Democrats versus Republicans

[erps]

In response to this statement:

I"ve seen it written elsewhere that there is a sweet spot between a 0 and 100 % tax rate that creates the most government income and that it's not a fantasy at all.

sck5 responded:

Yes, there is a sweet spot. And we are well below it.

Cool. Perhaps you could let the rest of us know? I"ve provided a study that shows what the sweet spot is, but all we have from you is your statement.

Sck5 said:

My point is that the notion that simply cutting taxes will increase revenue is hogwash. Cutting taxes gets you a higher deficit.

Still looking for a graph showing raw tax revenues. Here's one that shows our individual tax burden. Notice the highest peak under Clinton?



Tax Burden Is Rising to Highest Level in History

[camaraderie]

This is the problem:

[camaraderie]

SCK...I DON'T believe the Republicans in Congress under Bush have exerted any restraint..Nor have the Dems. Spending our $$ is a joint effort. Before Nixon...Reps spent less of it than Dems on a consistent basis. Looks like the best scenario is a dem in the whitehouse and firm rep control of both houses is the best for SPENDING.
Consider the following:

• In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
• During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
• When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
• The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
• During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

[sailaway21]

Any way you cut the cake, spending is basically a congressional prerogative. The president himself does not actually have a budget; he has a wish list that is only as strong as his electoral mandate. The president does hold veto power but he can hardly veto everything, although GW Bush might have considered trying it a bit more in my opinion.

The only policy that has shown any ability to shrink the deficit from year to year is congressional restraint in the area of spending. couple congressional restraint with a growing economy and you have deficit reduction. The latter is, of course, just as essential as the former. We grow our way out of deficits and we've always done so.

All of this is quite interesting and it really should be tied in with the coming election to have any relevance. Which canidate espouses spending restraint? Which canidate has a plethora of new programs he or she will want to fund? And, btw, does anyone really think that defense spending, which you can reference a few charts back, is really adequate given the current international situation? We're currently fighting two wars, with what I'd call a better than even chance that another one awaits us, at historically low defense spending taken as a percentage of GDP. If you don't fund defense there's a good chance that some of us aren't going to get the opportunity to worry about health care.

[sailaway21]

This ought to make sck5 happy, although it's only May and the betting windows are open until the day before the first Tuesday in November.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Government Stifles the Wisdom of Crowds

[sailaway21]

Although I doubt he'll like this one. (g)
Why we need nukes and Gitmo - Los Angeles Times

[chucklesR]

Sway,
Defense spending at a all time historical low? Who's numbers are you using?
Wiki pegs it as 19% of budget -and that is the budget not supplemental etc dollars which are in theory the dollars spent fighting the war.

United States federal budget, 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe you are saying as a percentage of GDP, not actual dollars spent which are at a astronomical high. We spend more than what, the next 10 countries combined. Surely that's enough.

Even then Clinton's years were the lowest, not currently.

Percentage of GDP:
Despite War Costs, Defense Spending Falls Below Historical Average

The real problem is the 759% increase in mandatory spending since Lyndie (1965).
Last years numbers:

Taxes (revenue) for SSN and medicare = 869 billion in, out = 586 (ssn) 394 medicare, 276 (medicade), 294 unemp, welfare
(Source is the wiki budget link earlier in this post).

That's 681 BILLION dollars a year in the hole, Every year.
Anybody wonder where that 400 billion in deficit comes from?
Can you hear me now?
Hello?

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

SCK...I DON'T believe the Republicans in Congress under Bush have exerted any restraint..Nor have the Dems. Spending our $$ is a joint effort. Before Nixon...Reps spent less of it than Dems on a consistent basis. Looks like the best scenario is a dem in the whitehouse and firm rep control of both houses is the best for SPENDING.
Consider the following:

• In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
• During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
• When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
• The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
• During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

I hate to double post, but a much simpler picture of the events that were is:
Government Spending Grew Faster Than Revenues for Most Administrations
Fact is, the only administrations where spending grew slower than revenue were democratic presidents, every one since 1965.

That's why I'm independent. Both the parties are hose bag idiots that do nothing but tax and waste. I reserve the right to laugh at both sides.

[sck5]

all you guys who think cutting taxes will increase revenue - not one has addressed the big problem - every time they cut taxes the deficit balloons and when Clinton raised them the deficit went away completely together with the highest growth of the past 4 decades.

You seem to be making a basic mistake - You see tax cuts and the economy continues to grow. You seem to want to credit the tax cuts with all of that growth. This is silly - Do you really want to claim that without the tax cuts the economy would have ground to a halt and growth would have been zero? If not, then you cant credit the tax cuts with all the growth. Especially when growth is even higher with tax increases.

Face it, the investors of the world are happier when the US government behaves responsibly. When it spends buckets of money it doesnt have and borrows the difference from Communists and Arab oil sheikdoms they smell trouble ahead. So do most Democrats. Only the Republican kool aid drinkers cant see it. Hey is that imflammatory enough?

The republicans have put us into a deep hole in the past 8 years. What politician wouldnt want to continually hand out tax cuts to campaign contributors? But what has it gotten you? Are your taxes REALLY that much lower? I know mine arent. I want politicians who can behave responsibly, not like teenagers with their first credit card.

And Sway, the prez DOES have a budget. He presents it every year and it is the starting point for budget negotiations. And the one he presents has MASSIVE deficits in it. That is even without counting the huge supplementals everyone knows are going to come a few months later. Time for some grownups in Washington or at least people who know how to do arithmetic.

[sck5]

Hey did you see the Dems won another House seat in MISSISSIPPI last night? If the repubs cant even hold on to Mississippi they are in deep deep deep trouble in November.

Lets all try to get used to saying it - "President Obama"