budget Amendment than we had ever been. One vote.. . Just one.

Link Damo?

The facts:

Clinton delivered four consecutive surplus budgets for the first time in more than seven decades.

During those four fiscal years, the debt held by the public dropped by nearly $453 billion.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Link Damo?

The facts:

Clinton delivered four consecutive surplus budgets for the first time in more than seven decades.

During those four fiscal years, the debt held by the public dropped by nearly $453 billion.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

For the 1000th time... debt held by the public is not the total debt of the United States. Medicare and Social Security are massive liabilities. The money raised via taxes funds the future liabilities. If that money is used for other purposes, you cannot pretend that debt doesn't matter. It is the TOTAL national debt that matters. Not just 'debt held by the public'.

 

[Bonestorm]

For the 1000th time... debt held by the public is not the total debt of the United States. Medicare and Social Security are massive liabilities. The money raised via taxes funds the future liabilities. If that money is used for other purposes, you cannot pretend that debt doesn't matter. It is the TOTAL national debt that matters. Not just 'debt held by the public'.

But, the money "raised" from the intragovernmental transfers was used to pay down the debt held by the public. You can make a plausible argument that such funds should be put in, I don't know, a "lockbox" to fund those future obligations, but it isn't irresponsible to use to that money to pay down the debt held by the public, which is what Clinton opted to do.