Rand Paul - Don't Raise Taxes, Cut Spending

I did not say he was special. Make an argument of some sort.

 

You are not even making sense.

 

You dismiss the data I provide, say "let's look at the data", and then your present no data. Progressives are nothing if not totally inconsistent and illogical...

And what do you find so comical about my graph? It clearly shows that statutory tax rates have little if any impact on how much tax revenue the Federal government collects.

 

Stop worshiping at the alter of "GDP". There are a plethora of other metrics and indicators that we must consider.

 

Rand Paul is suggesting nothing of the sort. Please try and keep your ranting to a minimum.

Actually it sounds like another one of your patented strawmen.

You did not address a single point I or Paul made. You just ranted and raved about a strawman and then posted some irrelevant graph.

 

This has nothing to do with the substance of my OP, much like every other post made by a progressive thus far. It's fine, though. I did not expect anyone to actually address the arguments and statements made in my OP. Most people on forums these days are too stupid to figure that out anymore.

P.S. - If you had bothered to watch the video I posted, you would know that Rand favors cutting defense spending as part of a fiscal compromise. It helps if you read the OP and the content in it if you want to actually discuss the thread topic. Novel idea, I know.

 

He is calling for fiscal sanity. The fact that a bunch of partisan children refuse to act like sane adults is not his problem. We are clearly spending and borrowing too much. Our entitlement programs are trending towards insolvency. Spending must be reduced and sane regulatory policy enacted otherwise this country will continue to see relative declines in its economic status. But it's nice to know you place so much faith in the wisdom of the status quo. Change indeed!

 

Can I put the last sentence in my signature? I think it is a great example of the economic ignorance that is winning the field today.

 

You are the one claiming that such a "spending level" exists, so why would Rand have to tell "us" (you have an imaginary friend?) what it is? Since you think there is a spending level that "boosts GDP", please take out your 12c and tell me what it is.

 

Who slashed tax revenues and how did they slash them?

 

Doesn't change the fact that revenues increased after Bush cut taxes, so clearly no "slashing" of revenues occurred.

 

Tax revenues are proportionately the lowest in 6 decades. We are clearing not raising enough revenue. The richest are richer than ever while the middle class, the great engine of spending, languishes. More and more of our nation's wealth has been horded in the offshore bank accounts of the 1%. Cutting spending and putting millions more on the unemployment lines is not the answer.

We need to reverse trickle down policies that have redistributed our nation's wealth and income more and more to the 1%, and get more back to the middle class that will spend it and drive our economy.

 

Revenues weren indeed slashed by the Bush tax cuts. That is what happens when you cut taxes.

Year - Revenues - % GDP
2000 2,025.2 20.4%
2001 1,991.2 19.4% <- Tax cuts
2002 1,853.2 17.4%
2003 1,782.3 16.0% <- Tax cuts
2004 1,880.1 15.9%
2005 2,153.9 17.1%
2006 2,406.7 18.0%
2007 2,567.7 18.3%
2008 2,523.6 17.7% <- Tax cuts
2009 2,104.6 15.1% <- Tax cuts
2010 2,161.7 14.9%
2011 2,302.0 15.3%
2012 2,450.0 15.6%


That is the main reason we went from a surplus under Clinton to record deficits in just a few years.

Revenues over the past three years have been proportionately $7-800 billion lower than they were in 2000. If the Govt collected the same proportion of revenue as in 2000 the deficit would be almost completely eliminated.

 

Bush with his initial tax cuts in the early 2000s, again with his stimulus tax cuts, and Obama with his stimulus tax cuts.

 

I think that it is funny that the same people who are claiming that the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage to maintain a tax break for the top 2% said that the top 2% are all that benefited from the Bush tax cuts were enacted. The cuts were routinely criticized for not benefiting the middle and lower classes at all. Now, we sit here and hear that we need to return to Clinton era taxes using the booming economy during the 90's as support for their argument. However, to maintain their level of hypocracy, they completely ignore the fact that the dollar was much stronger under Clinton and spending was much lower. I would stand up and cheer from the cheap seats if we returned monetary and spending policy to Clinton era levels in a compromise to increase the taxes on everyone across the board.

Rand Paul is obviously on a higher plane than most of his colleagues in DC.

 

Spending as a percentage of GDP is the highest it's been since WWII. When Clinton was President Government spending was 19% of GDP. Let's go back to that.

 

What would happen if the Government spent the same proportion of GDP that it spent in 2000?

 

To make the assumption that you can straight line a percentage of GDP for revenues based upon changes in tax rates alone, you must believe that tax rates have no impact on economic activity at all. You persitstently make these false assumptions, but at least, you are consistent. Be serious with yourself just once and realize that this is a complete garbage approach to statistical analysis.

 

Please quote where I said that. It is true that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthiest, but I'm pretty sure I've never claimed that "the top 2% are all that benefited from the Bush tax".

Straw man.

Quote where this was done, please.

Straw man.

Another straw man. What you are hearing from me is that we need to return to Clinton era taxesm, using the surplus budget he left as support for my argument.

What is the basis for you claim the "dollar was much stronger under Clinton."

I'm all for cutting military spending like Clinton did.

If we got military spending back to the same proportional level (to GDP) it was at in 2000, it would save $250 billion, per year, not over 10 years.

If we collected proportionately the same level (to GDP) of revenues as 2000, the Govt would collect about $800 billion more in revenues.

Just doing those two things -- returning proportionate to GDP military spending and revenues, would eliminate the deficits, and the debt relative to GDP would start to shrink.

I'm all for it.

He's on the the same plane as every other Republican. Every thing is about making the richest richer. Because more is never enough.

 

Are you trying to blow the whole gdp house of cards down or something? What would happen if the government spent less, but tax receipts remained the same? hmmmmmmmm

 

You are wrong. Check the data.

 

The deficit would drop to about $250 billion dollars.

What would happen if the Government collected the same proportion of GDP that it collected in 2000?

 

We'd still have huge deficits in the neighborhood of $600 billion dollars.

 

I look forward to your proof that tax rates have had a significant impact on economic activity. You conservatives persitstently make these false assertions, but you have completely and utterly failed to ever demonstrate your point.

Be serious with yourself just once and realize that this is a complete garbage approach to any kind of analysis.

 

The deficit would go down.

What would happen if the Govt spent the same, but tax receipts increased?

hmmmmmmmm