This is great in practice, but what about theory? Wage increases also come about as a result of monetary inflation and deficit spending. A sure way to raise wages, is to increase the amount of money in circulation. Of course, prices will also rise, negating any benefit from the wage increase. When the government deficit spends, it creates new jobs, with debt money. They aren't true productive gains, and only serve to confuse (via bad information) the market place when making investment decisions.
I see no signs of inflation.. Without inflation, it is pretty evident that money is not being printed.... When you see inflation, you'll know the presses are running.. It's kinda hard to believe in theory that deficit spending is to blame when the deficit has been reduced year after year since Bush's tax cuts. The only bad information is denying the positive gains made in the last 4 years.
I seriously was not arguing against or for, I prefer tax cuts like anyone. I simply wanted something positive, a graph to show me it actually did something. So much reading I have done shows the 'deficit' being reduced is more smoke and mirrors than anything. Had this discussion already though, the way the government accounts is not standard practice, put in SS and everything else and the deficit is much, much larger than reported. Again I was actually sitting back and watching the debate unfold, if anyone finds a good graph or something please post it up
There is no smoke an mirrors in simple math... Think of the US as a business. You are a share holder in that business (because you invest in it.. ie., pay taxes). The US brought in $3,136,641,000,000. in 2007 (a 7% increase over 2006 btw) The US spent $3,296,921,000,000 (roughly 3% more than it did in 2006) $3,296,921,000,000 - $3,136,461,000,000 ------------------------- $160,460,000,000 Surplus (DEFICIT) Compared to last years numbers, $247,698,000,000 that is a 35% decrease Your company spent more than it budgeted for in terms of revenues, but that DEFICT or difference is shrinking... At this rate, there will be no DEFICIT if the tax cuts remain in effect Now if we can just get social spending under control..
Mia the government does not account like businesses do that's why it is smoke and mirrors. Had this debate already The deficit itself is still growing, just the amount it grew that year was not as much using the 'smoke and mirrors' math the government does. 'on an overall basis' How this is going to equate to no deficit is trully beyond me.
GRIM, this is the document I think you are looking for. Lots of graphs. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08417cg.pdf .
Cool thanks! Wow 1966 compared to now! Another reason for RP to be in office. I hate to turn this into RP, but so many bitch and complain about all this spending. But they fail to realise the only one who appears to want the crap to go back to the states is RP. This is the only way you're going to take care of this run away fed spending. Yet they support someone who is totally against what they claim to be for?
We only have to look at M3 before they stopped publishing it, to see the monetary inflation. This is basic stuff, the economic indicators always take time to show. Right now, we're seeing a decline in the exchange rate of the dollar against all major currencies, this is the precursor to inflation. Again, a certain Texas Congressman recently mentioned a WSJ article during the NH ABC debates, that shows that oil has gone up 3.5 times vs. dollar, but only 2 x vs. Euro and is par with gold. Supply siders never see the larger picture of monetary and fiscal policy. They only see waste and tax rates. If the government spends $200 billion in deficit, this is used to create jobs, to create new business. It is however financed by debt. That $200 billion will yield a tax increase, because the economy has been stimulated. What isn't being addressed, is the long term costs of borrowing this external stimulus. Simple example. Say you take out a loan for $50,000 for your business, and hire an employee, you have just increased tax revenues. Right? But this wasn't a productive gain from less taxation, this was easy access to credit, which is monetary policy.
This is an area of RP's platform I like, wish he could be involved with whoever because president and actually get some thing changed. The sad thing about everyone yelling "we need change and this is what I will change" is what president will actually be able to pull off any of these big changes? It will take more than the president unless we get rid of the balance of powers in the U.S.
Yes it will definitely take more than the president, the president however can at least get some policies in place to start the changes needed
And there in black and white (well colour really) are the big three I keep talking about... The solution to every problem lies in the problem.. There certainly is some smoke and mirrors in the numbers/blame game in the heritage pdf..... I've not relied on biased manipulation of the numbers... I'm just grabbing raw data from the US Dept of the Treasury... and a calculator... One thing to note on the heritage pdf that you supplied, while the surplus deficit numbers are close, the income and expense is way off by upwards of a 1/4 trillion bucks in the worst case.. The numbers are in accurate with regard to the US Dept of Treasury data.... The graphs that illustrate the 3 biggest drains on society are pretty accurate though... Bush or no Bush, that graph does not change. The level of mandatory spending will rise above revenues no matter what you do if left alone.
I am not relying on the Heritage foundation either, I just grabbed the graphs there The thing you're not getting is you're using the Social Security being spent now as 'wow if we get rid of that the deficit will be less' however currently the government puts the surplus into the numbers to make the deficit look less than it actually is. This is the smoke and mirrors I'm talking about I don't doubt you're using the raw numbers given, the raw numbers given however are not how business does accounting. I am not blaming or hell even bringing up Bush, this issue is much larger than Bush. However since you brought Bush up, when did that medicare bill come into place, with huge increases of spending? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4797380&postcount=68 One of my most complete posts on why I see it as smoke and mirrors.
Some seem to forget that there is a war going on, and oil historically rises as a result. Nothing new there... Hardly seems to indicate inflation is on the way. That is because waste and tax rates, sorry, spend and tax causes these problems to begin with. Sorry the fed has not been spending money in deficit to create jobs.. Those who like to tax like to make it appear that way. They would like you to believe that less tax equals less revenue, which has certainly been proven not to be the case.. They then in turn transform this lost wealth as a deficit and ask people to believe that it is then used to give away jobs... The reality is a deficit comes about when you spend more than you bring in. You are translating lost potential, magical, mythical, what if revenue on reduced tax rates as LOST REVENUE... Reducing tax rates is not borrowing money, it is not losing money, it is actually making money, creating jobs and lowering the deficit you believe it creates.. Go find an RP forum to tout this BS, those of us with minds of our own are not buying it... Ah, I'm not taking out loans to hire employees.. I am keeping more of my own money and using that to hire employees... The point is, a reduced tax burden means more of the business's money stays with the business where the business knows better how to spend it. There you go again trying to make tax breaks sound like loans.. A tax cut is not a favor, it's not an entitlement.. The problem with closet democrat (RP Supporters) are they subscribe to the moonbat philosophy that says, less tax is stealing from the government. You should be thankful that the government is here to take care of you with your own money.. Cause after all, the government knows best how to spend your money... This poor soul is lost.. I can't help him anymore..
Understood, but did we not completely segway from the graphs you wanted; how many new youth/graduate/high school/college/GED workers account for what percentage increase in the overall revenue increase from taxable income collection by the Federal Government... To that end, we have strayed way off the path here... Where are you getting this idea that the government is using smoke and mirrors? It's called a calculator... Income minus Expenses = Surplus (Deficit) Math... Not smoke. If we eliminated SS and went to personal savings accounts we would not only not have a Deficit, we would have no national debt in 4 years. You cannot give away more money than you have and expect to have anything left over... That is what we are doing... What? It is much lager than Bush and God bless you for recognizing that!!! It means a lot.. The problem is that no one in 30+ years has touched, medicare, medicaid or social security.. No one on either side has fixed the problem... They talk about it, but no one does anything about it.. Then everyone sits around through administration after administration and plays the blame game about where all the money went.. It was spent before they got here... It is their retirement, their parents retirement and so on.. What specific bill are you referring to? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4797380&postcount=68 One of my most complete posts on why I see it as smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE] You haven't convinced me... I just broke out another calculator... They both say the same thing.
Uhm, so oil went up 100% for the Europeans, and 250% for Americans, and par with gold, and your explanation is that the war created not only the price gain, but the imbalance against the US dollar when compared with metal and Euros? How exactly did OUR oil costs go up more? I agree with you, but with a disclaimer. Spending and taxing are fine, if there is no deficit spending. Because the will of the people is there to check a government that spends so much that taxes have to be raised. This is a fiscal policy issue. Deficit spending is a culprit because it provides immediate gain, for deferred payment and rolling service costs. So you're saying, that if the government spends $160 billion it doesn't have, that doesn't create any debt driven economic growth? What about giving Raytheon a $50 billion contract for defense? Wouldn't that increase their book of business, creating a new sale, necessitating capital investment and/or growth? And the taxes from that, help raise tax revenues. Your model of cutting taxes, increases prosperity and revenue is valid. But only in the absence of deficit spending. No, no, no. I am talking about actual deficit spending. Tax receipts are up, but there is still a budget deficit. It means, there is more governmental stimulus, which is creating a larger tax base. I'm not talking about the losses from the lowered taxes. I've already admitted that low taxes help stimulate the economy. But so does creating an excess of $160 billion in purchases, contracts, department growth etc. And that stimulus helps create the revenue increase. You have mis-interpreted what I wrote. No need to get snarky. Please see above to better understand my statement. No, the government gave you, Mia Industries, a contract to work on DoD information systems. To fulfill the contract, your employees have to work more (more income tax) and/or you will have to increase the size of your workforce (larger income tax base). The contract you were awarded, was financed with deficit spending. I agree wholeheartedly. This entire last statement is based on a premise, from a flawed understanding of my earlier point. I realize you are going to make it personal, and try to demean me, but you really should review what I have been writing, because it is in fact correct. It's basic Keynesian economics to deficit spend to stimulate economic growth.
Ahh I simply found what I thought had some decent graphs and decided to share them. Not saying they were exactly what I wanted, it however was in my eyes better than what I have found on some other sites. Did you bother reading my post below, the articles I quote shows how the government moves money around to make it look good for the public, while having another set of books for the real numbers. Shifting numbers around is the smoke How do you figure? We still have to pay for the people who have been putting money in all their lives, plus the government puts the SURPLUSES into the numbers now to make the deficit look lower than it actually is. Exactly what I said The government does not account the same as businesses do. Many, many articles I have read show if a business did it the way the government did they'd be broke, audited, or worse. Ahh but instead of 'fixing' they have touched by using the money for IOU's that they shouldn't have used it, using it as issues for elections and creating more debt and taking the surpluses from SS to make the deficit look smaller than it actually is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html Did you even bother reading the articles? They go through pretty cut and dry how there are different sets of numbers, how IOU's are used, surpluses, etc to make the deficit look much smaller than it actually is.