So now you are talking about a $300 rebate, and not about the 2003 tax cuts? Do you mind sticking to the subject and stop bouncing around?


So you aren't an economist? Thanks.

Wonder what the Mods would think of this? Did I imply anything about your intelligence level? What are you implying here? You don't know Jack about my education, and I think you should stick to that for now. You don't scare me with your "Are you sure you want to screw with me on this?" comment. You are not an expert.

A simple scenario with no factual basis for your figures or calculations. You made up some fairy tale pile of rubble trying to pass that off as actual fiscal events. You have nothing factual in your scenarios to back up your unrealistic claims. Again, be careful with your attacks on me. Your credibility with most has dropped with these statements, and it only proves to me that you don't have a substantive, factual argument.


Oh, so the figures quoted are not accurate is your claim. Tax revenue has not increased, is your claim. Have any sources to back that up, or are we required to just trust your four college classes that qualify you to get a completely unrelated degree? Your argument has no factual basis, has nothing but partisan bickering. You have only bashed a website and done nothing to disprove the facts presented in the articles. What have you done to support your position?



I don't know where this shows the Bush Tax Cuts have not brought in record tax revenue, or where it supports your claim that not cutting taxes would have brought in the same revenue due to some invisible factor that has not been brought up. I better take the same four college classes to get some insight. The argument that you are trying to make is that the Bush Tax Cuts have not brought in the record tax revenue we have seen since 2003. Your position is that it could be some other factor. Your argument has done nothing to support that. You have now jumped from the source of the record tax revenue, to paying for the tax cuts.

So lets summarize. I have pointed out, and provided sources showing the record tax revenue has been a result of the Bush Tax Cuts. You have attacked me, bashed my sources, and changed the subject. You have not disproved the facts presented in the articles, or supplied anything to prove your position that the tax revenue is a result of something other than the tax cuts. Correct me if I am wrong.

One last piece of advice, when bashing a source for it's partisanship, don't use a source that is clearly partisan.


Ok, I need someone to explain to me what sources are allowed and what sources are not. I quoted economists. That isn't good enough. No one on the other side of the debate has quoted anyone, but that gets a pass. I wish one person would provide some evidence that the claims of the economists that I quoted are wrong. Until then, you are wrong. So far, people have only tried to counter the facts that I have provided by attempting to discredit my sources, but no one can provide facts to the contrary of my position. Why is that?

I will pick one statement, and you can prove it wrong. "Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenues have increased $785 billion." Show me where this fact is wrong. Show me that the tax cuts have nothing to do with it. By not addressing the issue, you are not furthering the debate. It is as simple as that.

You have asserted the following claim: Tax cuts are the cause of economic growth (and increase tax revenues) over the past 6 years. This is your burden of proof. In order to prove this claim, you need to provide a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that this is the case. Opinions, no matter the source, are insufficient. I looked at those articles carefully to see if they were backed up by research (any research); they were not.

And yes, I agree with the facts you've provided -- they are inarguable. It's the conclusion you've made based on those facts which is unproven. Note that unproven doesn't mean wrong, it means unproven. You need to prove your claim.


Sigh... It's not my burden of proof; it's yours. Besides, I never stated that tax cuts had nothing to do with economic growth; I am asking you to prove your assertion. I already accept the correlation. It is up to you to prove causation.

Lastly, if tax cuts are the cause of increased economic growth, then why are we seeing an economic downturn?

However, your burden of proof is to support your position. You have not. Thanks for proving my point.

What's my position that I need to support? What point of yours have I proven?

So what you are saying is that you don't have a position on this topic and you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Or you agree that the Bush Tax Cuts have increased tax revenue. Or you don't agree. Or you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

No, I am arguing that your position on tax cuts being the cause of economic growth has not been proven. Prove this assertion of yours and then I will agree with you. By failing to prove this assertion, you are not convincing anyone. As I have been saying over and over again, the burden of proof is on you.

I have provided resources. It isn't my problem that you don't like the sources. It isn't up to you to determine what is and is not acceptable. If you don't like my sources, that is fine with me. I am not going to bend over backwards to make you happy. I found economist's articles and cited them. If I quoted some run of the mill reporter, I could see your point. However, that isn't the case. However, you have set the bar for sources!

It isn't a question of what makes me happy or unhappy with regard to sourcing. Opinion articles do not constitute proof. I don't know how else to say that. Now, if the opinion articles were backed by research, then that would be something else. I could reference the research; I could see how strong the correlation is; I could see how they isolated their variables; I could determine how other plausible causes for growth were accounted for. However, I cannot do this because all you've provided are opinion articles. I'm sure if I looked around I could find economists with opinion articles that state the opposite of what you claim. Would you accept those as proof? I doubt it.

But, let's drop the sourcing debate for the time being. How about you answer this simple question: If the tax cuts are the cause of economic growth, the how come we're in an economic downturn?

Really? I thought I have been pointing out that the record tax revenue is a result of the Bush Tax Cuts. Please show me where I said that the tax cuts have caused economic growth. I agree that the economy improved dramatically after the 2003 tax cuts, but also due to the wars, and the rampent use of America's credit card, the economy is taking a nose dive. That does not mean that the 2003 tax cuts did not bring in the record tax reciepts.

You did state it here: link
But, I don't want to quibble over this. You haven't proven that tax cuts are the cause of record tax revenue.


If you don't believe that record tax receipts and economic growth are related, then why does it matter to you? You seem to have narrowed your argument to the following: lower taxes makes the federal government more money. What is the national benefit if there's no economic growth?

So what you are saying is that lower taxes don't stimulate the economy? I don't see where I claim that all the record gains in the markets and the record home sales are from the tax cuts, but if you have some way of interpreting this, please share. I did say that lower taxes benefits America. Did I state that the reason for the economic boom was the tax cuts of 2003? I don't see that in your qoute. I won't deny believing that lower taxes improve the economy, but I don't see where I said that the tax cuts are the sole reason the economy took off.

I provided the statements of experts. You have provided nothing. I think the picture is clear. You wouldn't agree with anything I posted anyway. You supposedly don't have a position, but you continue to argue. It appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Take a position, or don't even worry about it.


I do agree that they are related, but you have taken a simple point that I made that the tax cuts increased tax revenue, but because of the record spending spree our government has been on, we still have a record deficit and turned it into an argument about the economy. This thread is about the deficit, not the economic status of our nation. There is definite relation between the nation's economy and the income/spending of our government, but what you fail to do is stay on topic and discuss whether or not the tax cuts have provided record tax revenue.

What is your position on the outcome of the 2003 tax cuts? Did they do more harm than good? Are they the reason our government is enjoying record tax revenue? If you don't have a position on this topic, then why are you debating this with me?

Now, back to the intent of this thread.

1) America is one of those countries that always finds a way to keep going forward. We might drop the ball on a lot of things, but given the innovation and talents of our countrymen, we will survive this, just as we survived the Great Depression. It won't be easy, and our people and our government will have to make sacrifices, but we will get through this. One part of the solution would be to riegn in the spending in Washington. Our government's deficit isn't due to a lack of tax dollars, that is for sure. We as a nation pay plenty of taxes, what needs to be done is bringing some sort of fiscal responsibility to our elected officials. The only organization that I can think of in America that can freely spend money that it doesn't have without consequence is the Federal Government. If I wanted to go out and buy anything, I would either have to show that I am capable of paying cash for it, or that I am capable of making payments on an agreed upon set of terms. Why do we let our government spend money it doesn't have without demanding a payment plan?

2)Simply put, cut spending.

No, what I'm saying and have continued to say is that lower taxes may or may not stimulate the economy. This hypothesis is unproven. You need to prove this hypothesis by referencing research that proves it. Opinion articles (even by economists) are insufficient. If those articles had in fact referenced research proving this hypothesis, then we could move forward in the debate. Otherwise, all you have are opinions sans proof.


First, you have provided opinions of economists (who may or may not be experts on macroeconomic questions) who make statements without any proof at all to support their opinions. Of course, only one of those opinion articles was written by an economist anyway. Second, this isn't my hypothesis. You're asking me to disprove your assertions. This is known as the Burden of Proof Fallacy. It is your assertion to prove.

We seem to be debating though as to what constitutes good proof. Clearly, you believe opinion articles without any research backing those opinions are good enough for you. I disagree with this. Moreover, almost anyone on this debate forum would agree with my position on this matter.


Understand that I am perfectly willing to accept your hypothesis if and only if you provide good proof for it. Find a study that when accounting for all other plausible factors for economic stimulation, we are left with tax cuts as the only remaining explanation. That's all you need to do.


You made the claim that tax cuts are the cause of increased tax revenue. Not only is this claim counter intuitive but you have provided no evidence (other than opinion articles) to back this claim. It's unclear to me whether or not you've made further claims. But, let's just stick to this one since your whole argument rests on this hypothesis.

logophage & scubatim cut it out.

Clearly there's not ever going to be a reputable study done proving tax cuts do anything but lower taxes. There's nothing scientific about tax cuts. All economics is opinion and you know it. You're hammering the same point over and over to "catch" scubatim so you can go "Ah HA!"

scubatim stop leaning into the sucker punch. You're as annoying as logophage on this.

At the very least one of you should start a new thread asking Do Tax Cuts do X?

Again, you argue for the sake of arguing. Take a position and debate it, or ignore the topic.

I agree with logophage.

Scubatim, you made that unprovable assertion way back on page one, and in your last 13 or 14 posts after that, all you do is declare victory and demand that somebody else prove your points wrong (and in the process, you have moved the goalposts a few times, too). Logophage correctly called you out on that in post #61, but you just ignored his point and moved on to, once again, move the goalposts:

Again, you put it on logophage to disprove something that you have not yet proven (albeit a different point than tax revenues). Can you not see that?

Look, the best economists in the world can't prove that cutting taxes leads to increased tax revenue. There are way too many variables to make such a bold statement as if it is fact. Economics is a black art at best. We don't expect you to be able to prove it. We just want you to be able to admit that it's not a provable point so we can all move on.


Check out my new "Reaganomics Revisited" thread.

Your position is that the Bush Tax Cuts did not generate an increase in tax revenue. Even if you don't believe the sources I provided, or they don't meet your criteria to be a reputable source, you have only provided blanket statements that the Bush Tax Cuts did not generate increase tax revenue. So who is the one that needs to prove their position? You can't simply say I am wrong and expect to get a pass. Why am I wrong? What facts do you have to say that you are right? You just don't get it, do you?

Wrong. We never took a position. We never claimed that Bush's tax cuts did not increase tax revenues - we just challenged your (unproven) assertion that they did. There's a difference.

I'm not trying to be weenie about this, scubatim, but it's an important distinction when you are on a debate site. You need to recognize what constitutes proof and what doesn't. That tax revenues increased in the years after Bush's tax cuts is a fact. That they increased after Bush's tax cuts may also just be coincidence. You (and your sources) have not made that direct correllation (and it's probably impossible to do so). That is what I tried to get across to you when I pointed out that tax revenues also increased from 1992-2000, when there were no significant tax cuts.

It has nothing to do with your sources being reputable, either. They simply did not make the direct correllation necessary to prove their claims.

So if you aren't taking a position, why the opposition? Why do you care either way? Sounds to me like someone is arguing for the sake of arguing. As I have said before, take a position, or don't. I am interested in debating with people that have an opinion on the matter and are interested in debating, not people that are here to argue for the sake of arguing.

We challenged your assertion because it was a leap, and you never proved it. Should we leave it out there, unchallenged, like it was the winning argument? I personally believe your argument to be incorrect, but since there is no way to prove it right or wrong, the best that can be done is to show that your assertion is based on faulty reasoning. Now, I showed you a source that took the opposite position as your sources - there's the basis of a debate. But before anything can be debated, you have to let go of the mistaken idea that just because you quote a source, your assertion is correct until someone else comes along and proves the opposite. I've seen you do the same thing in a bunch of threads. Those are just the rules of the debate game.

And I have seen several instances where you make bold blanket statements without any sources to back them up, so what color is the kettle?

I don't remember your source, please repost. Since you claim that economics is a black art, help me understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that one can not find an exact cause/affect of specific changes in policy?

Now, to what I said about six posts back:

I'm glad you decided to come back to the main questions Tim. Particularly this little bit:

Because that's exactly where we are headed in a short number of years. As for this answer:

That's no more helpful than the current stimulus package is going to be. If you read my first post, you might have noticed something in it. The fact that a well regarded economist says that we will need to cut all discretionary spending by about 150%, for the foreseeable future, assuming other items aren't changed as well. Care to tell me how you can cut 150% of something, and still remain viable?

And exactly what programs would you cut to get to that point? And how would you deal with the inevitable consequences of those cuts? I'd like to know.

Someone had to get back on topic.

I never claimed anything was going to happen overnight, but one problem in this nation is that my countrymen love to talk about what we can't do, and why we can't do it, instead of actually taking steps to solve problems. So, by what I read from you, one "well regarded economist" says it can't happen, so we should not cut spending. There is no reason why eliminating programs such as NCLB for instance would make our country any worse off than before. It certainly hasn't helped us. This problem will not be solved in a short time. It has been a long time coming, you can't look for the quick fix. I don't know anyone that will deny the free-wheeling use of our nation's credit cards. This needs to be put under control. Now, since I am not an economist or a legislator, I am not in a position to say what programs should be focused on.

How do you propose we solve the problems? I see you asking a lot of questions, but what do you think is the solution? I'd like to know.

Well, first off Tim, You might wantto learn how to read for comprehension. Because I never said that we shouldn't try. However, it is a fact that you cannot cut funding for something by more than 100%. You may also want to take not of the fact that Kotlikoff says that we would need an immediate and permanent cut of all discretionary spending as of the 2006 levels of spending in this area, by 143%.
He's not saying we shouldn't even try, and neither am I. But what he is saying, is that cutting all discretionary spending to $0, assuming it could be done, would not be enough to keep us from going into another depression.

I don't think anyone that talks of an immediate, permanent cut in discretionary spending is looking for a short-term fix. Either that, or your definitions of permanent and short-term are far different than mine are.


Needs to be put under control? That's kind of like saying the Titanic doesn't need to hit any more icebergs. Far too little, far too late.


Gee, and I asked first. Nice dodge, Tim but since you asked... Now, I'm no economist either, and I'm certainly not a legislator. I also don't see any of this actually happening, but it's what I think should happen.

1. Conduct a Comprehensive Cost-Benefit Analysis of All Federal Programs. With rigorous cost-benefit analysis, the President and Congress need to determine which federal programs to eliminate, reduce, or combine in order to save money. Yes, Tim, that would mean eliminating NCLB, as well. I wouldn't want to keep it around just to make you miserable, tempted though I am.

2. Eliminate all earmark spending, except for needed federal infrastructure improvements or construction. In other words, if it's for a new bridge that's part of a federal interstate, ok. If it's to build a museum in a major donor's home state, or a grant for a private interest or industry, forget it. If the state or locality or the industry can't fund it on their own, they will have to convince the state or local government to come up with the funding, or will just have learn to live without it.

3. Take the current marginal income tax rates, and increase them by 25%, across the board.

Take all of the savings that comes from these three measures, and pour it into paying off the federal debt, every single damned dime of it.

4. Means test Social Security and Medicare, but remove the income caps. Let's face it - Buffet, Gates, Soros, and a whole lot of people that make even less than they do aren't going to need Social Security or Medicare benefits when they retire, and the additional money collected will prevent these programs from coming apart at the seams until they can be converted to privatized programs.

5. In line with #4, above, increase the payroll deductions by 50%, and place this additional funding into privatized accounts for everyone. Have this increased amount invested in the stock market, in accounts that will basically invest in the entire market, both nationally and globally. Between eliminating the income caps and the increase in the payroll deduction, we can keep payments for current retirees and ensure that everyone over the age of say 50, will get the benefits promised to them. Anyone from 40 to 50 will get a smaller percentage of the "entitlement". Anyone under the age of 40 will become part of the new privatized system, and they can, as the old SS recipients move out of the system, then elect to move all of their deductions into the new system, or keep just the "increased" portion continually added to their account. This insures that everyone can eventually decrease what they are putting into the privatized SS system, down to say, 3%, or elect to keep all of it in the system, depending on how much they want to retire with.

6. Do exactly the same thing with the Medicare program, so that it's eventually turned into a privatized health insurance program, and not just a give away.


This will still certainly be painful, much more short-term, than once everyone got used to it, but I believe something along these lines is absolutely crucial to eliminating the biggest part of what's going to be our biggest expendiitures - Social Security and Medicare. But I do believe that something like this could work. More expensive in the short term for everyone, sure. But potentially much less expensive in the long-run, with the added benefit of turning these programs into "privately owned" investment vehicles. Investment vehicles that can't be "stolen" or "borrowed from" by the government.

It will certainly take some politicians with courage, and the ability to explain it all in terms that show the American people why the sacrifice is needed, and what's in it for them, at the end of the road. But if changes aren't made soon, I think we're going to be headed for serious problems withing the next 20 years. Problems that will make the Great Depression look like a mild economic problem in comparison.

Now, Tim, as I said, I asked first. Would you perhaps like to contribute something more concrete than "we have to put the government's credit card spending under control"? Inquiring minds want to know...

I choose not to bite. Have a nice day!


When you decide to not be confrontational, I will join in. Call it turning over a new leaf, call it what you will, but I thought I would let you know why I am not responding to this post. It appears you just want to start bickering back and forth, as it seems tends to happen, and frankly, I am tired of it. Have a wonderful day.

Not claiming to know exactly what "Nondefense Discretionary Spending" encompasses, it does appear that it does include a large pile of cash. One source I found shows this type of spending increased an average of 8% every year from 2001-2003. If that trend continued, my math says that in 2008, we can expect to see about $568 billion. Link to pdf. I know that that amount is a drop in the bucket of the $54 trillion this thread brings up, but it certainly is a start.

Another question I have is why does the government continue to raise the debt limit? Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

Confrontational? Me? Look again. You impugn my source, refuse to answer questions, and demand answers from me instead. And, as you can plainly see from my previous post, I answered that question. In detail. Yet you refuse to answer the same question, or even discuss my answer in anything approaching a civil manner. And I'm the confrontational one. Okay.....


Yes, it is a large pile of cash. What you need to understand, is that "Non-defense discretionary spending", outside of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and certain other so-called "guaranteed" welfare entitlements encompasses everything else. All educational spending, all research grants and loans, all foreign aid, all "pork" projects. All departmental salaries and operating budgets, including departments like the FBI, CIA, FEMA, Health and Human Services, etc. - even the military to some extent, in what's spent in terms of research funds for the design and testing of new weapons systems by civilian companies like Boeing, Raytheon or Jeep.

Which is why we just can't dump it all, to pay off those future obligations. There would literally be no government left, because even expenses for White House personnel, congressional aides, the Pentagon's civilian workforce - all of it comes in under that "discretionary spending" lump sum.

Beginning to see the scope of the problem yet?

Now, all that said, if you, or anyone else here on this site would like to kick around ideas on how they would like to get out of this mess we've created for ourselves, I'm all ears. But don't demand answers to the problem from me, and then just blow them off, and refuse to respond, because you don't like the answers.


Well, you're linked-page has expired, or is otherwise unavailable. But to make a long explanation short, the debt-limit, or debt ceiling is set by federal statute. Congress must, by law, vote to raise the ceiling, in order to borrow more money. If Congress doesn't vote to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow the money necessary to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due. The United States has never (yet) defaulted on a debt payment but that's how fine a line we are walking, even now.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would mean that we would default on some domestic and foreign obligations, for example, bonds that have come due to pay for federal employee retirement funds, or foreign government purchased bonds, say from China. Failure to be able to make good on those debts upon demand, would be very, very bad news for the "faith and credit" of the US government. No one would be willing to buy government bonds, or any other debt, if that were to happen.

Just to point out an inconsistency here...how could tax cuts create record tax revenue if they didn't cause economic growth. If you lower tax rates, the only way you could say record revenue came about because of the tax cuts is through them causing economic growth...so saying one is in fact saying the other.

Here is a statement from Andrew Samwick - Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004:



So, show the evidence that Bush's Tax cuts were responsible for record tax revenues. To borrow a word from Samwick and, interestingly enough, others on this board, establish causality.

I think the whole discussion of these tax cuts effect on the economy is irrelevant to the question at hand. I don't think anyone is going to make the claim that we can tax cut our way to $54 Trillion in additional revenue. Conversely, regardless of whether one thinks they led to increased revenues or decreased revenues, I don't think anyone will claim that they caused this $54 Trillion shortfall. So, either way, they're not germane to the issues here, which are:

1) Is this level of debt survivable, given that the baby boomers are getting ready to bankrupt SSI?

2) What steps need to be taken before the US is "foreclosed" and given a junk bond rating?

I would also say that I find the relatively light level of discussion in this and similar threads both illuminating and baffling. It seems that, indeed, everyone is willing to simply accept the $455,000 bill in the mail. Yet I'm sure these same people would raise heck if their cable bill had an extra $20 tacked onto it. So, apparently, $20 is worth raising an issue about, whereas $455,000 should simply be accepted and paid. The logic of this escapes me. But I'm sure all the swamp salesmen lurking on these boards are highly encouraged by it!

l The rate of business capital investment has undergone a U-turn — from negative business investment
spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase in business investment of more than 10 percent in the three years after the tax cut.
l Contrary to forecasts of revenue decline, federal revenues overall and from the capital gains tax increased in the four years since the investment tax cuts. Total federal revenues increased $740 billion (2003-07), and capital gains tax revenues increased from $55 billion the year before the tax cut (2002) to an estimated $110 billion in 2006 (all figures adjusted for inflation to constant 2006 dollars).

Spot on here Hobbes. No raising/cutting taxes isn't going to solve the problem. If we raise taxes to the pre-Reagan level the economy will nose dive. Even if we go back to the Pre-Bush level the increase revenue is a drop in the bucket for the ocean of debt left.

I think we should abolish Social Security all together. For senior citizens we can create a welfare program to protect them from becoming destitute that's far more sustainable that what we have now. It's unbelievable to me that our economy has been able to bear a 15.3% tax on people's income (employers are passing that cost to the employees).

Medicare is a bigger problem. I just don't see any possible way to make this program work. Just think, the Government is taking 15.3% of my income to finance programs I'll never use. I'm not even counting what I'll have to pay in Income taxes. If more Americans understood this there would be riots in the streets.

Question... I wonder how long it would take to payoff the debt if we diverted all 15.3% of these taxes toward the debt?

How about we start over and try again. This time lets make sure it's a solvent idea before we go forward with the program. We put a man on the moon, can't we do this?

There is no real solution to paying off the current national debt, short of debt simply getting erased, this nation will always be in debt.

...and what do we can entities that can never pay off their debt? They are insolvent, bankrupt. That is were we are headed leading to economic choas that will probably make the depression seem blase', and no one seems to care.

Furthermore, if we can't eve