Reply With Quote
True, but that doesn't make "Bushonomics on steroids" better, does it?
Very boutons-esque of you.
I'm not Bush apologist, but Bush is no longer president. The OP is about the current POTUS.
Are you a foreigner, sabar? Because that would just figure...
True, but that doesn't make "Bushonomics on steroids" better, does it?
Very boutons-esque of you.
I'm not Bush apologist, but Bush is no longer president. The OP is about the current POTUS.
It's important to ascertain what exactly "conservatism" is today. On many fronts the current administration is merely continuing where the prior one left off. The only real difference seems to be that Uncle Sam now speaks with an urbane voice instead of a Texas twang tempered by stints at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.
That is a good question, to me, it seems there are three distinct "brands" of conservatives now.
Social conservatives, who don't mind, and really kinda want big government (the better to control you with).
Conservative Hawks - put national defense and protection #1, obviously, they want big government from a DoD and Homeland Security side. Bush was one of these, although I don't think he necessarily would have been without the World Trade Center attacks happening.
Traditional Conservatives - small government, fiscal responsibility.
Of course, there are just as many types of "liberals" too.
carter started the push to a financial sector based economy. reagan took off with it with deregulations and clinton further deregulated by repealing glass-steagal.
this road trip took off a long time ago.
lol
lol, your graph doesn't go far enough into the future.
interesting thing about the graph as it timelines correctly in that it coincides with the end of our industrial society and the move towards banking and investments as the core of our economy.
That's what we get when spending growth is increasingly automatic and not discretionary, thanks to the en lement programs.
As for the partisan element, you can thank both parties. I notice that graph does not note which parties controlled what houses of Congress during that period. The national debt has been truly a bipartisan accomplishment.
Non-Californians look at CA's fiscal crisis and wonder why spending can't be reduced, but when federal spending reductions are proposed, naturally no one is in favor. Sooner or later the CA scenario is going to play out at the federal level.
When the Chinese cut us off, naturally Democrats and Republicans will be pointing fingers at each other as the country descends into the abyss.
No . I was thinking the same things. I was taking the information from two OMB graphs and combining them. If I don't get interrupted, I'll have a graph in a bit. Must be nice that President Clinton had no serious disasters to worry about. However, it taxing people at 20% GNP caught up with him and started the 2000 recession, making President Bush's numbers look worse than they should have been That's what happens when you tax 11% above a sustainable level. The pendulum swings back hard.
18% = sustainable taxation. 20/18 = 1.11, or 11% over sustainable.
Year Tax % of GNP
1993 17.5%
1994 18.1%
1995 18.5%
1996 18.9%
1997 19.3%
1998 20.0%
1999 20.0%
2000 20.9%
Where did you pull this magic number from? Can I see the math behind it?
There have been several articles on the subject over the years. If you look at the data, we generally have a recession following above an 18% taxation rate. Compare the historical tata yourself sometime of GNP taxation and receipt levels.
I just finished this graph:
My intent was to show the out of control Social Spending. Notice that receipts correct at about an 18% average. Please note that the 2009 receipts are 15.1% of GNP and the Social Spending is 14.7%. I extrapolated the data from the following:
Table 6.1—Composition of Outlays: 1940–2014
Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2014
The two above tables come from the OMB:
Office of Management and Budget; Historical Tables
out of control social spending is not the reason for our current deficit and economic woes
Then I'm sure you won't have a problem presenting one. I'm mostly interested in the formula used to calculate the this 'sustainable tax' percentage and the scientific rationale behind it.
Link?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
