Bipartisan Lawmakers Preparing Plan to Avert Debt-Ceiling Crisis

Not too sure how you’ve calculated Net Interest at 8% of the budget, however, here’s my calculation;

Jan 2023 cumulative Receipts excluding FICA; $969 billion

Jan 2023 cumulative Net Interest; $194 Billion

194/969 = 20 cents of every dollar Uncle Sam collects excluding FICA

Source; Monthly Treasury Statement

 

True, however, how much revenue Gingrich & Co. collected from Clinton’s 36% and 39.6% tax rates, and other tax increases that remained on the books throughout his presidency?

psst; I don’t think you’re smart enough to figure it out

 

You are simultaneously wrong and not wrong. Of course, they control the purse strings, anyone who paid attention in Civics knows that (though in the real world, that is an extraordinarily and embarrassingly small number off people), but thanks to that rat bastard schumer, the dems were able to jam through yet another budget busting, debt increasing budget full of pork and bullshit. THAT has to at the very least be modified before we play ball on the debt ceiling.

After that, it's hardball time for as long as the GOP has the House, which will mean eliminating entire programs, and hopefully entire departments, most of which are useless, redundant, and Unconstitutional. We require those suckling at the public teat to, at the very least, put in as many hours at something, picking up trash by the side of the road, if they have business skills, working some vacant office job, or even plain old ditch digging in spots where we need we need ditches.

Perhaps for some, they can turn an obligation into a career of service, who knows. But I know that I and a whole lot of other folks are sick and tired of having our cash taken and used to pay bills that other people incurred, most recently including many super successful college graduates, who knew what they were signing up for when they did so. And that's just one piddly example of what is likely hundreds of thousands of others. Some bridge to nowhere over here, a new, but redundant tunnel into Manhattan, all paid for by people who will never even so much as lay eyes on what is effectively their property, though they won't ever benefit from their 'investments' whatsoever.

All that and so very, very much more is the crossroads we find ourselves at right now, as I type these words. We may soon be in a shooting war with the Chicoms, or maybe even we inadvertently started an interstellar war with our would-be friends, but whose emissaries we just killed. I don't think that is the case at all, though I'm firm in my belief that wherever in this universe that life, as we know it, or as we don't, can exist, either it does, or it will.

But our nation, our Earth, our species and our very existence is hanging in the balance as we are doing whatever it is we are doing right now. A lot of things are going to change, some quickly, some not, but future historians will,I believe, look back on the 2020s with the same reverence and awe as we do the late 1700s America.

But don't get all excited, I'm not talking about any climate crisis or other such nonsense. We are living at what may be mankind's most crucial turning points of all time, where one path leads to utter destruction, and the other... somewhere else.

 

Actually we need to pay it down. Cutting government spending is trivially simple. All that stands in the way is greed, corruption and politics.

 

I think the words you used to describe the obstacles all mean the same thing.

 

I can't imagine why you think that.

 

Critical Thinkers often ask themselves questions, for example;

1. Would “a little trim” balance today’s budget within 10 years?

2. Would aggressive cuts balance today’s budget within 10 years, and said cuts wouldn’t negatively affect economic growth?

3. Would the 90’s deficit reduction policies balance today’s budget within 10 years?

According to my calculations and rationales, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any of the above mentioned fiscal policies would balance today’s budget within 10 years.

HOWEVER, there is a PROVEN PROCESS that would likely balance today’s budget within 10 years, but the question is; Would said procedure be implementable in the U.S.???????

Note; In the 90’s, I studied the HOW foreign nations have balanced their budgets, and here’s a unique HOW;

The Canadian Government balanced their budget within 3 years, and they did it through a process of decentralization. In other words, they simply “passed the buck/responsibilities” to the states, and mainly social/welfare programs.

 

Revenue growth rate FELL after Clinton's tax cuts. And it wasn't just the tax rate cuts, it was the Republican policies in toto


Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Conclusions

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.



The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.



In summary, coming out of a recession into a period when the economy should grow relatively rapidly, President Clinton signed a major tax increase. The average growth rate over his first term was a solid 3.2 percent. In 1997, at a time when the expansion was well along and economic growth should have slowed, Congress passed a modest net tax cut. The economy grew by a full percentage point-per-year faster over his second term than over Clinton's first term.

The evidence is fairly clear: The tax cuts, especially the reduction in the capital gains tax rate, made a major contribution to a strong economy. Given this observation, it seems likely, though admittedly less certain, that the tax increases in 1993, while not derailing the economy as many had forecast at the time, did indeed slow the recovery compared to what the economy could have achieved.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

Try insulting my intelligence one more time and you get reported, try to keep it civil.

 

Cherry picking again I see and making out Presidents to be kings and they alone dictate budgets.

Here the hard numbers

Year - Tax Revenue - Increase
1990 1,032.0 4.1% <- Democrats tax increase agreed to by Bush for spending cuts the Dems never passed
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4% <- recovery from recession begins
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 however
"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <- Even with the differed tax revenues now coming in revenue growth slow
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts/welfare reform
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
2001 1,991.1 -2% <- reccession begins in March 9/11 hits in September
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% <- Bush tax rate cuts begin phase in to 2006
2004 1,880.1 5% <- Congress votes to fully implement tax rate cuts
2005 2,153.6 15%
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7% <- Dems take back the Congress
2008 2,524.0 -2%
2009 2,105.0 -17%
2010 2,162.7 3%
2011 2,303.5 7% <- Republicans take back the house
2012 2,445.0 6%
2013 2,775.1 13%
2014 3,021.5 9% Obama Capital Gains tax increase and surcharge
2015 3,249.9 8%
OMB Historical Tables

 

That's up to Yellen and Biden. He is the one refusing to negotiate and willing to shutdown the government.

 

They want to sit down and negotiate a debt ceiling the ball is in Biden's court who refuses to do so and the Senate can certain make their own proposal and join in the negotiation they play an equal role.

 

YOUR QUOTE; “Revenue Growth Rate fell after Clinton’s tax cuts”

YOUR PREVIOUS QUOTE; “Revenue slowed after Clinton’s tax increases”

???????????

Question; Have Clinton’s tax increases, some retroactive to January 1st, 1993, SLOWED Revenue?

Answer; Uncle Sam’s Revenue BEFORE and AFTER Clinton’s tax increases;

Source; U.S. Federal Tax Revenue by year, The Balance

BEFORE Clinton’s tax increases

FY1990; From October 1st, 1990 to September 30th, 1991; $1.03 Trillion

FY 1991; From October 1st, 1991 to September 30th, 1992; $1.06 Trillion

AFTER Clinton’s tax increases

FY 1992; From October 1st, 1992 to September 30th, 1993; $1.09 Trillion

FY 1993; From October 1st, 1993 to September 30th, 1994; $1.15 trillion

Da Math

BEFORE Clinton’s tax increases

$1.03 Trillion + a 3% growth rate = $1.06 Trillion

AFTER Clinton’s tax increases

$1.06 Trillion + a 3% growth rate = $1.09 Trillion

Note; SAME 3% Growth Rate, Before and After

$1.09 Trillion + a 5.5% growth rate = $1.15

Last question; Have Clinton’s tax increases Lowered or Slowed Revenue?

 

NEXT……

QUOTE; Tax cuts, Not The Clinton Tax hike Produced The 90’s Boon

IRRELEVANT to me!

MY POINT; Several 1993 tax hikes remained on the books throughout Clinton’s presidency, and for said reason, Gingrich & Co. have collected additional revenue, for example;

Clinton’s 4.3 cents gasoline tax hike

Question; In 2000, How many gallons of gasoline were consumed in the U.S?

Answer; 9 million barrels per day X 42 X 365 = 138 billion gallons

$138 billion X 0.043 (Clinton’s Tax Increase) = $6 billion

Therefore, due to Clinton’s gasoline tax increase, from Jan 1995 to Jan 2001, Gingrich & Co. collected approximately an additional $40 billion in revenue.

Agree or disagree?

 

Yes two ways to say the same thing.[/quote]

He came in on a strong upward curve in revenue growth and his tax rate increases SLOWED THAT RATE OF GROWTH. From 9% down to 7% even with the differed revenues now due.

 

Quote; He came in on a strong upward curve in revenue growth and his tax rate increases SLOWED THAT RATE OF GROWTH. From 9% down to 7% even with the differed revenues now due.[/QUOTE]

Quote; “He came in on a strong upward curve in revenue growth…..”

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

In an effort to discredit or glorify POTUS, or a political party, partisan people are experts at finding a needle in a haystack.

Revenue growth curve/OMB’s estimates…..Now officially a Partisan Tool

Lol!

Question; Before the pandemic, how Trump’s revenue growth curve looked like, sloping upward or downward?

Question; In reference to George Bush’s last budget/election budget, thus, FY2009, was his revenue growth curve sloping upward or downward? In other words, based on George Bush’s OMB estimates, did Obama came in on a upward or downward curve in revenue growth?

Lol Lol Lol

 

There are two ways that I know of, the Balanced budget amendment or raising revenue to match expenditures to keep expenditures constant in 2023 dollars. However, neither political party has the political will to do that, and neither does the general populace, which is why blaming the other party for the deficits is the only that that has remained constant for over 5 decades now.

For Canada, it worked for two reasons, their tax system which a single return funds the national government AND the state/province/territory government at the same time. It is a hybrid tax return with a progressive income tax on the federal side and a sales tax based on income on the province/territory side. It also means there is a tax return that is specific to each territory or province.

 

You are getting confused here blues. You are using correlation and not causation. Recession is a causation and that will cause revenues to decrease. In 1990, you had the 1990 Tax Act which included the AMT that was to be in full effect in 1992. Then you had another major recession that you left out in 2007 that lasted offically till 2009. We did not fully recover from the recession until 2010. And that can have an effect on tax revenues. It is not who controls the House or not because in your instances, both parties controlled the house in which the Tax Revenues went down.

 

No, it is in the GOP's court. The GOP controlls the House, which means they control what the Budget will look like. And they can negotiate with the Senate Dems to get a compromise and a budget reconciliation. But a debt ceiling is on all incurred liabilities, not upcoming liabilities. And that needs to be raised before the credit rating goes down.

 

Your partisan belief; A Republican controlled Congress is unquestionably better than a Democrat controlled Congress, both fiscally and economically, and here are my facts.

My non-partisan assessment;

True or False?

Gingrich & Co. were fiscally responsible

Answer; Very true!

Question; Does Bill Clinton and his Democrat controlled Congress deserve some credit for balancing the budget?

Answer; Absolutely!

WHY? Once again, several of OBRA’s 1993 tax increases REMAINED ON THE BOOKS throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, and have in fact generated additional revenue, thus, lowered deficits, and/or increased surpluses.

Anyone who denies that the 1993 tax increases, especially the ones that have remained on the books throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency HAVE NOT generated additional revenue is IMO, a mentally sick partisan dude.

I mean come on! Eliminating Medicare’s tax limit has unquestionably increased FICA’s tax receipts.

 

According to Blues, OBRA 1993 slowed Clinton’s revenue growth rate(s)

Well, remember when Trump was POTUS, and the Fed started raising rates?

Quick Reactions;

“He’s an enemy of the people”

“Obviously, the Fed is trying to sabotage Trump’s economy”

Well, historically, the Fed raising rates have slowed economic growth, and consequently, lowered Uncle Sam’s revenue, and/or slowed revenue growth rates.

Now, here’s an indisputable fact Blues keeps ignoring, and for partisan reasons;

Fed’s Funds Rate History; Its highs and lows

Source; The Balance

Sep 4, 1992; 3%

Unchanged til Feb 4, 1994

Feb 4, 1994; 3.25% raised rates

Mat 22, 1994; 3.5% raised rates

April 18, 1994; 3.75% raised rates

May 17, 1994; 4.25% raised rates

Aug 16, 1994; 4.75% raised rates

Nov 15, 1994; 5.5% raised rates

Feb 1, 1995; 6.0% raised rates

And then, the Fed started lowering rates…..perfect timing for the incoming Republican-controlled Congress

 

There could be a serious problem that no one in this thread has addressed;

REDEMPTION of treasuries

I’m not too sure if Treasuries are issued, rolled over, or redeemed on a daily basis, but do redemptions equates to more or less than Uncle Sam’s income tax receipts?

 

what redemption of treasures? This is not the age of sail where God, Guns, and Gold await for plundering.

 

Try not to be so melodramatic here. For starters, the House is in control of the budget. Not matter what proposal there is by the POTUS, the House can accept it, work with it, or ignore it. It has always been that way. Second, hardball is not something works. It never worked. It dien't work in 2011 or 2013, or even with Trump and his trade deal that was moderate at best and mostly still NAFTA. Even the Budget committee is not eliminating entire programs. Not a single one despite their "plan" would help solve the deficit. It won't. It is all smoke and mirrors, people thumping their chests so to speak, while also trying to play the blame game like some schoolyard taunting event when the teacher catches you not being very nice.

Again, the debt ceiling is very simple. Raise the debt to avoid economic catastrophe. Won't matter if he have a deficit or not, the monent we stop paying bills is the moment our credit rating goes down, which will make whateer GOP plan absolutely worithless.

The best approach is budget negotiations and reconciliation. The current plan will not work because you still need 60 senators to vote. And if 60 senators don't vote for the Agricultural bill, the GOP will find themselves at grave risk from losing their seats in the next election, Representative or Senator.

 

Facts are not partisan

Your cherry-picked one.

No.

Why their higher rates and even differed revenues SLOWED revenue growth and they were certainly not proposing welfare reform and spending restraint.

It SLOWED not only revenue growth but economic growth as I already showed.

Facts are facts and insults do not a point make.

Not as much as growing the economy and incomes.

 

No it doesn't. The Senate has as much control over the budget and the President by law is the first to submit his.

The Senate and the President can negotiate NOW. Yellen can keep paying obligations as they come due with current revenues.

Do tell me when in the past have these Dems demand for a clean debt ceiling bill and THEN spending cuts ever resulted in spend cuts. The Reps should have learned with Bush41 when he caved to them.