So how did our debt get so large?

[deziloooooo]

From some who post here and threads on the subject and definitely on another completely different zone, the problem seems to come about from our current POTUS and the government in control, over the almost three years of the current administration, but from the posted except of a article I just came across, will post the link of, it seems there really is a bit more to the story then what is so ofter suggested.

Granted some of the debt can be laid at the feet of the current party in power and the POTUS, though a large amount is military wars that were not started by the man himself and it isn't as easy to get out of those things as it is to get into them, and when you look at the list, it seems he was not as involved in adding to the debt as some seem to suggest.
-------------------------------------------


Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:

—2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.

—Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.

—Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.

—Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.

—2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.

—2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.

—2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.

—Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

— Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.

..
------------------------------------

It is neat to really get to know the truth behind some of these assumptions isn't it? Ok , possible not for some, but for me it is.

;D

[formerexpat]

Shit would hit the fan if a poster went over to YM and posted that their debt was due to not making enough money.

Tax cuts and lower revenues do not cause debt. Congress & DC not adjusting for this known change is the cause of the debt.

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 boosted revenue significantly. I'm not sure why people ignore the recession caused by the internet bubble and 9/11. Federal revenues decreased over 10% from 2000 to 2002 before doing a 180 with revenues in 2004 being 6% above 2000 revenues.

So, Bush's tax cut & other economic policies averted a Great Recession while Obama policies caused income taxes collected as a percent of GDP to plummet. If only Congress would have been able to rein in those GSE's in the middle of the decade - might be a different picture all together. But, a certain party needed a crisis to take advantage of to spark hope and change among voters. And so we're stuck with a President that does everything within his power to screw up the economy, whether knowingly or not.

[Deleted]

2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.

If your a democrat you believe that those were lost revenues.
If your a republican you believe that they stimulated the economy & more taxes came in because of them.

What's really true nobody know because you can't assume that nothing would have changed because you didn't give them. (actually some do assume but again that depends on their party).

I thought that I would point that out.

[tbop77]

"Tax cuts and lower revenues do not cause debt. Congress & DC not adjusting for this known change is the cause of the debt."

So your own party that was in power at the time failed to adjust??

"If only Congress would have been able to rein in those GSE's in the middle of the decade - might be a different picture all together."

Who was in control in the middle of the decade?

And so we WERE stuck with a President and a Congress that did everything within their power to screw up the economy, whether knowingly or not.

Fixed it for you!

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 11:43:27 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Shit would hit the fan if a poster went over to YM and posted that their debt was due to not making enough money.

Tax cuts and lower revenues do not cause debt. Congress & DC not adjusting for this known change is the cause of the debt.

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 boosted revenue significantly.

false. they lowered revenue significantly.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 11:43:27 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Federal revenues decreased over 10% from 2000 to 2002 before doing a 180 with revenues in 2004 being 6% above 2000 revenues.

that was because of economic rebound, not because of tax cuts. don't make the mistake of thinking they are related. they aren't.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 11:43:27 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

So, Bush's tax cut & other economic policies averted a Great Recession while Obama policies caused income taxes collected as a percent of GDP to plummet.

how do you figure that? Obama's economic policies are basically identical, if not FRIENDLIER to taxpayers than Bush's.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 12:22:46 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.

If your a democrat you believe that those were lost revenues.
If your a republican you believe that they stimulated the economy & more taxes came in because of them.

i am not interested in beliefs. i am interested in facts.

you can start with OTA Paper 81.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...and here I have to simply say, again... I'm no fan of POTUS, I'm no fan of the GOP or DNC... I'm a fan of Math 101... and the current administration KNEW full well how to add and have not taken any real steps to get our budget into a healthier status...

...sorry, you cannot convince me that you had no idea that several more trillion in spending wasn't going to max out the national credit card several months/years later... sorry... I don't buy it... and if you can't use a calculator or look at a calendar and add... you DO NOT DESERVE to be in charge... bye bye...

...I realize that this rant is fairly useless in the current discussions, but can you tell I just want to spit sometimes? spit, spit, spit...



...sigh...

...okay, I feel a bit better now... but never fear, it won't last...

[formerexpat]

false. they lowered revenue significantly.

Total US revenues by year:

2000 - $3.675 tr
2001 - $3.557 tr
2002 - $3.299 tr
2003 - $3.440 tr
2004 - $3.891 tr
2005 - $4.243 tr

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

Facts don't agree with you, like usual.

that was because of economic rebound, not because of tax cuts. don't make the mistake of thinking they are related. they aren't.

So, with the economic rebound since the end of 2008, the extension [as well as addition to] the tax cuts, and a $800bn Obama stimulus, why are income tax revenues not sky rocketing instead of plummeting

Obama's economic policies are basically identical, if not FRIENDLIER to taxpayers than Bush's.

Economic policies aren't limited to the current impact on tax payers. Think big businesses love holding cash that earns a negative return after inflation? I'm sure they'd love to invest that if the economic policies of this administration were better.

Who was in control in the middle of the decade?

Guess you've never found out that Frank, Dodd and others cock blocked the GOP from reining the GSE's in and getting no doc loans under control. Google and You tube are your friend, use them wisely.

[Malarky]

Common sense 101 says that if you never save for a rainy day, spend everything you make and then some when times are good, make a boatload of unsustainable promises and ignore between 3 and 11 million (depending on who you might be listening to today) illegal problems then you might run into financial problems.

But who's taking the common sense approach?

[Malarky]

I'm tempted to just delete my previous post. As a general rule, I read and try to refrain from commenting.

It's just beyond aggravating that these conversations go 'round and 'round, here and in Washington, and the elephant in the room is ignored.

We spend too much freaking money, people. Money that we don't have. Just like cutting the cable and the cell phone bill, at home, we as a nation have to do with less.

And if it doesn't affect me, it wasn't enough.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

false. they lowered revenue significantly.

Total US revenues by year:

2000 - $3.675 tr
2001 - $3.557 tr
2002 - $3.299 tr
2003 - $3.440 tr
2004 - $3.891 tr
2005 - $4.243 tr

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

Facts don't agree with you, like usual.

i see- so those figures were adjusted for all variables other than tax rates? in other words, you accounted for inflation? you accounted for background economic growth? you accounted for changes in birth and death rates? you accounted for employment?

no. you didn't. and therefore, you are conflating ONE SINGLE VARIABLE (top incremental rates) with all of those other things.

please don't lecture me about facts until you have read OTA Paper 81 and understand what it is saying. TYIA for your consideration.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

So, with the economic rebound since the end of 2008, the extension [as well as addition to] the tax cuts, and a $800bn Obama stimulus, why are income tax revenues not sky rocketing instead of plummeting

you should ask yourself that same question, since you just claimed that tax cuts cause revenues to increase, and the "stimulus" package was no less than 40% tax cuts. Obama added a payroll tax cut last year to the heap, which further undercut revenues.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Economic policies aren't limited to the current impact on tax payers. Think big businesses love holding cash that earns a negative return after inflation? I'm sure they'd love to invest that if the economic policies of this administration were better.

that stems from a misunderstanding of what drives economies. what makes economies move is not "better policies", it is "better demand".

if you don't believe me, check out places like China, which have just about the shittiest policies imaginable.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 16:42:33 GMT -5 Malarky said:

Common sense 101 says that if you never save for a rainy day, spend everything you make and then some when times are good, make a boatload of unsustainable promises and ignore between 3 and 11 million (depending on who you might be listening to today) illegal problems then you might run into financial problems.

But who's taking the common sense approach?

about 300M Americans. since the crash of the financial markets, US Savings rates have gone from basically 0% to their recent average of about 6%. what we actually need is for those rates to fall a bit, which will spur demand and get things moving again. but the longer we engage in economic brinksmanship that borders on terrorism, and could quite easily add $1T to our debt over the next decade, there is little hope of that.

[reasonfreedom]

Jul 24, 2011 17:03:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Total US revenues by year:

2000 - $3.675 tr
2001 - $3.557 tr
2002 - $3.299 tr
2003 - $3.440 tr
2004 - $3.891 tr
2005 - $4.243 tr

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

Facts don't agree with you, like usual.

i see- so those figures were adjusted for all variables other than tax rates? in other words, you accounted for inflation? you accounted for background economic growth? you accounted for changes in birth and death rates? you accounted for employment?

no. you didn't. and therefore, you are conflating ONE SINGLE VARIABLE (top incremental rates) with all of those other things.

please don't lecture me about facts until you have read OTA Paper 81 and understand what it is saying. TYIA for your consideration.

Actually I there are so many factors that could pertain to this that you yourself couldn't actually tell if the revenues increased or decreased. Technically there could be millions of factors.

[reasonfreedom]

Jul 24, 2011 17:10:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

So, with the economic rebound since the end of 2008, the extension [as well as addition to] the tax cuts, and a $800bn Obama stimulus, why are income tax revenues not sky rocketing instead of plummeting

you should ask yourself that same question, since you just claimed that tax cuts cause revenues to increase, and the "stimulus" package was no less than 40% tax cuts. Obama added a payroll tax cut last year to the heap, which further undercut revenues.

Wasn't that an SS payroll tax cut and since it was going to an entitlement program how would that be revenue lost since SS tax is dedicated totally to SS( unless it isn't).

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 17:16:42 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jul 24, 2011 17:03:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i see- so those figures were adjusted for all variables other than tax rates? in other words, you accounted for inflation? you accounted for background economic growth? you accounted for changes in birth and death rates? you accounted for employment?

no. you didn't. and therefore, you are conflating ONE SINGLE VARIABLE (top incremental rates) with all of those other things.

please don't lecture me about facts until you have read OTA Paper 81 and understand what it is saying. TYIA for your consideration.

Actually I there are so many factors that could pertain to this that you yourself couldn't actually tell if the revenues increased or decreased. Technically there could be millions of factors.

that is not statistically correct, reason.

if you are good with numbers, you can created models that are very very accurate with a small number of parameters by eliminating the variables that are statistically insignificant to the matter you are studying.

that might leave you with 5 that are significant. or it could be 50. or it could be 500. then you take those variables and run them through and purge the influence of competing factors out of the model until you have something that is relatively "clean".

what i am challenging here is the idea that just by looking at the revenue -vs- tax numbers you can tell what is going on. and i am saying that you really can't. you have to actually DECOUPLE the variables and compensate for "noise" in the revenue numbers to see what is actually going on.

that is what OTA Paper 81 does. it is a fascinating work. it should be mandatory reading for all members of congress.

EDIT: for those of you not following what i said here, let me illustrate using a HYPOTHETICAL example:

let's say that you had an economic model of revenue that was 13% accurate with 3 variables, 75% accurate with 13 variables, and 98% accurate with 20 variables.

first of all, you would not choose the model that was 13% accurate. that is rubbish. but without KNOWING that it was only 13% accurate, you might thing it was a perfectly good model based on anecdotal evidence.

your second step is THEN to run the model with all (20) variables in multiple scenarios and time frames (ie, every significant tax change since WW2), and see how they predict outcomes.

the third step, if the second step checks out, is to run every scenario again with one less variable- taxes. THEN you can "see" the background noise, and eliminate it from the data.

finally, you subtract the third data set from the second. from this, you gain the insight as to what the influence of taxes is on the data set.

that is what OTA Paper 81 does. and it makes it a superior instrument to "raw data review" for analysis.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 17:18:52 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Jul 24, 2011 17:10:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you should ask yourself that same question, since you just claimed that tax cuts cause revenues to increase, and the "stimulus" package was no less than 40% tax cuts. Obama added a payroll tax cut last year to the heap, which further undercut revenues.

Wasn't that an SS payroll tax cut and since it was going to an entitlement program how would that be revenue lost since SS tax is dedicated totally to SS( unless it isn't).

that would depend on two things.

first of all, it would depend on whether YOUR revenue numbers included them. if they did, then yes, absolutely, it would show as a revenue loss.

the second would be whether SS, which is, as you properly stated, a pay as you go system, was still in balance in the years you posted. and the answer to that question is YES.

i think the historical practice is to use the SS revenues as part of the overall surplus and deficit calculation, but there are people more honest, such as yourself, apparently, that choose NOT to do that. i have no opinion either way, so long as we can agree to what we are talking about.

the difference is more dramatic if you back out SS.

[Malarky]

Jul 24, 2011 17:15:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2011 16:42:33 GMT -5 Malarky said:

Common sense 101 says that if you never save for a rainy day, spend everything you make and then some when times are good, make a boatload of unsustainable promises and ignore between 3 and 11 million (depending on who you might be listening to today) illegal problems then you might run into financial problems.

But who's taking the common sense approach?

about 300M Americans. since the crash of the financial markets, US Savings rates have gone from basically 0% to their recent average of about 6%. what we actually need is for those rates to fall a bit, which will spur demand and get things moving again. but the longer we engage in economic brinksmanship that borders on terrorism, and could quite easily add $1T to our debt over the next decade, there is little hope of that.

I don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility. I've managed to do that on a small scale. Part of the reason I'm reluctant to put more of my hard earned money into the economy is that I don't feel confident that we're heading in an intelligent direction.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2011 17:37:51 GMT -5 Malarky said:

Jul 24, 2011 17:15:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

about 300M Americans. since the crash of the financial markets, US Savings rates have gone from basically 0% to their recent average of about 6%. what we actually need is for those rates to fall a bit, which will spur demand and get things moving again. but the longer we engage in economic brinksmanship that borders on terrorism, and could quite easily add $1T to our debt over the next decade, there is little hope of that.

I don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility.

i never claimed that you could not. however, i would argue that damaging your credit rating today when you could just as easily save it, and get your house in order, is a profoundly stupid thing to do, and irresponsible as well, if you expected other people to pay for your petulance.

I've managed to do that on a small scale. Part of the reason I'm reluctant to put more of my hard earned money into the economy is that I don't feel confident that we're heading in an intelligent direction.

this is rational for a consumer, and it precisely why the financial crises of 1929 in the US, 1980 in Japan, and 2007 in the US are SO HARD to get out of: it is a death spiral of illiquidity.

what Boehner and other Republicans have been saying is absolutely 100% the opposite of the truth. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire. so, the longer you sit on your nest egg, afraid of the future, the longer that they will do the same. but make no mistake about it. YOU are leading. THEY are following.

there is only one way that i know of to break the cycle. the influence of tax policy on that decision is absolutely NIL.

[reasonfreedom]

Jul 24, 2011 17:25:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2011 17:18:52 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Wasn't that an SS payroll tax cut and since it was going to an entitlement program how would that be revenue lost since SS tax is dedicated totally to SS( unless it isn't).

that would depend on two things.

first of all, it would depend on whether YOUR revenue numbers included them. if they did, then yes, absolutely, it would show as a revenue loss.

the second would be whether SS, which is, as you properly stated, a pay as you go system, was still in balance in the years you posted. and the answer to that question is YES.

i think the historical practice is to use the SS revenues as part of the overall surplus and deficit calculation, but there are people more honest, such as yourself, apparently, that choose NOT to do that. i have no opinion either way, so long as we can agree to what we are talking about.

the difference is more dramatic if you back out SS.

I am in agreement with that.

[djAdvocate]

Gold is +$20 in the first hour on overseas markets. the dow is -111 in premarket trading.

both of those moves are very significant for sunday trading.

money.cnn.com/data/premarket/
www.kitco.com/market/

perhaps if enough panic stricken executives call congress, something will happen.

PS- gold is actually FALLING against most currencies OTHER than the USD. that should tell you something about how the dollar is doing.

[Malarky]

don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility.

i never claimed that you could not.

My bad for assuming.


it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire.

Well, unless the wealthy create some jobs so people have money to spend, we're shit out of luck, because the only reason I have money is that I never bought into the whole "live on credit" and "the house is the ATM" crap.

And the way the government hemorrhages money, I don't see this as a viable source of growth.

We need to feel comfortable to take risks without worrying about the other shoe dropping. It would be nice if our country was headed in a clear, intelligent direction. I'm not interested in consuming anything else the government is offering. I can't afford it.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 24, 2011 16:53:36 GMT -5 Malarky said:

I'm tempted to just delete my previous post. As a general rule, I read and try to refrain from commenting.

It's just beyond aggravating that these conversations go 'round and 'round, here and in Washington, and the elephant in the room is ignored.

We spend too much freaking money, people. Money that we don't have. Just like cutting the cable and the cell phone bill, at home, we as a nation have to do with less.

And if it doesn't affect me, it wasn't enough.

...I'm glad to see you didn't delete it...

[Malarky]

Jul 24, 2011 17:48:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2011 17:37:51 GMT -5 Malarky said:

I don't quite grasp how you can't have both growth and fiscal responsibility.

i never claimed that you could not. however, i would argue that damaging your credit rating today when you could just as easily save it, and get your house in order, is a profoundly stupid thing to do, and irresponsible as well, if you expected other people to pay for your petulance.I've managed to do that on a small scale. Part of the reason I'm reluctant to put more of my hard earned money into the economy is that I don't feel confident that we're heading in an intelligent direction.

this is rational for a consumer, and it precisely why the financial crises of 1929 in the US, 1980 in Japan, and 2007 in the US are SO HARD to get out of: it is a death spiral of illiquidity.

what Boehner and other Republicans have been saying is absolutely 100% the opposite of the truth. it is not the wealthy who are job creators. it is, in fact, the consumer. consumer demand, particularly in THIS economy determines whether businesses hire. so, the longer you sit on your nest egg, afraid of the future, the longer that they will do the same. but make no mistake about it. YOU are leading. THEY are following.

there is only one way that i know of to break the cycle. the influence of tax policy on that decision is absolutely NIL.

This must be one of those things that I often hear about but have never seen.

While I was responding, the quote was changed.

Makes it a bit difficult to play fair.

ETA: This was the original that I later quoted: i never claimed that you could not.

The rest was added while I was typing (slowly).

Whatever, back to posting on EE where at least we freely admit that we're screwing with each other.

[tbop77]

Jul 24, 2011 16:23:03 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Guess you've never found out that Frank, Dodd and others cock blocked the GOP from reining the GSE's in and getting no doc loans under control. Google and You tube are your friend, use them wisely.

You are correct and would be wise to do the same!

Basically, it was Bill Frist who ultimately “blocked” the Senate bill. There were 25 Republican Senators who signed Senator Hagel’s letter and 29 Republicans who did not sign it, including not only the then-GOP majority leader (Frist), but also the current GOP minority leader (Mitch McConnell).

A regulatory bill passed in the House, with a majority of Democrats joining with a majority of Republicans to approve the bill, despite speeches against the bill by Barney Franks and Maxine Waters. Some Democrats said dumb things, but a majority of Democrats voted in favor. According to the Bill’s sponsor, Republican Michael Oxley, the bill was opposed by the Bush White House and by the Senate.

[Deleted]

The same way our asses have. We have overindulged on everything. There is no reason to make it all so damn complicated.

[Malarky]

xmascookie

I'm currently out of karma, but you're on the list.

Modified for spelling. No other thoughts/opinions were added. I simply used "your" instead of the correct "you're."