host

In <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2134078&postcount=34">another thread</a>, UStwo posted this excerpt, this is my response:

It comes down to the fact that you want to enjoy a low tax rate, even as the deficit that is aggravated by the impact of recent tax cuts, and out of control republican spending, destroys the fiscal soundness of the US in the not too distant future. As far as a shift of government control to "the loony left", as you describe it, others reading this can mull over the fact that the treasury deficit declined every year, starting with the end of 12 years of "responsible conservative management" of the federal budget, and resumed it's trend of increasing, massively, when republicans returned to power, in 2001:
In 2004, 3 years after the 2001 tax cut trend began, SSI revenues collected were the same $151 billion as they were in 2000. Revenue from inidvidual income tax, however, was down to $1,880.3 billion, or $125 billion lower than the $2025.4 billion collected in 2000.

The actual 2006 treasury deficit, with "off-budget" appropriations for Katrina "relief" and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, added, will total <b>$574 billion</b>, vs. $553 billion in 2005, $496 billion in 2004, $555 billion in 2003, $421 billion in 2002, $133 billion in 2001, and just $18 billion, in 2000,
down from $347 billion when "the loony left began to manage the budget in 1993: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
The economist who recently wrote this column:
also wrote this one:
Year GDP Revenue Spending Surplus/Deficit
1993 ______1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4

2000 9,817 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4
2001 10,128 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4
2002 10,470 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4
2003 10,971 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4
2004 11,734 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0
2005 12,487 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6

<b>Deficits in right column, above, do not include "off budget" appropriatins.....</b>
GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year.

So....aside from wanting to avoid increased personal income taxes, necessary if the "loony left" has any hope of coming in and cleaning up "the dog poop on the carpet", which is the mismanaged state of federal budget management and spending, today.....contrasting sharply to the state of the budget when "the loony left" handed control over to "responsible conservatives", less than six years ago.....and neccessary if you want to be responsible enough to commit to avoiding passing a bankrupt government to you own children, as your legacy, can you seperate the preceding facts, data, and descriptions, from your own political prejudices and preconceived notions.

The federal budgeting and spending of the last 25 years, provides a model that strongly suggest that the opposite of everything you've posted on the justification of your political preferences, is invalid. It is a presciption for temporarily low income taxes now, in exchange for a curency crash and a bankrupt federal treasury, before 2015.

Why would you not let the political party with the budget and spending management organization, with the strongly superior reputation and past record for success, an organization that...in just 7 years in the 90's reversed a record of deficits that had grown, on the 12 year watch of "responsible conservatives", to a level that was an even greater percentage of GDP than it is now? .....And instead......disparage the competent alternative with insults, and support a political organization that has managed us into crisis deficit levels.....not once.....but twice.

Consider where the economy will retreat to, without the artificial stimulus of <a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2006/09/gdp-growth-with-and-without-mortgage.html">MEW</a>.......
Consider that, in 2005, even with the stimulus to US GDP of a $553 federal deficit, and consumer withdrawal from home equity of at least $600 billion in 2005, GDP rose from $11,734 billion in 2004, to $12,487 in 2005, an increase in GDP of only $753 billion, and...even with all of that added stimulus, personal income tax revenue to the US treasury, was $2153.9 billion, only $128 billion higher than the $2025.5 billion collected in 2000, when the GDP total was $9,817 billion, or $2,670 billion less than 2005 GDP. GDP had increased 27 percent in 5 years, and income tax revenue rose just $128 billion in the same period....or just 6.3 percent.
So, combined MEW and deficit stimulus to the economy of $1,153 billion, only increased GDP by $753 billion in 2005. Receding housing prices will result in huge decreases in economic stimulus from MEW, as "cashout" refinancing disappears, and with a deficit forecast to decline, what will be left to "prop up "GDP? IMO, it won't be possible to raise tax rates without further strain on a GDP that needed an $1,153 billion input in 2005, to effect a $753 billion, 2005 GDP increase. There are no solutions, and IMO, no hope. The "responsible conservatives" have destroyed the stable federal budget of 2001, in just 5 years..........

<b>Can anybody justify labelling the political party that reversed the 1992 deficit, and ended it by 2000, only to witness it's rise to even higher levels, after they lost control of the federal government, "The Loony Left"?</b>
Can anyone post reasons to continue to vote for the current party, given this history of budget mismanagement?