US budget deficit edges higher in October.

Please consider truth and facts as arguments.

 

And we should.

It doesn't actually bring down the debt, but it devalues it over time so that it hardly matters.

In fact we don't actually ever pay off the principal on the debt (unless we have a surplus which is historically rare).

We still carry the full debt from WWII but it hardly matters because inflation as devalued it to the point that it's a non issue

 

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

 

Well, he couldn't drop it from 91 to 35. A 32% reduction in tax rate is pretty strong. Either way, a constant progressive argument is that taxes do nothing to impact economic growth. Kennedy knew better.

 

You now have them else refute them.

Your post and graphs implied Presidents alone control the budget and spending. That is patently false.

 

Sure, once you consider the tax systems of the times and the deductions and credits that existed in each system, it's the net effective rate that matters, what everyone ends up paying under that particular rate and set of deductions and credits.

 

A reasonable 30% GDP ratio is acceptable, but Obama received a 60% GDP ratio and we have now (2013 report) a 100% GDP ratio, which is BANKRUTPCY.

And this GDP ratio was reached without going to a major war or by suffering a great catastrophe like earthquake, meteorite falling, and similar. In reference to our economy, Obama has been the worst president in the US history.

We are in trouble in both ways, with out debt to GDP ratio and the debt amount of 20 trillion.

 

Um, were you in a coma for the recession?

 

OK and?

- - - Updated - - -

We came out of WWII with a 100% debt to GDP ratio

 

Meh, we had 120% GDP ratio in the 1940's, and our economy did quite well under those conditions. No worries mate.

 

The one that ended in June of 2009? Over 6 years ago?

Were you in a coma when the Democrats raised spending 9% and then on top of that 18%?

 

For a brief period DURING WW2 and we only did well because of the massive war bond drives and people willing to pick up that debt due to a national emergency. Are you proposing we start another world war or something? And of course the reason we came out of it was because most of our competition was totally destroyed in that war, is that your plan?

- - - Updated - - -

Compare different marginal rates over a period of time when that have been huge changes in tax policy is folly.

If you to do that then compare net effective rates.

So you would suggest we firebomb Germany again and do the same in Japan throwing in another couple of atomic bombs and then let Putin destroy the economic capacity of the UK and France and various other countries and then we wipe out what he has left?

 

CBO: Taxes, Spending, Deficit All Up in First 2 Months of FY2016

"“Part of the increase in spending, CBO said, was the result of the increase in Medicaid built into Obamacare.

Outlays for the first two months of fiscal year 2016 were $616 billion, or $34 billion higher than they were during the same period last year, CBO estimates,” said CBO.

“Outlays for the three largest mandatory programs increased by 7 percent,” said the report. “Social Security benefits rose by $7 billion (or 5 percent), reflecting typical recent growth in the number of beneficiaries and their average benefits.

“Medicare spending increased by $8 billion (or 9 percent), some of which reflects the fact that the payment made to prescription drug plans each fall to account for unanticipated spending increases in the preceding calendar year was larger in 2015 than in 2014,” said the report.

“Outlays for Medicaid rose by $6 billion (or 12 percent), largely because of new enrollees added through the optional expansion of coverage authorized by the Affordable Care Act,” said CBO."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...es-spending-deficit-all-first-2-months-fy2016

Oh Obamacare which was going to cut our cost, bring down the deficit?

 

We're talking about the debt to GDP ratio. During the recession is when the ratio jumped up so damned high.

 

Well, that's what happens when you believe in fairy tales like tax cutting your way out of your fiscal problems.

We were running nice surpluses until Boy George came around.

Deficits re appeared with his tax cuts, and the GOP has fought to keep it that way ever since.

- - - Updated - - -

Bear in mind that Medicare can't negotiate bulk discounts with pharmaceutical companies the way the VA does, because the GOP blocked that effort.

 

Yes Democrats raised spending 9% and then 18% and bragged about doing so.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-, that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.”
http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm


It sent to deficit from that paltry $161B of the last Republican budget to a WHOPPING $1,400B in just two years and then they kept it over $1,000B for the next four years.

 

because we were in the biggest recession since the great depression.

 

Bear in mind that that is just a one component and would have cost more to do so. Medicare does not purchase things and distribute them. Has no mechanism to do so as does the VA which is an actual healthcare provider.

AND

"The Senate legislation would have allowed the government to directly negotiate with drug companies to secure lower prices for medications. But an independent Congressional Budget Office analysis found that the proposal would not result in cheaper drugs unless Congress modified the program, possibly restricting access and choice for beneficiaries."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802338.html

AND

"But Republicans countered Wednesday that the program is costing much less than expected precisely because it's the private sector, not the secretary of Health and Human Services, conducting the negotiations. They successfully blocked a motion to proceed to the bill. The tally was 55-42, five short of the votes needed to move ahead.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the program will cost about $265 billion less than anticipated over the coming decade.

"I doubt a single government program in modern history, let alone one this big and this important has ever, ever come in under budget," McConnell said. "So it's a mystery why our Democratic friends would want to tamper with this Medicare drug benefit. If it isn't broke, why fix it?""
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/0...ock-medicare-drug-price-negotiating-bill.html

Of course that was all back in 2007, 8 years ago and long before Obamacare and has nothing to do with today's report on the deficit THIS year.

 

No because the Democrats wanted a HUGE spending increase and were able to get part of it when they were negotiating the budget in 2007 and then double downed on that when they no longer had to deal with President Bush.

While the recession had some effect on revenues that does not belie the fact of the huge Democrat spending increases but noted how the left blames Bush for "squandering" the surplus without regard to the recession he faced coming into office, one where his policies DID help to mitigate the effects.

 

no, because we were in the biggest recession since the great depression.

lol, are you trying to compare the minuscule recession in bushes first year to the largest recession in the last 70 years?

and you wonder why nobody takes conservatives seriously when it comes to economics.

 

There was nothing miniscule about it with the dot.com bust and then the 9/11 attack. It's the policies each used to try and mitigate the effects. The Republican ones work, the Democrat ones fail.

AND historically the deeper the recession the longer and stronger the recovery...........except with Obama's policies and lack thereof.

So tell do you give the same defference to the Bush/Republican deficits 2001-2004, or do you attack them over them and the surpluses going away.

 

Bush proposed a budget of 3.1 trillion dollars. The final budget? 3.1 trillion dollars. Don't pretend like the increase in spending was a partisan hack job.

Yeah, as long as you ignore that TARP was pushed through by Bush and that revenues dropped precipitously. But go ahead and pretend like those factors don't exist.

 

Expanding the budget is the highest bipartisan priority in Washington.

 

LoL, "some effect". It had a TREMENDOUS effect on revenue.

 

The recession in bush's first year was miniscule. Republican tax cuts deepened the deficit and ran up the debt.

Not all recessions and recoveries are the same. This was the largest in 70 years. Republican policies, or lack there of from congress are keeping us from a full recovery.

cutting taxes and pretending they pay for themselves defies logic and basic economic principles. Squandering a budget surplus.