How America turned into a European country
It was not about political ideas at all. It was about identity: about who and what you were in the most visceral and personal sense – about race, about class, about being the kind of person you believed it was necessary to be.
The saddest development is the one that is most counter-intuitive. Mr Obama – who famously ran in 2008 as the post-racial candidate – has polarised the nation racially in a way that it has not been for half a century, reversing what had been the progressive trend toward real social integration and colour blindness in American political life. Ninety-three per cent of black voters – 93 per cent – voted for Obama in this election, as did 71 per cent of Latino voters and 73 per cent of Asian ones. But if non-white ethnic groups are choosing to segregate themselves electorally – quite often with little regard for their actual economic or social interests – white voters are not. Only 59 per cent of them supported Romney: a majority but not an overwhelming one. Some of this was down to the class war issue: blue collar voters were encouraged to see Romney as a rapacious capitalist who would destroy people’s livelihoods if the balance sheet dictated it.
But that was an unfortunate consequence of this particular candidate’s credentials. There is a more historically significant, and possibly more permanent, development too. The United States has now acquired an electorally powerful liberal bourgeoisie who are convinced, as their European counterparts have been for several generations, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that public spending is inherently virtuous, that poverty can be cured by penalising wealth creation, and that government intervention can engineer social “fairness”. But just when some of Europe’s political class has begun to appreciate the dangers of this philosophy – that taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to economic stagnation and social division – America seems to have decided that it is the quintessence of enlightened sophistication.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
That has been the goal of elected democrats since at least 1918.
THey desire a stratified ruling class and country class with no mobility.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Ted Torgerson on November 11, 2012 at 7:45 PM
The problem with liberals is they always claim they just need more money, and utopia will be achieved.
And every issue in international relations can be negotiated and resolved by peaceful means.
Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Sad, very sad.
Dream on Ms. Daley. The torch is dark.
Schadenfreude on November 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Look at the dead in Brazil, just this weekend.
Vive la…whatever.
Schadenfreude on November 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Decency lost.
Charlatanic thuggery won.
Starve the looters.
Schadenfreude on November 11, 2012 at 7:51 PM
Foodstamps surge to new time high – release is delayed, after the election.
Thugs, indeed.
Schadenfreude on November 11, 2012 at 7:51 PM
Can I be a Duke now?
faraway on November 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM
Exactly. The British won the Revolutionary War. It just tok a couple hundred years.
Warner Todd Huston on November 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM
LOL!
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 7:53 PM
I just fear we’re in for a far ruder awakening when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. We have a younger population than Greece. We have far more people. And we have an abundance of guns out there. When our economy crashes, our civil unrest could make the riots in Greece look like a tea party(the kind where people actually drink tea).
Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM
More bandwidth wasted on stating the obvious. My God but today’s writers are boring and tedious and utterly predictable. How ironic that they, in attempting to write about the stagnation, the boredom, the lack of innovation that socialism brings, are demonstrating that very fact with their meaningless drivel. We’ve been a socialist country far longer than we’ve known, apparently.
Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 8:05 PM
“6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days–Average 68 per Day”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/6125-proposed-regulations-and-notifications-posted-last-90-days-average-68-day
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Let it burn: US TV networks suffer sharp dip in ratings
davidk on November 11, 2012 at 8:20 PM
It didn’t turn into a European country.
America turned into Venezuela.
The Rogue Tomato on November 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Although there are some ideologues in the Dem party, I think the majority of them simply see this philosophy as a path to permanent power.
It is similar to political figure like Putin. He is an authoritarian who wants to consolidate and keep power. He’d fit just as well as PM in czarist Russia, as in the Communist Soviet Union.
Dems’ “philosophy” is simply a means to an end.
Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Americans aren’t changing what made voters pick Obama over Romney was:
1-2009 to 10-2012 + 759,000 private sector jobs.
1-2001 to 10-2004 - 1,168,000 private sector jobs.
The Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Bush handed President Obama a national debt of $11.3 trillion that was rapidly growing because of the $1.5 trillion deficit — and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade with a country in a recession despite Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to spend up to $700 billion to shore up troubled assets for wall street that did nothing for the massive unemployment that had tripled during the Bush administration: http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years prove that trickle down economics actually hurt the economy and that raising the taxes on the wealthy has not hurt the economy: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Debt comes from spending doofus.
Justthefacts?
LMFAO!
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
When the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Because the county was making more money than it could spend Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”
Bush argued that a tax cut for the wealthy would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bush believed that when government helps companies, through corporate welfare they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. This theory was called trickledown economics believing that if the rich got richer some of their money would trickle down to the middle class. Yet:
1-2009 to 10-2012 + 759,000 private sector jobs.
1-2001 to 10-2004 – 1,168,000 private sector jobs.
Considering that more jobs were created under the Clinton administration and its higher taxes on the rich than were created following the Bush tax cuts. Upton admitted that “I don’t know specifically the answer to that question,” nonsensically pointing to Friday’s jobs report instead of trying to argue the premise of Hunt’s question:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/congress-will-agree-on-payroll-tax-cut-extension-upton-says.html
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Liar, never happened reprobate:
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM
I will list over 50 quotes from Bush and his administration acknowledging the Clinton surplus and that he was going to give it back to the people.
President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.
That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration’s tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.
“A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged,” the president said. “And usually when you’ve been overcharged, you expect to get something back.” The surplus figure “counts more than any other” in the budget, he said.
Mr. Bush said his budget plan proposes a “reasonable” 4 percent growth rate, which he said is “little more than inflation.”
He asserted that given the size of the expected surplus, his proposal leaves plenty of room for a large tax cut, while paying for increases in spending on education and for dealing with Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-274334.html
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Liar. Total receipts to the federal gov increased in all but two years of Bush’s two terms. Receipts INCREASED after the so called Bush Tax cuts.
You are a liar and have zero credibility you ridiculous propaganda jackwagon.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM
@tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Your comment is a perfect example of how many here are being mislead by the same people who were trying to convince you that “Romney will win in a landslide of 325 points” despite that there was NO EVIDENCE to justify such absurd claims.
Even Bush’s budget plan acknowledged the Clinton surplus and he campaigned on spending most of it.
Bush’s budget: $265B left of surplus after 10 years http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Budget_&_Economy.htm
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Liar. Pathetic ignoramus. May you suffer immeasurably in the Obama economy.
Link
Where is the surplus reprobate? What year of serial adulterer, alleged rapist, impeached liar Clinton’s admin was not in a deficit?
Name the year. The data I have quoted is from the US treasury.
Like I said, you have sacrificed all your credibility here for eternity on such a stupid point.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM
Your comments are the perfect example of why the man of the mind is going on strike. You cannibals will have to cook your own stew from now on. May you starve.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Are you honestly suggesting that Bush was lying about there being a Clinton surplus so he could fool the people into his tax cuts?
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM
You are incapable of learning. You love your ignorance. You are invested in the narrative, the meta.
Bush said a lot of stuff. Way to engage in a non sequitor, a logical fallacy, when addressing the hard facts.
You are a moron. Get stuffed. jog off.
“fool the people into his tax cuts?”
Honestly are you retarded or brain damaged? There never was a clinton surplus and the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue to your beloved government.
Are you so fking stupid you can’t see it? Are you utterly incapable of learning?
I say it again. Obama is your saviour and his regime will perfect you. Your utopia is awaiting. May it utterly decimate everything you care about.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM
@tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM
I linked to the Congressional Budget Reports above that clearly show your claims are false.
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.
By October 2008, due to increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf and http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”.
Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
Bush handed Obama a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year so no matter what happened the deficit was going to increase by at least 1 trillion a year under Obama.
GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11987/infographic-seven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:41 PM
2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.
By October 2008, due to increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.http://web.archive.org/web/20070628035709/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf and http://www.sbscpagroup.com/blog/debt-nation-post-two/
Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”.
Reported budget deficit data is from The Congressional Budget Office.
Bush handed Obama a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year so no matter what happened the deficit was going to increase by at least 1 trillion a year under Obama.
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:43 PM
He’s completely oblivious. Typical lib.
WisCon on November 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM
@tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Unlike you I have been linking to Congressional Budget Reports and quoting from them as they prove you are incorrect.
I am not posting my opinion but just the facts as have been proven by the preponderance of the evidence found in my links to Government reports.
GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11987/infographic-seven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/
HUNT: Why under those pre-Bush tax cut tax rates did the economy do so well in the ‘90s? And why under the Bush tax rates, less for the wealthy, to do so poorly in this decade?
UPTON: Well, a couple things. One, spending went up, Al, the wars. I mean, that’s trillions of dollars. And also there was no change in the entitlements. And we also know -
HUNT: But that shouldn’t hurt the economy. That shouldn’t hurt economic growth.
UPTON: Yeah, but that impacts the debt and the deficit.
HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?
UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:49 PM
JustTheLies, I listed the data from the gov.
You are a moron. I hate your guts. You deserve the pain that is coming.
Scadenfreude indeed.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM
WTF is your point? You think raising taxes will improve the economy? Do you honestly think it will slow down the rate of government spending?
WisCon on November 11, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Its point is propagating the stupid liberal narrative that Bush is evil and taxes are good.
The ignoramus using the nom JustTheFacts ignored the data from the gov’t.
You can’t argue with a zealot like that. It needs to be destroyed.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:56 PM
@tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM
@WisCon on November 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Please provide a link to a government report that provides credible proof that your claim that “the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue to your beloved government..”
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Hey godless reprobate
Which year during the Clinton regime was a surplus?
Which one? Name it.
Was it FY1993?
1994?
1995?
1996?
1997?
1998?
1999?
2000?
or 2001?
Which year was there a surplus? You made the assertion, now back it up you pile of excrement.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM
No problemo seeker of truth that needs to suffer horribly to learn.
2003 1880126
2004 2153625
2005 2406876
2006 2568001
2007 2523991
2008 2104989
Original document
So is it brain damage or were you born retarded?
You fking liar.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Total Federal Revenue:
2003: 1.8 Trillion
2004: 1.9 Trillion
2005: 2.2 Trillion
2006: 2.4 Trillion
2007: 2.6 Trillion
2008: 2.5 Trillion
Gelsomina on November 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM
I’m awaiting your heartfelt apology Mr. Facts.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM
BS.
Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64
Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23
An increase of: $4,901,104,747,205.59
By the way, there was NO Bush FY 2009 Budget.
He signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009.
Further, the Democratic Congress only passed THREE of FY2009′s 12 appropriations bills for Bush to sign before 1 October 2008, the beginning of FY2009: Defence, Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.
The Democrat-controlled Congress passed the rest of them in 2009 and…
On 11 March 2009, President Barack H. Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law. Furthermore, Bush is not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, the Defence Supplemental of 06.09 loaded with pork, Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, Unemployment Insurance extensions, Making Home Affordable, a massive $680 billion defence bill in September – once again laden with pork, etc.
Uh-oh! There goes that “Blame Bush meme!”
President Bush’s proposed FY2009 budget called for spending of only $3.11 trillion, which was just a 3% increase. President Obama and his Democrat Congress ended up spending $3.52 trillion in 2009, which represented a 17.9% increase in spending — the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.
By January 2010, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.2% — the highest it has been in the United States since World War II.
Yes, Obama’s spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only ever so slightly. During George W Bush’s 8 years as president, spending averaged 19.6% of GDP. Under President Clinton, spending as a percentage of GDP was 19.8%. In the decades following World War II, the average has been 19.7%. The average for Obama’s first term is projected to be 24.3%.
If you want to go “fact-for-fact,” luv, you are going to get slaughtered. I am the best.
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Where he talks about the budget surplus before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate
January 25, 2001 https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
Let me guess he is a liar to?
How about George W. Bush’s first budget director, Mitch Daniels:
“It was the president and a Republican Congress and the Reagan peace dividend and a bubble economy, we later learned, that produced that surplus … I was proud to serve in that administration, but that surplus was going away and it wouldn’t have mattered who was president, let alone in the supporting role of budget director.”
– Indiana Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Feb. 28, 2011 https://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/mitch_daniels_memory_lapse_on.html
Let me guess he is a liar to?
Ok how about some more Bush Quotes? I almost forgot you already insisted that what he said about the surplus was not true.
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM
First off, I HATE the government so it cannot be my “beloved.” Secondly, I didn’t vote for Bush.
FY 2001
Non-defence spending: 1.655 trillion dollars
Defence: 305 billion dollars
Revenue: 1.99 trillion dollars (including SS)
Total spending: 1.96 trillion dollars
Deficit: 133.29 billion dollars (without trust funds)
GDP: 13.1268 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.16%
Spending-to-GDP: 14.93%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.24%
National Debt: 5.8075 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 53.84%
FY 2002:
Non-defence spending: 1.6823 trillion dollars
Defence: 328.7 billion dollars
Revenue: 1.853 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.011 trillion dollars
Deficit: 157.8 billion dollars
GDP: 10.6423 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.41%
Spending-to-GDP: 18.89%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.483%
National Debt: 6.4057 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 60.19%
FY 2003
Non-defence spending: 1.3774 trillion dollars
Defence: 404.9 billion dollars
Revenue: 1.7823 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.159 trillion dollars
Deficit: 374 billion dollars
GDP: 11.1421 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.99%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.38%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.39%
National Debt: 6.7832 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 60.88%
FY 2004
Non-defence spending: 1.836 trillion dollars
Defence: 455.9 billion dollars
Revenue: 1.880 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.292 trillion dollars
Deficit: 413 billion dollars
GDP: 11.8678 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.84%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.31%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.48%
National Debt: 7.596 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 64.01%
FY 2005
Non-defence spending: 1.976 trillion dollars
Defence: 495.30 billion dollars
Revenue: 2.153 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.472 trillion dollars
Deficit: 317 billion dollars
GDP: 12.6384 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.04%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.56%
Deficit-to-GDP: 2.52%
National Debt: 8.1708 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 64.65%
FY 2006
Non-military defence: 2.119 trillion dollars
Defence: 535.9 billion dollars
Revenue: 2.407 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.655 trillion dollars
Deficit: 248 billion dollars
GDP: 13.3989 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.96%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.82%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.85%
National Debt: 8.6802 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 64.78%
FY 2007
Non-defence spending: 2.2026 trillion dollars
Defence: 527.4 billion dollars
Revenue: 2.568 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.728 trillion dollars
Deficit: 163 billion dollars
GDP: 14.0776 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 18.24%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.38%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.86%
National Debt: 9.2298 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 65.67%
FY 2008
Non-defence spending: 2.488 trillion dollars
Defence: 494.4 billion dollars
Revenue: 2.524 trillion dollars
Total spending: 2.9825 trillion dollars
Deficit: 438 billion dollars
GDP: 14.4414 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.48%
Spending-to-GDP: 20.65%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.18%
National Debt: 10.6998 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 74.01%
FY 2009
Non-defence spending: 3.0234 trillion dollars
Defence: 494.3 billion dollars
Revenue: 2.105 trillion dollars
Total spending: 3.5177 trillion dollars
Deficit: 1.786 trillion dollars
GDP: 14.119 trillion dollars
Revenue-to-GDP: 14.91%
Spending-to-GDP: 24.92%
Deficit-to-GDP: 12.91%
National Debt: 12.13497 trillion dollars
Debt-to-GDP: 85.95%
Sources:
Center for Defense Information
Tax Policy Centre
Urban Institute
Brookings Institution
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1981_0.html#usgs302
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Hey helmet wearing mouth breather…the DATA doesnt support your assertion.
Keep quoting stupid humans you fking moron.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 10:14 PM
More sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Pct%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Holy FKING SHT YOU LEFTISTS ARE STUPID…
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Glossary:
Federal budget surplus: When the total of all revenues (personal income tax, business income tax, medicare and social security payroll tax, excise taxes, etc.) exceed the total of all expenditures (building bridges, paying government employees salaries, medicare expenses, and social security expenses, etc.)
Public debt: Total of debt owed to the public (those individuals, businesses, and foreign governments who have purchased treasury securities).
Gross National debt: Total of the public dept plus amounts owed to government trust funds like social security and medicare.
By law, the social security and medicare trust funds are included in the calculations of the budget surplus. In FY 2000, both trust fund accounts had more revenues than expenses. This means — for example– that social security’s tax revenues (from the payroll tax) were greater than social security’s expenses (payments to the retired beneficiaries.) The trust fund surpluses were about the same as the budget surplus. Trust fund accounting requires that surplus monies in the trust fund be segregated from the government’s general account. This is so that the trust fund monies are held in reserve for payments to future beneficiaries, and cannot be spent willy nilly for building bridges, etc; however, the trust fund is allowed to earn interest income on any surplus it holds. Therefore, the trust fund purchases treasury bonds (or their equivalent) from the Treasury department.
The Treasury department therefore doesn’t need to borrow that money from the public, which is why the public debt decreases by the same amount as the surplus. However, since the Treasury now owes this surplus money to the trust fund, the gross national public debt (which includes both the public debt and debts owed to the trust funds) does not decrease.
In fact, officials expressed concern that too much of the national debt was being paid down so fast and so quickly that soon the U.S. government would be forced to buy assets because it had purchased every last publicly traded bond. (Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave weight to this theory in a high-profile congressional appearance shortly after Bush took office in 2001.) In other words, the surplus was getting so big it was going to create economic harm. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Let’s take FY2005:
In 2005 ALONE, there was a 15% INCREASE in revenue, as is stated in this report from the OMB:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0305.pdf
In 2005, the New York Times reported a dramatic FIFTEEN PERCENT increase in federal tax revenues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html
Oh, lookie, I found another left-leaning news organisation that confirms revenues by 15% in 2005. From WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html
With regard to capital gains tax cuts, even factcheck.org acknowledges that “capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006.”
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
In 2006, the CBO released the tax revenue numbers. Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of 2005 fiscal year by 187 billion dollars. That represented a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut.
In a letter written by Peter R. Orszag on May 18, 2007, ( Orszag was Director of CBO “Congressional Budget Office” at the time), he stated, “receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5% to 18.4 %.” The period was from 2003- 2006. Orszag later became Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Obama. I assume he is not a Tea Partier? LOL. ( BTW, he recommended that we keep ALL the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, for the next 2 years.) Orszag also stated in the same letter, “Total Federal revenues grew by about 625 billion dollars, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006? and then continued, “Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, Federal receipts would have increased by only 373 billion dollars. The other 252 billion dollars of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth.”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf
You also may want to check, “United States Department of the Treasury, Fact sheets – Taxes, History of the U.S.Tax System” or treasurydirect.gov.
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM
An individual with a modicum of integrity would have stopped 30 posts ago, but this brain dead idiot is like the energizer bunny…who is no longer powered by American workers due to the policies of his deities.
tom daschle concerned on November 11, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Let’s take FY2005:
In 2005 ALONE, there was a 15% INCREASE in revenue, as is stated in this report from the OMB:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0305.pdf
In 2005, the New York Times reported a dramatic FIFTEEN PERCENT increase in federal tax revenues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html
Oh, lookie, I found another left-leaning news organisation that confirms revenues by 15% in 2005. From WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:18 PM
With regard to capital gains tax cuts, even factcheck.org acknowledges that “capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006.”
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
In 2006, the CBO released the tax revenue numbers. Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of 2005 fiscal year by 187 billion dollars. That represented a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut.
In a letter written by Peter R. Orszag on May 18, 2007, ( Orszag was Director of CBO “Congressional Budget Office” at the time), he stated, “receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5% to 18.4 %.” The period was from 2003- 2006. Orszag later became Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Obama. I assume he is not a Tea Partier? LOL. ( BTW, he recommended that we keep ALL the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, for the next 2 years.) Orszag also stated in the same letter, “Total Federal revenues grew by about 625 billion dollars, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006? and then continued, “Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, Federal receipts would have increased by only 373 billion dollars. The other 252 billion dollars of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth.”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf
You also may want to check, “United States Department of the Treasury, Fact sheets – Taxes, History of the U.S.Tax System” or treasurydirect.gov.
Resist We Much on November 11, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »