Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama? Read more: http://www.newstimes.com

Seventy-five years is the standard that the Medicare and Social Security Trustees use to determine the long term solvency of their respective programs. It's used because there are people alive today who will be effected by both of those programs in 75 years. Anyway, I didn't pick the number. That's the official date range that's used for these type of projections. It's useful though. In theory, a well run and financed program would have a zero unfunded liability. But we're not going to have to wait 75 years to have problems. Social Security is dipping into it's "trust fund" now. Not 75 years from now. And as for Medicare and Medicaid...



These problems would be relatively easy to solve if we started solving them now, but the longer the wait the more expensive and harsh the fix is going to be.

One thing I've noticed is that you liberals, even bright, educated ones who can apply future time orientation to their own lives, can't seem to apply it to public policy. And I don't mean back in the old days when supposedly we didn't know any better (we did) I mean recently. Obamacare was a contraption that was put together with the purpose of hiding the true cost of the program by pushing those costs out beyond our normal CBO ten year projections. So what if it collapses in the future? Eh, that's the future. Social Security and Medicare were designed the same way. So here we are, decades later, and the bills are finally starting to come in. Each year, those "unfunded liabilities" from the first year of the 75 year trustee projections hit us as real deficits. That's not something that happens a long time from now, that's something that's happening now.

I wonder about all those smart cookies in Europe who, 10 years ago, never thought their countries would be teetering on bankruptcy. Why not? Surely the math was as inexorable then as it is now. I guess they just shut their eyes, covered their ears, and started singing "La-la-la" real loud.

Can't drown it out now.

 

I think I've already answered them, but it's clear at this point, you're not going to accept them.

 

The fact that the economy had started slowing before Bush was even elected, there was the Dot.Com bust and a massive falling of the stock market, is just "blaming it on something"?

No it was just the normal business cycle exacerbated by the Dot.com bust. In fact it was well overdue as the tax cuts Gingrich and Kasich passed and forced Clinton to sign extend the growth period of the 90's and along with welfare reform the Republicans passed and again forced Clinton to sign produce the jump in revenues and slower spending growth that produce the brief surpluses.

The only people who were exempted were those at the bottom who not only had their tax liabilities wiped out but also gain refundable tax credits. So what on earth are you talking about?

The level of your debate is pretty sophomoric but go ahead.

Not nearly as extreme as your hyperbole and lack of facts.

ROFL tell Obama.

No it is just the fact. And the fact is revenues were dropping and capital gains revenues had dropped dramatically from $127 billion in 2000 down to $65 billion in 2001 down to $47 billion in 2002. Bush's tax cut cut the rate from 21.15 down to 16.05 in 2003 and revenues jumped back up to $51 billion an the next year to $73 billion and then to $102 billion. Rates were cut slightly in 2006 to 15.6 and revenues jump to $118 billion and in 2007 they hit a record high of $137 billion.

Oh and BTW the how did we hit that record high $127 billion in 2000, the Gingrich/Kaisch tax cuts. In 1996 at the rate of 28.19 during a strong growth period cap gain revenues were $66 billion. The tax cuts Clinton was forced to sign dropped the rate down to 29.19 and revenues jumped to th $127 billion in 2000, almost doubling at the lower rate.

No it was an official recession which did not end until November of 2001.

That rule went out a long time ago.

Well you go to their website and see for yourself that the recession OFFICIALLY lasted from March of 2001 to Novembet 2001, that you would be here making the statements that you are and using them to prove your point is quite amusing since the contradict you and support me.

You DO know that your hyperbole does not substitute for facts and your have refuted none of mine.

When you want to have a civil adult discussion let me know, I have no interest paying in your sandbox with you trading insults. Lose the snarky remarks and we can continue.

 

yes i wrote this awhile back, the stock market is good but big business refuses to hire because bad job numbers means bad president.

 

You will notice that in the piece I posted, the CBO is stating that the debt will rise to 70% of GDP by year's end. I don't know where they got that from. It's already over 103% of GDP so you could probably back their time frame up by several years.

 

ROFL who on earth told you Clinton "got the economy back on it's feet". The economy had been growing for two years before he was elected. Revenue growth was on target for double digits. He pass a tax increase that slowed that growth from 9% down to 7%. AND he requested higher spending than congress authorized every year. Then he opposed the tax cuts that sent the economy roaring when it should have been slowing down, the cuts in spending growth Gingrich and Kaisch passed and opposed welfare reform and only signed it because his political advisor told him he would not be relected if he didn't sign it.

Don't believe he his tax increase was bad for the economy, well roll the tape.

"President Clinton made an offhand confession on Tuesday night that he had raised taxes "too much" in his first budget in 1993, and the remark drew mockery from Congressional Republicans today. Angry Democrats accused him of repudiating a package they had stuck their necks out to pass without a single Republican vote.

Speaking at a campaign fund raiser in Houston, Mr. Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.""
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html

Why? They produced higher revenues and made the tax code even MORE progressive, ushered in 52 months of full employment and enable, along with spending restraints, the deficit to fall to $161 billion......................what specifically is your objection

Balancing the budget will require broad based revenue increases, discretionary spending cuts, and entitlement reform. anyone who says we can do it without all three is a liar or a fool.

Those revenue increases come from growing the economy and the workforce so more people are working and paying taxes and businesses are engaged in economic activity. NOT from tax RATE increases.

 

Because their solutions have failed.

 

I just can't let that blatant lie go uncorrected.

Year - Revenues - revenue growth
1990 1032.0 4.1%
1991 1055.0 2.2%
1992 1091.3 3.4%
1993 1154.4 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase passed.
1994 1258.6 9.0%
1995 1351.8 7.4%
1996 1453.1 7.5%
1997 1579.3 8.7%
1998 1721.8 9.0%
1999 1827.5 6.1%
2000 2025.2 10.8%

Revenue growth increased from 3.4% the year before the tax increase to 9.0% the year after and continued to grow robustly thereafter.

Only someone who is dishonest would claim, repeatedly, that the tax increase "slowed the growth" when the evidence is crystal clear just the opposite happened.

 

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for more than two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than two years, stock markets are up almost 90% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.2%, and over 4 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes, or the dishonest, woudl claim Obama's solutions have failed.

 

Really?

Me>> ROFL who on earth told you Clinton "got the economy back on it's feet". The economy had been growing for two years before he was elected. He pass a tax increase that slowed that growth from 9% down to 7%.

Year - Revenues - revenue growth
1990 1032.0 4.1%
1991 1055.0 2.2%
1992 1091.3 3.4%
1993 1154.4 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase passed. And signed into law in August, and thanks for proving my point, the economy had been growing for two years BEFORE he was elected, he did NOT get it "back on it's feet" as you claimed.
1994 1258.6 9.0%
1995 1351.8 7.4% <- and we see what happened should have been in double digits but growth slowed from 9% on it's way to double digit increases to 7%
1996 1453.1 7.5% <- Gingrich/Kaisch tax cuts and revenue growth go back on target
1997 1579.3 8.7%
1998 1721.8 9.0%
1999 1827.5 6.1%
2000 2025.2 10.8%

[/QUOTE]

So once again thanks for proving the fallacy of your claims and how mine are supported by the facts.

See above.

And of course his capital gains increased produce 0% increase in 2004 even though we were suppose to be in a strong recovery and it was after the Gingrich/Kaisch cap gains cuts that revenues grew to almost quadruple what they were at the Democrat/Clinton high rates.

 

Already refuted several times over and not respond to, you do know it is against forum rules to multipost the same post?

 

Please cite my post where I claimed that or quite fabricating what I say.

 

So you say.

You want to check your "fact" about what year the so-called Gingrich tax cut was passed?

Then you can tell me about proving "fallacies".

 

You haven't refuted it once.

You keep repeating the same baseless opinion that Obama's policies failed. Ans so I keep correcting you with reference to facts.

If proving you are wrong with facts is against the rules now, they'll have to kick me off the board.

 

Oi vei. You're just spouting more of the same dogmatic nonsense you have been for years. Why you'd expect anyone to respond to a claim that tax cuts increase revenue with anything other then laughter at this point is beyond me. Tax cuts do not make revenues magically appear like mana from heaven. You may as well turn to the tooth fairy to balance the budget as tax cuts. Actually, that's not quite right - the tooth fairy would be better because at least she doesn't make things worse. And spamming us with statistics you clearly don't understand at all isn't going to change that. The fact is that the revenue increase from increased growth only outweighs the revenue loss from lower rates when the initial rates are already very, very high. Much higher then they are or have ever been in the US. And no, you don't get to attribute 100% of economic growth to tax cuts when it suits you. And incidentally, claiming that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues by whatever imaginary number you made up is rather akin to saying, "That deep slash wound increased the patient's blood volume by 20%. After we stopped the bleeding, that is."

And when you're ready for an adult discussion, stop posting technobabble crap that amounts to nothing more then "Wah! Wah! I don wanna pay taxes!" Grow up already.