Blog Entries: 1

## How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

 Quote by mheslep You mean with the 80's and 2003 tax cuts? Please show where revenue loss occurred that caused large deficits?

 Mentor I'm not sure why you posted the graph in post #52 (but I'd been missing that one!) since it doesn't address the question asked in the quote, but the one you posted in post #51 shows that tax revenue under Reagan, as a % of GDP, was flat despite cuts in taxes. It also shows that the biggest contributor to the debt under Obama was a large increase in spending as a fraction of GDP -- like none seen in the past 30 years. In the previous two recessions, there was no similar increase in spending -- though Bush did increase spending a little due to his wars and creation of the Homeland Security Dept, that was nothing compared to what happened under Obama. Bush's term unfortunately included a very short economic growth period (4 years) due to the long-simmering housing bubble, but you can see from the spending and income graph you posted that another year or two of growth would have had us back in the black. By comparison, During Clinton's term it took 5 years for growth to result in a balanced budget (starting with a year or two left in Bush I's term). So the two trajectories are pretty comparable to each other.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Jim Kata http://xoutsocialism.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/debtchart.jpg
JK, you stated before that "tax plans" ... "exploded the deficit." Taxes provide the revenue side of the deficit. If revenue increases, but spending explodes then it is hardly the fault of the tax plan that the deficit increases. So, here is federal revenue over time (constant dollars).

2000-2012. Bush tax cuts went into effect starting in 2001, fully in 2003:

1980-1990. Kemp-Roth tax cuts were 1981; 2nd tax cut was 1986.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Quote by Jim Kata
First off mheslep, you never answered my question on how the Romney tax plan was any different than Supply Side economics or Trickle Down economics. The cutting of marginal tax rates and increasing deregulation are the tenets of supply side and trickle down economics and neither of those worked so what makes you think this will?

 Let's take a quick look at the history of the Tax Foundation since these are the experts you have cited. The Tax Foundation was founded by the chairman of General Motors, ...
Yes in 1937, and irrelevant. Here are the bios of the authors

... So forgive me if I am a little incredulous of this economic think tanks claims because even if they are non partisan the source of their funding is definitely agenda driven. ...
Which is to say, what, i) you read the report and are incredulous, or ii) you declined to read it because of perceived bias and are uninformed about its contents?

 To the question of revenues, the Bush tax cuts claimed that they would be revenue neutral through the idea of the Laffer curve, but let's look at the evidence.
I think the straight revenue figures are more to the point as opposed to revenue/GDP , but either way, what happened? Where does revenue from tax policy change explode the deficit?

[...]

 To the sources that say Mitt Romney's tax plan's don't add up most sources agree on this so just pick one.
That's the second time you've made the statement that "most sources" agree with your assertion that Mitt Romney's tax plan will run up the deficit, but without providing any sources despite a request.

 If you give a 20% tax cut across the board and increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars that puts you something like 7 trillion dollars in the hole. Do you think you can dig out of a 7 trillion dollar hole with increased economic activity and the closing of a few loopholes?
That's a gross misstatement of the proposal (one proposal):

 Quote by Gov. Romney in the 1st debate "What are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number—$25,000,$50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it."
A hard cap on *all* deductions is not closing a few loopholes.

With regards to military spending, I think it should be cut, actually cut, but have not seen anywhere where Romney favors a $2 trillion increase (over what, ten years?). Blog Entries: 1  Quote by mheslep Which is to say, what, i) you read the report and are incredulous, or ii) you declined to read it because of perceived bias and are uninformed about its contents? I think the straight revenue figures are more to the point as opposed to revenue/GDP , but either way, what happened? Where does revenue from tax policy change explode the deficit? [...] That's the second time you've made the statement that "most sources" agree with your assertion that Mitt Romney's tax plan will run up the deficit, but without providing any sources despite a request. That's a gross misstatement of the proposal (one proposal): A hard cap on *all* deductions is not closing a few loopholes. With regards to military spending, I think it should be cut, actually cut, but have not seen anywhere where Romney favors a$2 trillion increase (over what, ten years?).
Mheslep you still haven't explained how the Romney tax plan is different than Supply Side or Trickle Down economics.

I know you're trying to argue that Supply Side economics and Trickle Down economics had a very limited effect on the debt and the fact that the debt exploded both times these economic policies were tried is sheer coincidence due to reckless spending not a shortage of revenue. In the national debt 1.7 trillion of it is directly due to the bush tax cuts, 678 billion is due to other tax cuts, and 391 billion was due to the 2010 tax deal. That is a total of 2.77 trillion dollars that is directly due to tax cuts.

I read the Tax Foundation's proposal, and don't agree with their conclusions. Whenever deficits have gotten out of control in the past government has raised taxes to increase their revenue. This was done by both Reagan and Bush 41. In times of slow economic growth the government usually gets involved in the economy to spur growth. This leads to an increase in government spending. To offset this increased spending the typical response has been to raise revenues to keep the deficit in check as Bush 41 and Reagan both did. I am not an economics expert so I do not have the authority to judge the findings of the Tax Foundation, but when Paul Krugman an economist whose opinion I truly respect says "the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source" I take heed.

As far as what sources claim Mitt Romney's tax plan is not deficit neutral, there are some listed in this New York Times article that are not the Tax Policy Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/bu...aper.html?_r=0

Some of the experts who say they don't see the math working out come from far left wing fringe think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

Also everyone's favorite Ferris Bueller high school teacher economist Ben Stein lent his opinion on the subject on Fox news. "I hate to say this on Fox- and I hope I will be allowed to leave here alive- but I don't think there is anyway to cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference." "We are going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes like say 2,3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down." This man can't even figure out that evolution is real, but is smart enough to figure this one out.

Even though I know I'll never be able to establish the causality between Supply Side policies and the debt to your liking, I have anecdotal question for you? When was the last time there was a budget surplus? Was it under the economic policies of Reagan or either of the Bushes?

 Blog Entries: 1 one more interesting chart

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Jim Kata Mheslep you still haven't explained how the Romney tax plan is different than Supply Side or Trickle Down economics.
You stated earlier you were aware Romney's plan was an across the board rate cut (and deductions cap)? Isn't trickle down supposed to be about taxes breaks just for the 'rich'? Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing vague labels, even less about which labels do not apply.

 I know you're trying to argue that Supply Side economics and Trickle Down economics had a very limited effect on the debt and the fact that the debt exploded both times these economic policies were tried is sheer coincidence due to reckless spending not a shortage of revenue.
I did not argue the revenue figures, they are what they are and I referenced them. Once there's agreement on the basic numbers, then a productive argument is possible.

 In the national debt 1.7 trillion of it is directly due to the bush tax cuts, 678 billion is due to other tax cuts, and 391 billion was due to the 2010 tax deal. That is a total of 2.77 trillion dollars that is directly due to tax cuts...
More assertions made as fact, so I'll move on ...

Blog Entries: 1
 Quote by mheslep You stated earlier you were aware Romney's plan was an across the board rate cut (and deductions cap)? Isn't trickle down supposed to be about taxes breaks just for the 'rich'? Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing vague labels, even less about which labels do not apply.
The 2003 Bush tax cuts, trickle down, was for everyone. These are not just vague labels it's important for people to know what the Romney tax plan is really about. It's Supply Side and Trickle Down with a new name. The same ideas as before with a new name.

You said that it's not a fact that the Reagan and Bush tax plans added to the debt I'll post one more source and be done with it.

 Blog Entries: 1 One more time, to show how the tax plans have directly affected the debt. That's, add it up, 2.77 trillion dollars due to tax cuts.
 They're just trying to appeal to the hyper-individualists. It has nothing to do with age or gender or intelligence or pretty pie charts. It rages from "hur-dur I don't want nobody telling me what to do, no government, nobody" to people who are intelligent but not so interested in politics to people who are well-read highly educated libertarians to people who are living in holes in the ground surrounded by 100 years worth of baked beans. So even though it seems like deregulation isn't going to affect their freedom, it fits in with their life philosophy.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Jim Kata One more time, to show how the tax plans have directly affected the debt. That's, add it up, 2.77 trillion dollars due to tax cuts.
Debt is $16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph? Blog Entries: 1  Quote by mheslep Debt is$16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph?
I think it came from Time magazine, but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. Since you question my sources here's a source you might understand

The vertical axis I think is debt to GDP ratio.

Here is another one

Here are some projections if the Bush tax cuts stay in place.

 I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed
 Recognitions: Gold Member I don't see how the concepts of either deregulation or regulation are very meaningful alone. There's good and bad versions of each. It's the implementation and integration of them that determine how they affect social values like freedom. Deregulation that gives corps political power is bad, regulations that give bureaucrats power are bad. They each have potential to take away freedoms from the public.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by RabbitWho I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed
Do colorful graphs count? Here's an old one I put together 2 days before Halloween last year:

Let's see if anyone can remember what it represents.

hint: edward, george Carlin, and I, all seemed to be on the same page that day.

ps. Looking at the name of the image is cheating.

 Mentor Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim. So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by russ_watters Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim. So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.
Ha ha! Ellipses can come across as very disingenuous.

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosing

perhaps should have been called:

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosingthebattlefortheirshareofthepi e

The original file has disappeared from the CBO. But being the pack rat that I am....

after-tax_income_shares.pdf

Even my text describing the graph was a bit erroneous

 post tax income since 1979 until 2007 bottom 5 lines are quintiles top 3 lines are 1%, 5%, & 10% I'm sure you can identify which is which. (Who knows how to say; Cha-Ching!)
hmm... I must have been very emotional.

2 gaffes in one day? Inexcusable! Where were the PF mentors when I needed them?

------------------------------