Dems health care plans too costly - Page 5

Rebellion · #41 (**permalink**) 10-27-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

How so?

.....

You said (as a criticism) that the R method was to add debt. Then followed it up with the statement that every President before and after has done the same thing. Including dem Presidents. That would render the criticism of R's moot because dems have done the same.

Iriemon · #42 (**permalink**) 10-27-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

You said (as a criticism) that the R method was to add debt. Then followed it up with the statement that every President before and after has done the same thing. Including dem Presidents. That would render the criticism of R's moot because dems have done the same.

The difference is that why Republican policies greatly expanded the deficits and debt, Clinton inherited a record deficit and the Dems passed a tax increase and policies that worked the deficits down into a surplus. But the debt continued to increase during that time (though the total debt decreased about $100 billion in 2000).

Jollee · #43 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onalandline

Senator Reid has this new idea of States being able to "opt-out" of the plan by a certain date. I would like to see what the details are regarding this provision. Will they fine the States if they opt-out? Will the states be denied federal funds if they opt-out? They should make it the other way. The states should be able to "opt-in". Better yet - no costly Public Option.

I have a feeling that they will still be required to pay for the Public option but they can opt out.... Which means that tax payers would still be responsible for the bill when the system needs for revenue....

onalandline · #44 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jollee

I have a feeling that they will still be required to pay for the Public option but they can opt out.... Which means that tax payers would still be responsible for the bill when the system needs for revenue....

It wouldn't surprise me - don't trust those politicians.

Rebellion · #45 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

The difference is that why Republican policies greatly expanded the deficits and debt, Clinton inherited a record deficit and the Dems passed a tax increase and policies that worked the deficits down into a surplus. But the debt continued to increase during that time (though the total debt decreased about $100 billion in 2000).

Which is somewhat akin to you being broke and spending $2,000 on a new tv and complaining when your wife spends $3,000 on a fur coat. Assuming that I agree with your assessment, which I do not. Deficits didn't reduce because of dem policies. They reduced because of a technological boom that was the greatest since the Industrial Revolution.

Iriemon · #46 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Which is somewhat akin to you being broke and spending $2,000 on a new tv and complaining when your wife spends $3,000 on a fur coat. Assuming that I agree with your assessment, which I do not. Deficits didn't reduce because of dem policies. They reduced because of a technological boom that was the greatest since the Industrial Revolution.

Myth. The deficits disappeared precisely because of Dem politics, specifically, the 1993 tax increase that raised rates 30% and were opposed right down the line by every Republican.

Tax revenues grew far faster than GDP as a result -- the contrary of the situation when taxes were cut in the 80s and 00s. If it was just economic growth, there would never have been a surplus in 2000 and instead there would have been a deficit in the $200 billion range. Which is what we got shortly thereafter when Bush and the Republicans slashed taxes and revenues plummeted.

Rebellion · #47 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Myth. The deficits disappeared precisely because of Dem politics, specifically, the 1993 tax increase that raised rates 30% and were opposed right down the line by every Republican.

Tax revenues grew far faster than GDP as a result -- the contrary of the situation when taxes were cut in the 80s and 00s. If it was just economic growth, there would never have been a surplus in 2000 and instead there would have been a deficit in the $200 billion range. Which is what we got shortly thereafter when Bush and the Republicans slashed taxes and revenues plummeted.

The myth follows the word myth. That we had a tech boom that resulted in huge economic growth and tax receipts is indisputable. Dem politics had absolutely zero to do with that or the economic expansion or deficit reduction that followed. If anything, Republican policies forcing a balanced budget and giving the line item veto had more of an impact.

Link? Tax cuts helped the economy at a time when needed. If they weren't cut it would have been even worse. Like under Carter until Reagan cut taxes and helped fuel a turnaround.

Iriemon · #48 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

The myth follows the word myth. That we had a tech boom that resulted in huge economic growth and tax receipts is indisputable.

Dem politics had absolutely zero to do with that or the economic expansion or deficit reduction that followed. If anything, Republican policies forcing a balanced budget and giving the line item veto had more of an impact.

Link? Tax cuts helped the economy at a time when needed. If they weren't cut it would have been even worse. Like under Carter until Reagan cut taxes and helped fuel a turnaround.

I agree the economy did well when Clinton was president. And if revenues increased concordant with economic growth, you'd have a point.

Here's GDP growth during Clinton's term:

GDP Actual
1992 6,337.7
2000 9,817.0
% Chng: 54.9%

Source: BEA.Gov.

Total revenues in 1992 were 1,091 billion (CBO.gov). Had revenues grown equivalent with the economy, they would have been $1091 +55% = $1,691 billion in 2000. Outlays in 2000 were $1,788 billion (CBO.gov).

Thus, if the economy were the only factor in the growth of revenues, there would have been a $97 deficit ($1691-1,78

in 2000. (Note these are "total budget" numbers including SS. Excluding SS the deficit would be $150 billion larger.)

Instead, there was a $236 billion surplus.

Why? Actual revenues in 2000 were not the $1,691 they would have been with just economic growth, but zoomed to $2,025 billion, far more than can be attributed to economic growth.

Why did revenues grow so much more than GDP? The 1993 tax increase passed by the Democrats.

Rebellion · #49 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I agree the economy did well when Clinton was president. And if revenues increased concordant with economic growth, you'd have a point.

Here's GDP growth during Clinton's term:

GDP Actual
1992 6,337.7
2000 9,817.0
% Chng: 54.9%

Source: BEA.Gov.

Total revenues in 1992 were 1,091 billion (CBO.gov). Had revenues grown equivalent with the economy, they would have been $1091 +55% = $1,691 billion in 2000. Outlays in 2000 were $1,788 billion (CBO.gov).

Thus, if the economy were the only factor in the growth of revenues, there would have been a $97 deficit ($1691-1,78

in 2000. (Note these are "total budget" numbers including SS. Excluding SS the deficit would be $150 billion larger.)

Instead, there was a $236 billion surplus.

Why? Actual revenues in 2000 were not the $1,691 they would have been with just economic growth, but zoomed to $2,025 billion, far more than can be attributed to economic growth.

Why did revenues grow so much more than GDP? The 1993 tax increase passed by the Democrats.

I have the answer to your question and it is the bottom line problem with your analysis. What happened to the stock market during Clinton's Presidency? Here is your answer http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/spx1960.html

And what did that mean? Increased capital gains tax collections which are not included in GDP. And what were those figures? http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/38xx/doc3856/TaxBrief2.pdf

The difference between your 1,691 figure and 2,025 is 324. I'm going to be really really generous and not count the first four years of Clinton's Presidency. The last four years alone resulted in 376B in capital gains tax collections, easily making up for your 324 number and then some. And thus the answer to your question. It had nothing to do with tax increases and 100% to do with the tech boom.

Iriemon · #50 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

I have the answer to your question and it is the bottom line problem with your analysis. What happened to the stock market during Clinton's Presidency? Here is your answer http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/spx1960.html

And what did that mean? Increased capital gains tax collections which are not included in GDP. And what were those figures? http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/38xx/doc3856/TaxBrief2.pdf

It's true that the stock market did great when clinton was president just like the economy.

Ahh the good old days.

But look at the total amount of cap gains tax revenues and you'll see that your hypothesis doesn't address the difference between GDP and revenue growth. You'd generally have cap gains growth with a growing economy. The economy grew 55%, Cap gains increase from 27 in 1992 to $40 with the economy, so you could apply $80 billion of the $324 billion additional growth in revenues to additional cap gains from the stock market growth..

Quote:

The difference between your 1,691 figure and 2,025 is 324. I'm going to be really really generous and not count the first four years of Clinton's Presidency. The last four years alone resulted in 376B in capital gains tax collections, easily making up for your 324 number and then some. And thus the answer to your question. It had nothing to do with tax increases and 100% to do with the tech boom.

You're comparing apples to oranges. the $324 billion increase in revenues was the increase in 2000 alone, not a cumulative 4 years increase that you are using for cap gains. The cumulative 4 year increase in revenues would be closer to a trillion.

We still see the tax increase generating the bulk of the excess revenues that created a surplus.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Obama's Health Care Plans	nesnej	United States	34	12-08-2009 06:07 AM
Majority Of House Dems Oppose Tax On 'Cadillac' Health Plans	Professor Peabody	Health Care	0	10-06-2009 04:19 PM
House Plans to Tax Millionaires to Fund Health Care	Saryk	Current Events	33	07-16-2009 06:49 AM
How McCain Plans To Screw You On Health Care ('More Tax - Less Benefits' Plan)	TheObjectiveObserver	Elections & Campaigns	3	10-29-2008 03:18 AM
WSJ Compares Health Care Plans	camp_steveo	Elections & Campaigns	13	10-24-2008 12:08 PM