Ron Paul For President in 2008

[Final-Fan]

N-Syte said:

@Final-Fan

Did you win? What are you talking about? You didn’t even respond to my post! If it were so important for you to “win” I would have thought you’d pay closer attention. Maybe I could throw in the towel and do my part for the nation’s supposed self-esteem problem? Seriously though, if this is what you do as a form of intellectual exercise, it’s akin to an obese woman power-walking with a Twinkie in one hand and a diet coke in the other (spandex and all!) But I’ll give you credit; you have a natural ability to give yourself “atta boys” all along the way.

As far as my being sarcastic? Sure I was. I thought it an appropriate level to respond to your infantile outbursts. Your WhiteHouse/NationalDebt correlation was a cheap shot (never mind intellectually dishonest). As if the White House has the sole responsibility for determining government spending. Sure the White House must finally approve any budget, but it is the Congress that must first craft and present it. If you want to argue that the responsibility is shared, then do so. But if one branch were more responsible than the other it would be the Congress not the White House.

I really didn’t see the need to put together the chart. My only desire was to point out an example of your tendency to cherry pick. Which perhaps just reiterates your desire to “win” rather than be correct? Throw as much against the wall as you can and hope something sticks?

But if I was to go through the bother of putting the table together by my “own damn self”, it would look something like this:

Year – Party – Debt Chg (Adj for Inflation)
1930 R…….9 1950 D….-27 1970 D….-15 1990 D…-353
1931 R…...-7 1951 D…...49 1971 D...-118 1991 D…-412
1932 R….-41 1952 D….-12 1972 D…-117 1992 D…-432
1933 R….-42 1953 D…..-51 1973 D….-70 1993 D…-368
1934 D….-56 1954 R…..-10 1974 D….-26 1994 D…-285
1935 D….-43 1955 R…..-23 1975 D...-206 1995 D…-224
1936 D….-65 1956 D……30 1976 D...-270 1996 R…-143
1937 D….-32 1957 D…...25 1977 D…-185 1997 R…..-28
1938 D…...-1 1958 D…..-20 1978 D…-189 1998 R……88
1939 D….-42 1959 D…..-92 1979 D…-117 1999 R….157
1940 D….-43 1960 D…….2 1980 D…-187 2000 R…..286
1941 D….-70 1961 D…..-23 1981 D…-281 2001 R…..151
1942 D...-262 1962 D…..-49 1982 N…-276 2002 N…-182
1943 D…-658 1963 D….-33 1983 N…-435 2003 N…-428
1944 D…-564 1964 D….-40 1984 N…-372 2004 R…-456
1945 D…-551 1965 D……-9 1985 N…-411 2005 R…-340
1946 D…-170 1966 D….-24 1985 N…-420 2006 R…-257
1947 D……37 1967 D….-54 1987 N…-275 2007 R…-163
1948 R…..102 1968 D…-151 1988 D…-274
1949 R……..5 1969 D……18 1989 D…-256

So no, I don’t see your correlation. The R’s ran surpluses 40% of the time, the D’s 8%. D’s ran up the deficit by about 4x as much. However, if you would like to focus on the last 7 years, I’ll bite, for there is a lesson that can be drawn. When Republicans do become spend thrifts, there is no one to put up any challenge to them. To the contrary, Dems are like drug pushers gladly welcoming a junkie to another fix. Unfortunately the Republicans were weak and deservedly lost their power.

Now, if you must, go back and respond to my post from 12/24 8:45 for another shot at your “win.”

N-Syte said:

@ Final-Fan
A bit touchy, eh? If cutting spending is so important to you, then why is it so much of your passion is devoted to defending increasing the taxing power of government?

Let’s start with the last tax cut. Bush signed it into law May 28, 2003.

And now let’s look at receipts of each fiscal year since then against GDP.
03 Total Receipts: $1,969B GDP: 10,828B = 18.2% 16.5% (OMB)
04 Total Receipts: $2,034B GDP: 11,712B = 17.3% 16.3% (OMB)
05 Total Receipts: $2,287B GDP: 12,042B = 18.4% 17.5% (OMB Est)
06 Total Receipts: $2,537B GDP: 12,641B = 19.4% 17.5% (OMB Est)
07 Total Receipts: $2,709B GDP: 13,543B = 20.0% (Est) 17.6% (OMB Est)

Since you won’t allow me to use my nutso economists as sources, I resorted to using data from the IRS. (I guess I wouldn’t have to if I was able to use the smart, sophisticated economists you turn to. Let me guess, Krugman?) I also added the percentages from the Office and Management Budget. The post war average is about 17.9%.

Sure the rate drops in ’04, but would you give them at least one year to take effect? It’s not as if signing a bill works like a light switch. What’s even more stunning is that this was achieved during a period of war and dramatic increases in fuel costs.

We could go through the same exercise in the 80’s, the 60’s, and the 20’s. Shall we make it a game where you pick the decade? Maybe we could look at the inverse when taxes were increased?

Look at corporate taxes. In 1985 the Brits were the first to kick off what turned into a tidal wave of corporate tax cuts across the West (those other nations needed to stay competitive, no?) When you look at the 20 or so countries that cut their rates, the results are stunning. Some cut there rates by a third, while others slashed them by nearly a half. The result is the same. Receipts as a percentage of GDP went up remarkably. OK, OK many of those countries also reduced the depreciation corps could claim (a tax shield, but you already knew that). But the results have been the same even after the impact of depreciation is phased out.

Well, of course the tax base would need to increase! What do you think economic growth does? Yet you are skeptical that tax cuts could some how contribute to that growth? I give up!

I’ve already said that my first preference would be to cut spending. I’ve simply challenged your proposition that raising taxes to reduce the debt is the better alternative if we must spend like drunken sailors. And yes, the debt went up dramatically over the last seven years. Embarrassingly so. But it was the spending side that drove it, not mythical declines in tax receipts.

As far as how severe US debt is on a relative basis, here is a sampling:
2005 Debt vs GDP
US 75%
Denmark 204%
Canada 48% (go Canucks!)
France 155%
Germany 156%
Spain 88%
Sweden 194%
Belgium 302% (and top income tax rate is 50%! Ouch)
Norway 159%
Swiss 350%
Britain 394%

You can wax on into infinitum about the joys of tax increases, but if you really want to keep this nightmare from reaching the US, run away from any candidate advocating government solutions to societal problems. Any candidates pushing a program beginning with the word “universal” is a good start.

I love this. After using all the condescending wit at your command to deride me for demanding a response when you had already responded (I'll admit, completely my fault), you berate me for oversimplistically claiming that the President (and his Administration) is solely responsible for the budget, then turn around and pretend that Congress is solely responsible for the budget! Must I remind you that Bush just got through successfully making a Democratically-controlled Congress back down on crucial budgetary provisions (i.e. Iraq funding provisos)? Whatever your position on whose position is right in that case, the President clearly can force at least some of his budgetary agenda onto any Congress that isn't highly determined and overwhelmingly opposed to him. Hot tip: try not to accuse others of being intellectually dishonest while in the act of being intellectually dishonest. (Oh wait, you vote Republican so I guess that's pretty much your role model.)

Also, thanks for not considering the massive deficits of World War II in your analysis.

Let's try this again, using a combination of our numbers:
[NUMBERS IN THE WORKS]