[yequalsx]

What you say is true. What I said is true too. Both statements are true. Bush II tax cuts are a very large portion of the current deficient that we have. Taxes are currently at a 50 year low as a percent of GDP. Bush II taxes greatly increased the deficit. Other tax cuts have too. I was just giving an example of the statement that I responded to being false.

[protomyth]

If they repealed all the Bush era tax cuts, the deficit would still be growing at a higher rate than before. Obama has run up the deficit at a faster pace (approaching double) than Bush and those tax cuts aren't even the major part of it.

The biggest problem is the lack of a passed federal budget in over a 1,000 days. This is causing a lot of budget increasing in a time when we cannot afford it. What the media and politicians (from both sides) chose to concentrate on is emotion grabbing (good for votes and ratings), systemic issues with how the government is being run are boring and not emphasized.

Low taxes don't kill budgets (check right after WWII when they had to drop), it is runaway spending. Income from taxes of all sorts has averaged 19% GDP, spending above that is the problem.

[yequalsx]

The point I made in showing that yummyfajita's remarks to be wrong stand. I might be wrong on my belief that repealing the Bush tax cuts would greatly improve the fiscal outlook of the federal government but this does not in any way detract from my point.

Your last two paragraphs are not germane to my point and they are wrong in any case. However, let's assume your last statement is correct.

Right now taxes around 15.4% GDP [1]. You seem to believe that 19% GDP in taxes is a reasonable amount to pay for government services. The GDP of the U.S. is around $15 trillion [2]. A 3.5% GDP increase in taxes to get us to 19% GDP for taxes would mean an increase of taxes by $525 billion. Current budgetary projections have the U.S. deficit at slightly over $500 billion in 4 years [3]. A lot of the current deficit is in non-recurring expenditures that are related to the fiscal crisis that started in 2008.

I might be wrong on my belief about the Bush II tax cuts being a large portion of our long term fiscal problems but from your sentence one must conclude that you agree that raising taxes by a reasonable amount would eliminate our long term fiscal problems.

[1] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...

[2] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

[3] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.ht...

[protomyth]

I didn't say it was reasonable, I just said it was historical. My basic thesis is that government spending needs to be decreased by a lot. Taxes need to be simplified and dropped.

I have no idea how any of the links prove my point on not having an actual budget in 1000+ days isn't increasing the problem. Heck the debt ceiling raise had parts that immediately added quite a lot of debt. Given that [3] says the deficit amounts will be going down is off base. I assume it ignores the CBO estimates[1].

[1] http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/116x...

[taligent]

Sorry but what a load of rubbish.

It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending. All it does is hamper growth which results in less tax income.

I have no idea why the US debt is being touted about as being the number one priority when surely increasing growth rates and reducing unemployment are key.

[gaius]

You're referring to Keynes - who also said, in the good years, pay down your debt. You can't borrow your way out of debt (well, I suppose you could if you have a negative interest rate). All you can do is debase your currency. Which the US has been able to do to date, but the instant OPEC decides to trade in EUR instead, they're toast.

[protomyth]

"It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending."

That is the Keynesian point of view, but it has counter examples. The difference between three points in history 1920, 1929, and 1945-46 show a different story. Herbert Hoover was a Keynesian and made the increase spending decision in 1929 as opposed to the tactic that worked while he was Sec of Commerce under Harding. Harding didn't pull the spending panic despite Hoover's recommendation. 1945-47 is even more interesting in that Congress didn't let Truman continue the massive WWII spending into civilian government programs. Taxes and spending were cut drastically which finally led to a booming economy and an end to the shortages and rationing. So, I would say the case for the Keynesians is not as clear cut. The 19th century also has some good examples.

gains pretty much explained why debt is bad.

[greedo]

Because the odds of the US growing its way out of a staggering burden of debt are roughly the same as winning the lottery.

[abalashov]

The problem is that when times are good, nobody wants to cut government spending, dramatically or otherwise.

[twoodfin]

Newt and Bill did it in '95-'98.

[greedo]

Or, one could say that increased spending despite decreased revenue has lead to an increase in the deficit.

It would be one thing if spending had been static during all the tax cuts; it's quite different in reality.