Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner just shot himself in the foot (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, Clinton also lowered spending to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SuWho, dougfir30, VClib, nextstep

    around 19% of GDP (to go with revenue also around 19% of GDP) at the same time.  Today's spending is around 24% of GDP, with revenue around 15% - 16% of GDP.  

    So, if you want to say, with credibility, that the Clinton model resulted in growth, you have to talk about all aspects of the Clinton model, not just the parts you like.

    •  bS (35+ / 0-)

      You keep pushing these lines about "spending cuts". you do know that President Obama is the first president in 50+ years to run the leanest government with the lowest levels of deficit spending right?

      And No. Clinton's increased taxes is what got the debt & deficit low through economic growth which brought in increased revenue,

      Bush got us in this mess precisely because he atrophied revenue through his irresponsible tax cuts, and borrowed to up the spending on his wars which resulted in the huge debt & deficit..

      So when you have an economy that is so warped and the ratio of revenue to debt & deficit is so out of what, do you starve spending to grow the economy or do you spend to stabilize it out of the near-depression into some state of health. This is what president Obama has been doing. We cannot cut our way out of a deep recession. it is not tenable

      So now that there are signs of health, we need to correct the unsustainable dismal tax revenue receipts by clawing back the lopsidedly paltry rates that upper income and corporations pay

      "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

      by zizi on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:57:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sigh. Facts are facts. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, nextstep, MrSpock

        See here and here (page 27).  

        1999:  Receipts 19.8% of GDP; Outlays 18.5% of GDP.

        2011 (last year with hard data) Receipts 15.8% of GDP: Outlays 24.1% of GDP.  The only other time spending was that high as a % of GDP was during FY 1943 - 1946 (i.e., World War II), and then when the war ended, we dropped dramatically for FY 1947 to 14.8% of GDP.

        Those are White House numbers.    I'm using the last year with hard data, because estimates are meaningless unless you know what assumptions (what growth in GDP, what spending) are included in those estimates.  If, for example, you assume that GDP will grow 5% in 2013 and spending will increase less than that same 5% of GDP, that would drop spending as a % of GDP.  

        All the talk about "cuts" and "tax increases" and "reducing deficits" are completely meaningless unless you are specific about what baseline you are using and unless you specify how you are measuring.  And -- as the White House document demonstrates -- when you want to compare government receipts and outlays, that is generally not measured in absolute numbers but instead as a percentage of GDP.   Our receipts are too low, and our outlays are too high.  That's what that chart tells you.  

        Look at the White House document outlining those numbers and then let's talk.  

        •  Those are in a relatively prosperous times (18+ / 0-)

          Outlays should and must be higher in times of recession.  The fact is higher taxes did not harm the Clinton economy, and more importantly, low taxes did not leave Bush with a great economy.

          These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

          by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:35:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton didn't lower spending. The left hand (7+ / 0-)

          out lay column on pg. 27 increased year after year to 1.7 trillion (on into 2012 i might add). The 19%  balance was achieved by an exploding GDP and the ratio of continuous increasing expenditures fell not government outlays.

          You have completely distorted the record.

          Besides we are talking of increasing revenue like in 1994 when tax increases stimulated the economy and brought us to your 1999 conclusions.

          BTW thanks for the links. I bookmarked them.

          After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

          by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:49:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton and the Republicans kept spending (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, MrSpock

            in line with receipts.  That is the point.  No one in government requires actual decrease in dollars spent to constitute a "cut."  In government speak, a slowing in the projected growth of spending is a "cut."  

            And yes, part of the "balance" was the growth in GDP.  But the fact that spending was kept at below 20% of GDP also played a part.  Clinton and the Republican Congress did not increase spending to keep pace with, or exceed, that growth in GDP.  

            My point was that the Clinton record was not just increasing revenues as a part of GDP, it was keeping spending in line with that 18% or so of GDP.  The low spending as a % of GDP also played a role in the Clinton economic record.  

            What the President is proposing -- increasing revenues as a percent of GDP but keeping spending some 5 - 6 percentage points greater than revenues (depending on the growth projections) -- is not the Clinton model.  And neither is what the Republicans are proposing, by the way.  

            My point is that it is overly simplistic and misleading to say, "Clinton increased taxes and growth was fine" as if  there was a unilateral cause and effect there.  There were a whole lot of things at play, including the dot.com boom and the fact that outlays were low as a percent of GDP.  It would as if the Republicans were to say, "Clinton kept spending below 20% of GDP and  we had a lot of growth, so let's cut spending to 20% of GDP."  That would be equally misleading.    

            •  Clinton .... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bluezen, Odysseus, MrSpock, lostinamerica
              kept spending in line with receipts.
              ...during GOOD times with near-full employment.   Like a good Keynesian.  In case you hadn't noticed we are a long way from full employment now...keeping spending in line with receipts right now would be not only stupid but actually counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction (see: most of Europe).

              Oh, and you can cut that "Clinton & the Republicans" bullshit.  Most of us are old enough to remember how Clinton had to drag Newt & Dole kicking and screaming every step of the way....

              •  I don't think we should have a surplus (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrSpock, VClib

                as they did at the end of the Clinton term.  I understand that times are different.  My point was only that the statement "Clinton raised taxes, and growth didn't slow" was overly simplistic and misleading in and of itself.  A lot of things happened during those years, and the combination of those things -- including raising taxes, limiting spending, and the dot.com boom -- lead to the growth of that period.  

                And I say "Clinton and the Republican Congress" because a President doesn't authorize spending.  It takes a combination of a President and Congress. And, during the years of surplus,Clinton was President and  the Congress was controlled by Republicans.  

                My personal view is that tax revenue needs to go back up to about 18% of GDP, and spending needs to come down to about 21% of GDP, so that the annual deficits are once again on a sustainable level.  

                •  The most important factor rarely discussed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MrSpock

                  is that the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

                  So there is a cause and effect. A dramatic one. If the economy expands to 3-4-5-6 % because of expanded cash supplies, then the outlays to GDP will drop below any arbitrary magical number of 18-19-21% of GDP. The projections through 2014 already project us at 22% from our current 24%. Any surge in the economy (which I predict ala Warren Buffet) will render equal 20% ratios or lower and Obama will be master of the universe just in time for Hillary to step in.

                  After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

                  by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:34:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, facts are facts. All of them, not just (7+ / 0-)

      the parts that you like.

      From downthread:

      have to pay back the free money they've been enjoying since 2000/2001. Meanwhile, we've been paying into SS at our Baby Boomer premium with every paycheck all along (diminished by a bit less than a third for the last two years). That is one of the stimulus tax cuts scheduled to end on January 1 - and it should end. For median income that's about $20 a week, easily made up for in a new Obama tax cut package for the 98% and an increase on the 2%. Which is coming no matter how many tears Boehner sheds.

      Only difference is in the dedication of the incoming tax revenue. What properly belongs to Social Security should be on the books for Social Security. Because that's a debt to we the people by the U.S. Treasury and it's backed by the very same "full faith and credit" of the U.S. of A. as any other debt we owe to anybody else in the world.

      The Republicans, knowing that the SS T-Bills were borrowed by the government for the general fund in order to offset their tax cuts and tax evasion schemes, simply want the Treasury to default on that debt now that it's coming due. That is a much, much bigger threat to the nation than raising taxes on the insanely wealthy.

      The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

      by ozsea1 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:45:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (154)
  • Community (61)
  • Environment (36)
  • Culture (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Republicans (31)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Science (23)
  • Media (22)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site