latimes.com — President Obama is roundly criticized by Republicans for running up the nation's debt. But if a Republican takes the White House , the debt will keep climbing — and perhaps even faster than under Obama's proposed policies, a budget watchdog group said.
Feb 24, 2012 View in Crawl 4
dustinthewind2Feb 24, 2012
"Only the proposals from Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, would reduce the debt from current projected levels, by $2.2 trillion, to 76% of GDP."
Ron Paul 2012
freeformjazzFeb 24, 2012
Agreed.
particleman420Feb 24, 2012
how would he do that since he wants to also close the IRS?
upnorthgirlFeb 24, 2012
touche
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Did the reply below burst your touche bubble enough?
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
LOL
particleman420Feb 25, 2012
i doubt it since he backpedals and doesnt explain how he would reduce the debt other than "it will eventually be less if we stop spending as much, but in the mean time, business as usual"
which isnt really a realistic or presidential-level plan.
dustinthewind2Feb 24, 2012
Income tax is unconstitutional and wasn't a part of this country for its first hundred years. It wasn't permanent until 1913, and we didn't withhold wages from people until 1943. Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't mean it's the way things should be done.
Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax. Income tax has facilitated the federal government in becoming more massive and farther reaching.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, and massive cuts in spending.
youareretardedFeb 24, 2012
How high do you think excise taxes will need to be if we are to pay down our current debt and not have taxes?
dustinthewind2Feb 24, 2012
I didn't write the proposal, or the study and report that said the proposal would reduce the debt by 2.2 trillion (the one referenced in my original quote). I haven't read the proposal itself, and wouldn't consider myself qualified to break it down and give you answers.
Paul wants to reduce Federal spending before doing anything else, I'm sure that's where a lot of the projected debt reduction would take place. I was simply responding to particleman420.
dustinthewind2Feb 24, 2012
Did a little research, here's the proposals broken down in the report.
http://usbudge****ch.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf
I still maintain that I am not qualified to directly answer your question, but the information is all there. It looks to me like the major cuts in Spending Policies (page 20) is what would make up for loss in income from certain taxes. Take a look for yourself.
Also, Paul will apparently leave income tax alone until the 16th Amendment is repealed, which is obviously not something he has the power to do himself.
Eliminate Certain Features of the Individual Income Tax
+$2.5 trillion
While Congressman Paul opposes federal income taxes altogether, he would maintain the system until
repeal of the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to collect income tax revenues.
Meanwhile, Paul proposes eliminating certain elements of the current tax code, including all taxes on
capital gains and dividends, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and taxes on Social Security benefits and tips
income. Congressman Paul would also exempt the terminally ill and their caregivers from the payroll tax.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
Jesus Christ!!! Did you read how much of that savings would be? He is basically killing the lower & middle-class.
Transform Medicaid and Other Entitlements into Block Grants Frozen at 2006 Levels39 -$1.9 trillion
Reduce Other Non-Defense Spending47 -$4.3 trillion / -$4.5 trillion / -$2.1 trillion
Congressman Paul lays out a budget with substantial reductions to non-defense spending. Congressman
Paul specifically eliminates five federal departments – the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy,
Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.
Enact Long-Term Social Security and Medicare Reforms n/a
Congressman Paul would not make changes to Social Security and Medicare in the near-term; however,
according to his campaign, he believes we should transition away from the current entitlement system in
a way that ensures current beneficiaries are protected. Once his short-term spending reforms have been
enacted, according to the campaign, Congressman Paul would support Medicare reforms similar to those of
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Congressman Ryan’s plan would move Medicare to a “premium support”
system where seniors receive a fixed subsidy to purchase private insurance in a competitive market.
particleman420Feb 25, 2012
"Also, Paul will apparently leave income tax alone until the 16th Amendment is repealed, which is obviously not something he has the power to do himself. "
and is also something that will never happen, much like the rest of his whole plan of shutting everything down.
you think obama has a hard time getting anything done? imagine the s**t it would have to go through to convince anyone to support something like that.
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
@particleman, should Paul not be elected simply because his good ideas aren't something idiotic members of Congress will approve of? How can anything change if we don't even give it a chance to do so?
Obama may not be able to get policies through, but he's also pushing through the same policies as pretty much every recent commander in chief before him. We need something different.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
"should Paul not be elected simply because his good ideas aren't something idiotic members of Congress will approve of? How can anything change if we don't even give it a chance to do so?"
If you don't deal with the realities then is the plan really valid in the first place?
I want world peace, I have a plan for world peace. The plan is to get all the leaders of every country together and talk it out, we will then all together decide as whole to get rid of all the worlds guns and wmds. We will then ban all religious practices. We will also ban all forms of violence.
Sounds great but none of that will ever happen. Would you vote for me?
I sure wouldn't.
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
I would if I thought it would work (obviously right now it would not). Paul's ideas might be a little "out there" but none of them are impossible, or even improbable given enough time and cooperation. As out there as you may think his ideas are, they make sense when you take a close look at them, as is exampled in this report. People want smaller government. Paul wants smaller government. People are tired of war. Paul is tired of war. People want marijuana legalized or decriminalized. Guess who wants that too? People think we shouldn't be spending so much overseas. Oh hey, Paul believes that too. Noticing a pattern here? People are catching on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 25, 2012
"should Paul not be elected simply because his good ideas aren't something idiotic members of Congress will approve of?"
so you're suggesting that we vote for someone with unrealistic plans that have no chance of ever coming about, and paul himself never expects to come about, but has yet to mention how he would fix anything in the real world with realistic plans?
we've heard his pipe dreams, lets hear what he would do in actual reality.
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
They're not pipe dreams. Again, look closer at his proposals instead of hearing something you consider drastic and writing it off as something that can't possibly work. Even if he can't do every single thing he wants to do (and which damn president ever does?), he's still what this country needs. We need to look at things and go about things differently. The majority of Americans can agree that things need to change. And not Obama's version of change, because that's more of the same, for the most part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
Kudos for Paul. Now, let's take that information and the actuality that Paul can't win the Republican nomination. Will Paul supporters and Independents alike then support a second Obama term?
I think the vote will be close and split, but the independents will decide the election. And I can see where they're headed.
Obama's election year budget proposal should signal something everyone in the middle can roll with. Cut the military spending, reform entitlements, cut loopholes, take savings - half goes back into domestic reinvestment & half if into paying off the debt. It's not the drastic change folks want, but in the right direction.
Hope is a creation, what we do an aberration.
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
Obama was considered "unelectable" in the beginning of 2008. Something to take into account for all those who say Paul is unelectable.
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
I like you're thinking - it's the only way a bold leader can come through the ranks of a party entrenched within itself. Unfortunately, Paul has to do within the Republican party. He's got a presence, but not a dominant leg to stand on there or a trend in pulling in delegates.
We'll see how many delegates he garners after Super Tuesday.
BO is a great speaker. He kept picking up momentum the more he spoke on the campaign trail, which he got an early majority in Iowa. He was great on the stump - with war, Bush, etc... against a party pillar - Hiliary. It's amazing he was able to get there.
FPSmotoFeb 25, 2012
He's currently 2nd in delegates, and I'd like to believe we as a country are starting to wake up to the message he presents to the people. The establishment has 3 candidates basically running against Paul to dilute his base. Doing so will only result in the eventuality of a brokered convention, and at that point, people start to lose faith in the party and one of two things happens:
1. Obama gains huge support because of indecision in the Republican polls.
2. A revolution happens, everyone moves to support the champion of our individual rights and our constitution, Ron Paul and beats Obama.
I've got a few scenarios that might help Ron. Newt Gingrich often speaks about him being a true conservative similar to Ronald Reagan. Well, Ron Paul is clearly the guy with similar principles as far as limited government is concerned. What if Newt realizes he can't win, and endorses Ron Paul? Mittens wouldn't stand a chance at that point. The only thing Mitt has going for him is that frothy Rick Santorum, and we've begun to see the extent of his lack of integrity and credibility. Mitt really has no other option, and that could easily push Ron Paul into first place with a decent road to the General Election in November.
Obviously all hypothetical, I could be completely wrong, for predicting anything in this life is foolish.
I guess my point is, don't count Ron Paul out of the picture. We've got many states yet to vote, and I think it's a bit premature to say he has no chance of winning, when he clearly wins all the debates. His movement grows bigger and bigger. The PEOPLE stand behind Ron Paul. Underdog? Maybe, but I'd like to think that works in our favor.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
God i hope so, at least the young know they have nothing to look forward too and are trying to change that with Paul.
aces2mexicoFeb 27, 2012
Delegate Update:
Romney 105
Santorum 71
Newt 29
Paul 18
Huntsman 2
I won't count him out. I will maintain until after Super Tuesday.
Currently, Paul stands behind Newt - not an encouraging sign.
As an independent, I'm not sure that I'd say he clearly beat his competition at debates. I've watched a few.
There may have been more cheers for Newt recommending underprivileged kids work in the schools they go to learn than cheers for Paul's view on cuts to the budget and military.
All the the GOP nominees would like the voters to think they are like Reagan - none of them are. None of them talk of any compromise either. Reagan cut taxes and spending, then increased taxes and a lot of spending during his terms. Key to his legacy was a number of compromises.
FPSmotoFeb 27, 2012
Ron Paul is actually 2nd in delegates, not sure where you get your figures from.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
You Ron Paul supporters are just crazy. 2008 you guys thought he had a chance. 2012, you guys though he had a chance. How many states has he won this year? The guy keeps polling around 10-15% among the GOP voters....he has a very fixed base. You know when Perry & Bachman dropped out...those voters didn't go to Paul.
Paul is like a an independent cult movie trying to win the box office. Sure, those movies can have rabid fans but it's not going to compete with Avatar at the box office. It has limited appeal.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
And let me guess, your not crazy. Funny aren't you. But what you don't comprehend is Paul has the second most pledged delegates, and he also has many delegates not counted at this time. That, i believe puts him in first, or at least running neck and neck for first.
And it's not really about chances, were just sick and tired of being screwed over by the two major parties.
publiclurkerFeb 25, 2012
While ron paul is number two, he's just not the number two you nut jobs think he is.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Oh here we go again, the verbal slander, think you come up with intelligent responses once in awhile? the childish insult's only go so far, real people tire of that quickly and those who use them, end up looking like, well, an idiot.
FPSmotoFeb 25, 2012
Word of mouth spreads quickly my friend. Welcome to the revolution. :)
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
Quickly as in four years he has double his support, quick?
FPSmotoFeb 25, 2012
Quickly as in four years is a long time to gain supporters by continuing to spread your message, quick.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
seriously, guys? You guys provide no hard proof that Paul stands a chance of winning. Your optimistic hope and "And it's not really about chances, were just sick and tired of being screwed over by the two major parties" are not reasons of why you think he has a chance.
p.s. Frank, where did you read he has the second most pledged delegates? He's in last or second to last in every article I saw when I googled it. He's also in last in popular vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-PU.phtml?sort=p&candidate=138
http://www.goobergunch.net/2012-republican-convention/
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
Do you think he'd have a chance whatsoever if all his supporters had the same attitude you do? We want change, so we're fighting for it. If we lose, at least we can say we showed up and gave it everything we have. To do anything less would be hypocritical and sad.
Whether Paul has a chance or not, Obama would not be in office if people hadn't fought for him like we are fighting for Paul.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Hear, hear!
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
That's different than just making up crap.
I liked Ron Paul and his vision of what the end point should be is nice but he has no plans on how to get there. I take that back, he has plans, it's just that none of them are likely to go through.
dustinthewind2Feb 25, 2012
Only because people like you won't give him a chance despite believing he's on the same page as the American people.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Funny the amount of people who run around like a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming, "He Cant Win" or "He Has No Chance", if people will look closely, those who say that do have an agenda, they are scared that if Paul wins, they will lose something, their power of control.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
http://www.dailypaul.com/214504/the-real-delegate-score-romney-93-paul-82
Paul has many delegates already pledged to him, loyal to him if you will, Primaries mean nothing, votes mean nothing, yes Rom head has more votes in caucuses, but "does not" have the pledges the media keep portraying. And Sanitarium has even less,
Just as in the Obama / Hillary fight, Hillary won several areas, but guess what, some of those actual delegates went to Obama, why, because the people are not choosing who runs, these votes are just to see who the people may prefer.
The delegates can vote for WHOEVER they want, and if they want Paul, they will give him the delegate votes.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
"Obama's election year budget proposal should signal something everyone in the middle can roll with. "
Clearly, you haven't read the proposal, just listening to the media again? You missed the part about the 44% taxes on dividends, you know, the ones in EVERY ONES 401K's retirement plans. Ya, great way to reduce taxes, by making the middle and lower class pay more?
Ya, everyone can roll with having less money to retire on. Anything that is good in his budget are ideas stolen from Paul.
And yes, Kudos to Paul for actually having ideas, instead of the brain dead policies of most politicians.
koparFeb 25, 2012
If you're paying taxes on the dividends in your 401k, you're doing it wrong. http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/401k/a/aa122104a.htm
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
I an not sure where the original article i read was, maybe businessinsider, they must have been wrong on the 401'k parts, unless he intends to change the law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
Independents decide every presidential election...
kareemachanFeb 25, 2012
No thanks.
goatheardFeb 24, 2012
It doesn't take a study to know that any party will spend more than they take in. The budget was only balanced in the 90's because so much money was coming in from the internet bubble day traders the govt couldn't spend it fast enough.
Closed AccountFeb 24, 2012
Wasn't the tax structure different back then too?
unclefireFeb 24, 2012
Yes.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
The effective corporate tax rate is much lower today than it was in the 1990s. The Bush tax cuts added so many loopholes and outright cuts for the profitable corporations that of course we are doing worse than we were in the 1990s.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/23/why-lower-corporate-tax-rates-wont-help-the-u-s/?section=magazines_fortune
daimposterFeb 24, 2012
First, as a % of GDP, federal tax receipts rose within the first 2 years of Clinton taking office and peaked at 20.6%. It was 17.5% in the year before and during his first year. It rose about 0.5% each year. In Bush's 2nd and 3rd year, he made major tax cuts that dropped tax receipts as % of GDP to 17.6% and 16.2%.
Second, Clinton also reduced spending so he wasn't increasing his GDP by taking a loan out on the future. Spending went from 22.1% in '92 and 21.4% in 1993 to 18.2% in 2000. He dropped spending by about 0.5% every year. Bush quickly increased spending to 19.1% 2002 and 20.1% by 2006, before the Great Recession. It took Bush one full year to go from surplus to deficit.
Clinton's improvement began BEFORE the dot com bubble and regardless of boom or bust, he cut spending and increased revenues. Bush benefited from the housing boom....but he turned a surplus to a deficit.
Also, if you want to look at total numbers in spending? In the 8 years under Reagan, he increased spending by 80%. HW Bush in just 4 years increased spending by 29.8%. W Bush was 67%. Clinton?????? Only 29.5% over 8 years!!!!!! He increased spending bout 60% less than Reagan, about 50% less than W Bush and less than what Bush Sr did in one term.
So tell me again about Clinton???
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
and to think Newt tried to shut down the govt to play Clinton.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
I like Clinton, but let's be clear here - decreasing spending as a percentage of GDP does not mean you decreased spending - it could just mean that GDP grew very fast.
Anyway, in Q1 1993 (when Clinton entered the WH), the federal government was spending money at a rate of $1.484 trillion/yr ($2.36 trillion/yr in today's dollars). In Q1 2001 (when Clinton left the WH), it was spending money at a rate of $1.943 trillion/yr ($2.52 trillion/yr in today's dollars). By Q1 2009, when GWB left office, spending had risen to $3.22 trillion/yr ($3.45 trillion/yr in today's dollars).
Clinton increased real spending by 6.8% (or 0.8% per year).
Bush increased real spending by 36.9% (4.0% per year).
Through 2013, Obama increased real spending by 10% (2.4% per year) to $3.8 trillion.
(Of course, presidents have a lot less impact on the budget than these statements suggest...)
cybersaurFeb 24, 2012
GOP policy **caused** our national debt. Reagan and bush2 both *doubled* the national debt. When bush2 came into office we had budget surpluses. When he left we had an annual deficit of $1.5 Trillion+! That is a direct result of GOP tax cuts for the rich.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Your math doesn't work, the combined tax cuts cost $170 billion a year, which cannot possibly result in trillion dollar deficits.
"When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html
The next big myth is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with the tax cuts did it. But again, the wars only cost about $200 billion a year, which still doesn't even get us up to half of the deficits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
It can possibly end in trillion dollar deficits over enough years ($170 billion times 10 is $1.7 trillion).
That projected $1.35 trillion was money we could not afford. Even if we *thought* we could afford it when the first tax cut was passed, it should have been immediately rescinded when we were attacked on 9/11. Indeed we *all* should have been asked to "sacrifice" for the war, not just the overzealous and the desperate.
We fought wars in Iraq & Afghanistan for around 8 years. That 8 * $200 billion for $1.6 trillion.
I'm not having much of a problem "doing the math" and coming up with an amount that approaches the current deficit...
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
You don't even see your error. Sure, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.6 trillion... but that total cost has NOTHING to do with today's deficits, or even the deficit for FY 2008. For that year, it was $200 billion. The tax cuts (some of which was for 2003's edition) also does not affect that year's deficits in total, but only one.
If you want to talk totals over a period of time, that's fine. But don't combine "deficits" over a single year with spending over several years. That's just basic logic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Bull. We will be paying for the Iraq Abortion for decades.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Agreed, just as we will with Afghanistan.
But to compare total costs for something to a single year deficit is a total mismatch. We could do the same with anything... say the stimulus. Or HCR. But it doesn't actually explain anything. Its just to divert.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Also, calculating the cost of a tax cut or the revenue of a tax hike is difficult because the higher/lower rates alter behavior. How much growth of the 2000s would not have happened without the lower taxes?
Its essentially the same type of thought problem as defending the Stimulus - where would we be without it? You cannot prove it either way. But, as I said earlier, you can show that if spending had been contained (Bush was bad about this, Obama worse) he would not have had deficits except for three years of eight. Not that bad with a trillion-dollar "cost" of the tax cut. Look at the spending/revenues during his years - it was spending that drove the deficit, not revenues. Bad Bush.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
one can only seek to turn it one day into a Vietnam & American partnership that trades well together.
If the relation becomes anything similar, something good can come out of this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
The deficit represents the difference between spending and revenue in a single year. If you want to add spending over 10 years, you would have to compare it against the deficit over 10 years.
You can't say "Well, $170 billion a year over the last 10 years explains our entire $1.6 trillion deficit this year", because it doesn't, only the cost of the tax cut for this year matters in this year's budget, its effect on past years was already considered with their deficits (and is also reflected in the current debt).
linuxpersonFeb 25, 2012
The fact that you're being buried proves that digg is filled with idiots.
mtownFeb 24, 2012
True. We also had big pointless war as well.
barackalypseFeb 25, 2012
Actually we had 3. Iraq, Afghanistan, and some live bombing practice in Libya.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
Libya was only $1B in costs (and no American lives). Let's not group it in with the other two so you can state 'we had 3'.
Besides, we have 'bombing practice' very often and I wouldn't call them wars.
barackalypseFeb 25, 2012
Mr. Nobel Peace Prize sent 40,000 more troops to an existing war and dropped some bombs during a conflict in Libya. I think its important we recognize his contribution, however small in comparison, to wasting American money and risking American lives. Bad Obama. Bad Bush.
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Spot on barack
ridgerunner5Feb 24, 2012
We had PROJECTED surpluses. There never was a surplus. And much of that projected surplus came from dipping into the social security system to pay for programs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Exactly
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
BU**SH**!!
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
FTA:
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
bdbrFeb 24, 2012
Given the date of the article, that was probably just forecasted numbers. The numbers get adjusted as better figures are determined. The current US Treasury figures show national debt at the time of that writing at $5,674B in 1999, and $5,807B a year later.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
But arguing over whether there was a small surplus for one year misses some significant points. When Clinton took office, deficits were averaging nearly $400 billion a year, and predicted to go up - but instead they dropped to just over $100B for two years. Comparison to GDP is even more significant: the deficit dropped from 5% of GDP to below 1%. Debt to GDP ratio dropped from 66% to 57%. These were huge improvements.
particleman420Feb 24, 2012
is that where the bush "please like me!" payoff of a couple of hundred dollars came from? remember that, it was in the summer before 9/11?
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
We had a SINGLE year of 1.5 trillion deficits. How many years in the Obama administration have we had trillion dollar deficits?
Yes, I understand the difference that Obama faced, but lets play honest. The average Bush deficit was far, far lower than the average Obama deficit. And if you look at the revenue/spending during Bush, if he had kept spending growth to 2% or so, he would have had surpluses every year except for FY 2001, 2002 and 2007. Note that all three of those years were recessionary years.
But I guess that Obama's deficits are due to GOP policies, right? I mean, 2 years of unified government under the Democrats wasn't enough to get their way with major legislation, right? Oh wait... Stimulus and HCR... the latter they fought for a year on. Both of those will immediately reduce the deficit. Oh wait, HCR doesn't really start until 2013/2016...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 24, 2012
Since my above posts pertains to GOP running up spending and decreasing revenues (though the question above was about how the dot com bubble was the only reason we had a budget surplus):
First, as a % of GDP, federal tax receipts rose within the first 2 years of Clinton taking office and peaked at 20.6%. It was 17.5% in the year before and during his first year. It rose about 0.5% each year. In Bush's 2nd and 3rd year, he made major tax cuts that dropped tax receipts as % of GDP to 17.6% and 16.2%.
Second, Clinton also reduced spending so he wasn't increasing his GDP by taking a loan out on the future. Spending went from 22.1% in '92 and 21.4% in 1993 to 18.2% in 2000. He dropped spending by about 0.5% every year. Bush quickly increased spending to 19.1% 2002 and 20.1% by 2006, before the Great Recession. It took Bush one full year to go from surplus to deficit.
Clinton's improvement began BEFORE the dot com bubble and regardless of boom or bust, he cut spending and increased revenues. Bush benefited from the housing boom....but he turned a surplus to a deficit.
Also, if you want to look at total numbers in spending? In the 8 years under Reagan, he increased spending by 80%. HW Bush in just 4 years increased spending by 29.8%. W Bush was 67%. Clinton?????? Only 29.5% over 8 years!!!!!! He increased spending about 60% less than Reagan, about 50% less than W Bush and less than what Bush Sr did in one term.
So tell me again about Clinton???
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
brsox2445Feb 25, 2012
Is anyone shocked by this?
Obama isn't serious about fixing the debt. He won't touch entitlements with a 10 foot pole.
The GOP isn't serious about fixing the debt. They won't touch tax increases with a 10 foot pole.
I don't like Ron Paul's approach to fixing the debt, but I give him full credit for putting out a plan. He doesn't punt the issue. We need someone who is going to get the nomination to put out a real plan. As long as the GOP or Obama puts out their various fake proposals there is no incentive for the other side to do so.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
Obama is going to touch entitlements. He's proven to be a pragmatic centralist. Do you think he's stupid enough to give on entitlements now while the right wing crazies won't even discuss removing tax loop holes or a tax increase on the very wealthy? He learned a lot from 2009 with the healthcare debate....he knows now that the new GOP are obstructionist who won't compromise. And BTW, he's made the occasional references to entitlement reform but only in the context of tax reform and tax increases on the wealthy.
Obama has done many things that were considered moderately republican. Last year he proposed 3:1 spending cuts to tax revenue increases. He had no problem providing military support in Libya and expanding the war in Afghanistan. He's lowering corporate taxes. Taxes under him have been at the lowest in decades (though the right wing wants to say he is always raising taxes).
p.s. I didn't bury you.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Centrist, ha, like H Reed, or spend 30 million to save rats in my back yard Nancy P.
Oh, and lets not forget the major tax hike in Obama's plan, "Clearly, you haven't read the proposal, just listening to the media again? You missed the part about the 44% taxes on dividends, you know, the ones in EVERY ONES 401K's retirement plans. Ya, great way to reduce taxes, by making the middle and lower class pay more?"
Obama is so friendly to business
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/fact_check_has_the_obama_administration_really_issued_fewer_regulations_job_creators_alliance
Here is how Centrist he really is
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
ps. i didn't bury you either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 25, 2012
You do realize that both your links provide no references to there assertions. You cannot find a random website and say it proves whatever your trying to claim; you need something credible, and rants dont count.
also, take that flag off your picture, you insult that flag by marginalizing what it meant back when it needed to mean something.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
First of all, your rants are ridiculous. How are you going to compare Obama with Reed & Nancy P when those guys are very liberal? Do you draw the centrist mark slightly left of the Tea Party???? You remember Rahm Emanuel, right? He was hated by other Dems because of his constant fights with the Dems. Rahm is a fiscal centrist and you deny it then you have a warped mind. For proof of Rahm as a fiscal centrist, just look up his work in Chicago (yeah, I live here and I like a lot of what he's doing).
Second, after you compare him to Reed & Polosi you provide a link that has Obama listed as right wing. And the link has the following:
"The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. "
So thank you for helping me make my point.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
Also, the links provided no sources.
And what are you referring to in "spend 30 million to save rats in my back yard Nancy P"? Are you using on one random statistic? Because I can name you numerous random statistics that show federal spending in red states. In fact, we all know that red states receive more federal money than they put it. So are you sure you want to go down that path?
pier2Feb 25, 2012
No more tax cut, borrow, and spend Republicans please.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
HERE, HERE, and no more Democrats doing the same thing either.
th4gr8cornholioFeb 24, 2012
Once again it becomes painfully obvious that Ron Paul is by far the superior candidate over the 4 status-quo, tax and spend, Big Government individuals he's running against (don't forget Obama!).
America is going to hell in a handbasket and our only hope is Dr. Paul!
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
Fear tactics are typical of most Republican SuperPACs ;^)
Paul will never win the bulk of the party he runs - ask yourself why that is? Then, review his party's other candidates.
I jest that in truth, he is a Senator, been there longer than most running or currently holding an office. An unfortunate part of Washington politics for a significant amount of time. It's great to have his voice. Alas, he's part of the same Big government machine and doesn't bring real leadership that a majority of voters can get behind.
If you base you're vote on the concern about spending, then when you vote in November I hope you go with the right choice - or else it'll be a disservice to your values.
Go BO
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Here, i'll just copy and paste for you.
But what you don't comprehend is Paul has the second most pledged delegates, and he also has many delegates not counted at this time. That, i believe puts him in first, or at least running neck and neck for first.
Were just sick and tired of being screwed over by the two major parties.
Fail BO,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
I'm not sure where you are getting your info from but it's incorrect.
http://presidentialpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/updated-primary-standings-schedule.html
Wishful thinking doesn't change the facts.
macliberalFeb 24, 2012
Just another reason why we need to reelect Pres O and give Him back the Congress.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
I take exception to your capitalizing "Him". He is our President, but he is no Messiah. He is only a man.
aces2mexicoFeb 25, 2012
Do you also take exception that a guy tagged macliberal is right?
Santorum uses Satan in his rhetoric, Romney wants to increase military spending, Gingrich would build a moon base - Paul is right there in the middle of these guys each with their own slice of the GOP.
Either way we cut it, one is going to get the GOP nod. It is unlikely going to be Paul. If that is so, then how would a practical independent vote if spending and budgets are the issue?
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
write in
th4gr8cornholioFeb 24, 2012
Are you kidding? Re-electing Obama only makes our current situation worse. Only one candidate will actually improve things and put America back on the right track - Ron Paul.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
I didn't need an analysis to know this. That is what Republicans do - increase public debt to make their friends richer.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Quite the intolerant tone there tree, tsk.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Ah. So I call you out on being intolerant in a whole different story but you follow me here to call me intolerant for making a snarky comment. Very mature of you.
Here's a suggestion: Own up to the things you say. It's what every good conservative is supposed to do.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Don't give yourself too much credit as I stumbled upon your comment and did not follow you.
bluenose2Feb 24, 2012
Children !?! LOL
daimposterFeb 24, 2012
I don't know how anyone thinks that cutting taxes 20% across the board and thus cutting revenue 20% will lead to reducing debt?
And if they try to cut spending by 20%, we look to Europe and other countries going through severe Austerity measures to see the big hit the economy takes. If I remember correctly, none of them have even cut spending by 20% yet so the effects would be much worse than what is happening there.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
It's sad the 2 people dugg me down but no explanation of why. I am having a real problem with republicans / conservatives because when facts are presented to them, they run away or only provide more opinions without any real evidence to back up their claims.
Trickle down? They just change the subject now.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy? Instead of acknowledging the law of diminishing marginal utility they scream about freedom or how taxes is stealing thus avoiding the true question
Asking how 20% across the board tax cuts will help reduce debt? No answer.
I could go on but it's rare that a republican provides a truthful reply with actual evidence to back it up. They fail to acknowledge much of what some of our wealthy allies are doing right. It's almost as if Republicans don't want to learn from others because doing so means that we aren't #1 in that subject.
theonewhoknowsFeb 24, 2012
So true :(
I long for the day when we see a real republican (not conservative, just republican) who reduces spending and government interference in the personal lives and choices of its citizens. That'd be nice.
th4gr8cornholioFeb 25, 2012
It sure would be nice! Vote for Ron Paul, who plans to do just that.
wulfgar3dFeb 25, 2012
Your implying Democrats are different? Look at the last 3 years under Obama. Neither party has the will to make the necessary cuts.
Only Ron Paul does.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nmw6Feb 24, 2012
That's what happens when you propose for the richest 1% of american's to pay less in taxes than the middle-class. Is anyone surprised?
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
I am not, like they were going to hire extra workers to mow their yards.
lhawFeb 25, 2012
If Christ repeatedly screamed at the rich to give their money to the poor, & taxes on the rich give to the poor via social programs, doesn't that make Repuglican'ts who are "anti tax the rich" actually anti-Christs? Repuglican'ts: the anti-Christ party.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
I think a rational Republican (if there was one) would say that taxes prevent (or limit the ability of) rich people from voluntarily giving their wealth to the less fortunate. If I take your money and give it to the poor, that's not the same as you voluntarily giving it to the poor; you don't get the Christ points.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
"President Obama is roundly criticized by Republicans for running up the nation's debt"
And rightly so, he's not far from taking the title of most debt added from Bush II.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
You are too crazy to reason with. I was going to explain how running up a debt is about timing (we ran up huge debts for the two world wars and a Great Depression but that doesn't compare to running up debts like W Bush or Reagan did) but I think it's clear that it's worthless to debate you. You don't listen to facts or logic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 25, 2012
And if we were fighting the Nazi's for control of the World, I'd be fine with spending the money. But we aren't, we're throwing trillions away for zero gain at all, only future obligation. Government spending has been outpacing GDP for decades. And what is worse, Social Security and Medicare are ticking time-bombs which will dwarf the current deficits in the future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
So trying to save an economy during the Great Depression or this Great Recession is stupid? Sure, we could have saved 20 or 30% of debt but where would we be now? Where would that have put is in the future? Our economy is doing much better than most European countries because they are having to make tough cuts. Do you just blow hot air or do you actually review facts?
And you're "we're throwing trillions away for zero gain at all" just shows how little you know. You know nothing about economics and you are just concerned about lowering your taxes. Look at unemployment numbers and you see that we went from loosing about 500k/month from mid 2008 to mid 2009, to gaining jobs by the end of 2009, not long after the stimulus bill had actually started being implemented. I'm sure you're not going to make the connection between that sharp change in unemployment since it doesn't fit your ideologue views.
amaoicanFeb 25, 2012
When the time comes, SS will be restructured so that, over the long term, SS will not add to the deficit. It can't - once the "trust fund" runs out, SS won't legally be able to spend any more money than what it takes in.
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Let me guess, Ron Paul is the candidate running that gives a s**t, am i right, am i right, why yes you are.
profmnaimFeb 25, 2012
NCRFB study report is convincing, US debt is likely to increase squarely if Republican President, who so ever, for shared committed emphasis on corporate tax cuts on speculative promises of growth.
KapsiotFeb 24, 2012
Nothing compared to the way obama increased debt.
bluenose2Feb 24, 2012
No, he didn't increase the debt , just put George W's two wars on the books.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
and banned gimmicks used by the Bush adminstration to hide debt
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
freeformjazzFeb 24, 2012
So then the bailouts did not increase the debt at all?
daimposterFeb 25, 2012
But Kapsiot was implying Obama was solely responsible for increasing the debt when we know much of his actions were needed and as a direct result of the biggest financial crisis that had such a global reach (it can be argued which step were need, but anyone who argues against that all the bailouts and stimuls spending is just stupid and doesn't know economics, history, facts,etc).
Answer yourself this question. Someone sells you piece of property. After you get buy it, you get home and it's burning. It takes a some time to put out the fire. Turns out about half of it burned while you owned it. Are you the same at fault as the previous owner? Do you let it continue burning rather than trying to save it?
Or how about you if you are named a CEO of a corporation. The year before you were named CEO, the firm had a major drop in profits and stock prices and you come aboard at the peak of dropping profits and stock prices. After a few quarters, you firm is improving and improving much better than other firms. Do you think that you should be blamed for EVERYTHING since day 1? To expand, do you think its fair that for the board to review your performance in a vacuum...as if you were not dealing with a situation you inherited? Or do you think the board should look at your performance in the context of what was happening? Because if people look at thinks so black & white as Kapsiot, then Lincoln was the president that started a civil war and killed a million Americans.
And P.S., much of the bailouts were under Bush but that's not really my point.
treehugger87Feb 27, 2012
Of course they did. And so did the financial collapse caused by the banks.
But "conservatives" like kapsiot don't claim this. They claim that Obama increased the debt more than any other President, including Bush, while ignoring a few simple facts (like the one pointed out by my post).
concusionFeb 24, 2012
CLEANING UP YOUR DIRTY DIAPER, BITCH
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
The Committee that put this out is hardly non-partisan or even bipartisan. Edward Kleinbard is a long-time Democrat eager to see his party remain in the White House, so I think you can safely assume the validity and objectivity of this report to be something less than what the WAPO claims.
And even though the President's budget has been out for some time, the Committee says:
"The report does not include an analysis of President Obama’s latest budget request, which claims to reduce borrowing by $3 trillion over the next decade. The group plans to do its own analysis of Obama’s request in a future report. The group said it also plans to update the GOP proposals as they evolve and add details".
Wow that's strange...seems like they could have included the analysis of Obama's budget before releasing their findings on the GOP, huh? Perhaps they failed to do so because under Obama's plan, the total debt is projected to reach $20 trillion in the next FOUR years.
Of course there are people who understand budget issues, like Paul Ryan, who should have input, but when he proposed a budget which actually would put us on a path towards solvency, Democrats quickly crafted an attack ad depicting him gleefully pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 24, 2012
Is there an article showing that their non-specific budget plans do reduce the deficit/debt? We both know Ron Paul is the only one who fits into that category.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
It's going to take entitlement reform in order to reduce the debt. No Republican can propose that and hope to win the election.
particleman420Feb 24, 2012
yes, lets start by removing the corporate entitlements and then see where we are and go from there
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
I'm all for it. Cut all subsidies and loopholes and lower the rate so that we're competitive with the rest of the world. Why should I pay the top corporate rate and GE pay nothing? Where's the "fairness" in that?
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Entitlements, LOL, Obama sent more money to Brazil to "help" their oil industry than all of the "entitlements" and US oil company gets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 25, 2012
Unicorns!
publiclurkerFeb 25, 2012
Well, they probably deserved it more than a bunch of inbred texans. How long do you think we are supposed to clean up the messes of a bunch of snot nosed trailer park trash?
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
If that's the best you can come up I win again.
ncmusicFeb 27, 2012
You made something up so I did.