RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem

RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 2:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls The CBO also said, and I quote, "It won't matter whether we raise taxes or lower taxes if we don't cut spending first." Case closed. These so called budget cuts are not even actual cuts, they are simply reductions in the amount of future spending that would have occurred otherwise. Democrats aren't serious about cutting the size of the federal government and anyone with a lick of common sense can see that. It's all smoke and mirrors to them. The Republicans aren't serious about cutting spending, if they were, then the Pentagon would be on the chopping block right next to their own salaries and perks.

Fellow -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 3:43:16 PM)
It may be wrong to look at GDP number vs. government spending as a reference point. At first, GDP number, as it is calculated, does not correctly explain the state of the economy without is components being analyzed. Secondly, the government does not simply spend GDP, its consumption is a component of the GDP. The current "plutonomy" economic model the original poster seems to support (the upper segment of the income earners get most and the rest is supported by handouts the government acting as an intermediary) is not very good one.

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 4:50:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow It may be wrong to look at GDP number vs. government spending as a reference point. At first, GDP number, as it is calculated, does not correctly explain the state of the economy without is components being analyzed. Secondly, the government does not simply spend GDP, its consumption is a component of the GDP. The current "plutonomy" economic model the original poster seems to support (the upper segment of the income earners get most and the rest is supported by handouts the government acting as an intermediary) is not very good one. No, I do not support the upper of income earners getting most and the rest being supported by handouts from the government. As for looking at GDP as a reference point...it is all we really have. Until the Civil War, federal spending was about 10% of GDP. The 20th century saw the federal government take on more and responsibility to American citizens and spending as a percentage of GDP has gone up. Some would like to see spending back down to pre-Civil War levels, but where would that get us?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 4:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow It may be wrong to look at GDP number vs. government spending as a reference point. At first, GDP number, as it is calculated, does not correctly explain the state of the economy without is components being analyzed. Secondly, the government does not simply spend GDP, its consumption is a component of the GDP. The current "plutonomy" economic model the original poster seems to support (the upper segment of the income earners get most and the rest is supported by handouts the government acting as an intermediary) is not very good one. No, I do not support the upper of income earners getting most and the rest being supported by handouts from the government. As for looking at GDP as a reference point...it is all we really have. Until the Civil War, federal spending was about 10% of GDP. The 20th century saw the federal government take on more and responsibility to American citizens and spending as a percentage of GDP has gone up. Some would like to see spending back down to pre-Civil War levels, but where would that get us? And defense spending is near its post WWII lows of 5% of GDP. Some would like to see it eliminated, but where would that get us?

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 5:03:56 PM)
Post WWII lows are great. How about if we look at the pre- and during WWII defense budgets as a percentage? I really don't care how much we spend on defense. I do, however, care where the money is going. Did you know that we are spending millions on "Christianizing" our military? Here is the link: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152120/why_is_the_military_spending_millions_on_christian_contractors_bent_on_evangelizing_us_soldiers/ It is AlterNet, and solidly has a left-wing pov, but its all right there.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 5:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Post WWII lows are great. How about if we look at the pre- and during WWII defense budgets as a percentage? I really don't care how much we spend on defense. I do, however, care where the money is going. Did you know that we are spending millions on "Christianizing" our military? I'll look for the link. Probably no more than we are on "Islamacizing" our military. And both are wrong, obv.

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 5:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Post WWII lows are great. How about if we look at the pre- and during WWII defense budgets as a percentage? I really don't care how much we spend on defense. I do, however, care where the money is going. Did you know that we are spending millions on "Christianizing" our military? I'll look for the link. Probably no more than we are on "Islamacizing" our military. And both are wrong, obv. The link is in my previous post. As for Islamicizing our military...I'd like to see documentation on that and not just feeble imagination on the matter.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 5:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Post WWII lows are great. How about if we look at the pre- and during WWII defense budgets as a percentage? I really don't care how much we spend on defense. I do, however, care where the money is going. Did you know that we are spending millions on "Christianizing" our military? I'll look for the link. Probably no more than we are on "Islamacizing" our military. And both are wrong, obv. The link is in my previous post. As for Islamicizing our military...I'd like to see documentation on that and not just feeble imagination on the matter. Prayer breaks, building of Mosques on bases, recruitment of Muslim chaplains, extended hours for mess halls during Ramadan...not my imagination dear.

Fellow -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 6:07:30 PM)
quote: No, I do not support the upper of income earners getting most and the rest being supported by handouts from the government. As for looking at GDP as a reference point...it is all we really have. Until the Civil War, federal spending was about 10% of GDP. The 20th century saw the federal government take on more and responsibility to American citizens and spending as a percentage of GDP has gone up. Some would like to see spending back down to pre-Civil War levels, but where would that get us? Comparing after WW2 years and today: GDP has increased 7 times, the population has approximately doubled. There has been a dramatic shift in the structure of the economy. Also, US government spending today is at least 40% of GDP [ http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html ]. I think, at this point the structure of the economy needs to be changed. The country does not have homogeneous economic system. We have financial sector (claiming up to 60% of corporate profits, not much production), unionized government sector (living reasonably well, producing little), different rackets (health care, housing, education etc..) and a growing number of debt slaves peasants. There is very little productive economy to support the system. The system has reached dead end. We need a revolution. Status quo can not be maintained.

Kirata -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 11:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh I mean, we have nukes... we have had nukes. You don't really need a bigger, badder bomb. So I don't see why so much money goes into developing bigger, badder bombs. There isn't much of a point to it. Actually, much of the money is going into expanding our ability to engage in multiple small conflicts against largely unsophisticated forces instead of maintaining the superiority of the major weapons systems that afford us a non-nuclear option against a significant adversary -- for example, purchasing the versatile but limited JSF instead of funding our air-superiority F-22 platform -- a course of action born of a mind-set more interested in being able to poke a stick in the eye of the little guy than in maintaining an effective military capability against a technologically advanced opponent, and one which is sure to expose us to a profoundly nasty reality one day when the world declines to comply with the fantasies of our politicians. K.

joether -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/4/2011 12:08:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Post WWII lows are great. How about if we look at the pre- and during WWII defense budgets as a percentage? I really don't care how much we spend on defense. I do, however, care where the money is going. Did you know that we are spending millions on "Christianizing" our military? I'll look for the link. Probably no more than we are on "Islamacizing" our military. And both are wrong, obv. The link is in my previous post. As for Islamicizing our military...I'd like to see documentation on that and not just feeble imagination on the matter. Prayer breaks, building of Mosques on bases, recruitment of Muslim chaplains, extended hours for mess halls during Ramadan...not my imagination dear. Oh gosh, do we have non-Christians in our Military? How did that hapen willbe?!?!?! Qucik! You must run around in mindless dances, flailing your arms around, foaming at the mouth, and speaking delusionary crap..... Yes, the US Military has more than just Christians serving in both the enlisted and officer levels. That must come as a pretty heavy shock. If muslims are not allowed to join the US Military due to some extremists attacking us on Sept. 11, 2001. Then we should not allow any conservatives to join either, because of persons involved with April 19, 1995. That's your arguement, willbe. If mosques are not allowed on US Military Bases, than all Christian buildings should also be removed (your arguement taken to the logical conclusion).

joether -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/4/2011 12:11:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh I mean, we have nukes... we have had nukes. You don't really need a bigger, badder bomb. So I don't see why so much money goes into developing bigger, badder bombs. There isn't much of a point to it. Actually, much of the money is going into expanding our ability to engage in multiple small conflicts against largely unsophisticated forces instead of maintaining the superiority of the major weapons systems that afford us a non-nuclear option against a significant adversary -- for example, purchasing the versatile but limited JSF instead of funding our air-superiority F-22 platform -- a course of action born of a mind-set more interested in being able to poke a stick in the eye of the little guy than in maintaining an effective military capability against a technologically advanced opponent, and one which is sure to expose us to a profoundly nasty reality one day when the world declines to comply with the fantasies of our politicians. Iraq and Afghanistan were both considered "...small conflicts against largely unsophisticated forces...". How much did those conflicts cost us so far?

thompsonx -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 12:35:47 PM)
quote: Probably no more than we are on "Islamacizing" our military. And both are wrong, obv. quote: Prayer breaks, building of Mosques on bases, recruitment of Muslim chaplains, extended hours for mess halls during Ramadan...not my imagination dear. So you do not believe in freedom of religion? Are there any other parts of the constitution of my country you would like to see abolished?

thompsonx -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 12:39:15 PM)
quote: Who in here would want the govt interfereing in their lives on a daily basis? Kinda ironic coming from a man who spent about 20 years of his life having the government direct his every movement and who still collects a check from that government.

thompsonx -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 12:43:21 PM)
quote: If the cost of war is a problem why did Dear Leader start another one Which war did kim jong il start?

thompsonx -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 12:54:35 PM)
quote: "It won't matter whether we raise taxes or lower taxes if we don't cut spending first." Case closed. Is it your position that we stop the war in the sandbox as the most immediate and effective way to lower spending?

joether -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 1:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow It may be wrong to look at GDP number vs. government spending as a reference point. At first, GDP number, as it is calculated, does not correctly explain the state of the economy without is components being analyzed. Secondly, the government does not simply spend GDP, its consumption is a component of the GDP. The current "plutonomy" economic model the original poster seems to support (the upper segment of the income earners get most and the rest is supported by handouts the government acting as an intermediary) is not very good one. No, I do not support the upper of income earners getting most and the rest being supported by handouts from the government. As for looking at GDP as a reference point...it is all we really have. Until the Civil War, federal spending was about 10% of GDP. The 20th century saw the federal government take on more and responsibility to American citizens and spending as a percentage of GDP has gone up. Some would like to see spending back down to pre-Civil War levels, but where would that get us? And defense spending is near its post WWII lows of 5% of GDP. Some would like to see it eliminated, but where would that get us? Ok, why is what happen in WWII so important to us Americans in 2011 from an economics standpoint? Why not WWI? Korean? Vietnam? Or how about the American Civil War? Likewise, we are we comparing 2011 when we are relatively at peace to 70 years ago, when the nation was at war? I'm not asking to bash you willbe, but rather to understand what the whole point of hte comparison is.

submittous -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 4:43:27 PM)
The OP is right but I think the numbers a bit off... 24% of GDP spent and federal income is down closer to 14%... and that is why the debt is climbing so fast. Previous years spending was down around 22% and income around 20%. It's that ten percent of GDP gap in income (taxes) that is the difference and problem. To be honest we aren't spending enough given current economic times, we should be up approaching 30% of GDP to create the needed stimulus and we should be taxing the hell out of everyone making high profits during this time to keep the gap between federal income and out go closer. After WWII Ike raised the income tax rate to 93 percent on top earners to pay off the debt from the war. Just a thought, it took over 40% of GDP spent on 'stimulus' in WWII to get us out of the Depression and people at the time were concerned when the war was over that we hadn't done enough... The reason the Republicans have had the mantra 'we have a spending problem not a tax problem' is it isn't true so you have to say it more often for the simple minds to believe it. It has worked and lots of liberals and all Republicans believe it. Another thought, why is raising taxes to pay down debt such an evil idea? That's what every other responsible generation has done when for whatever reason we've incurred high debt. When did not paying our debts become anything but anti-American?

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 5:46:11 PM)
quote: Another thought, why is raising taxes to pay down debt such an evil idea? That's what every other responsible generation has done when for whatever reason we've incurred high debt. When did not paying our debts become anything but anti-American? I have often wondered the same thing. I've come to a conclusion that many of the uber wealthy who argue the need for lower taxes simply don't care about this country or about their fellow man and the not-so-wealthy who buy into the claptrap are simply robotic in nature. When Ike raised taxes to 93% it didn't cause companies to close their doors, it didn't even cause a single wealthy family to lose their assets. What happened was the country entered into a boom-era of manufacturing and it helped (along with the fight labor unions) to raise the middle class. Clinton raised taxes during his 8 years and created millions of jobs. Bush/Obama have given us low business taxes and few to zero job creation. Kinda tells me businesses tend to see the benefits of higher taxes.

tweakabelle -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/5/2011 7:35:56 PM)
One way to free up a lot of $ in your economy is to bring your ridiculously inefficient healthcare system in line with comparable Western healthcare systems. The US currently spends c15% of its GDP on healthcare and gets a rotten system that leaves tens of millions of Americans uncovered or under-covered. Most Western economies spend less than 9% of GDP and get universal coverage. Health stats indicate that in many areas (eg. infant mortality) the US lags far behind Western norms. So by getting yourselves a sensible ('socialised') healthcare system you'd have a win-win situation. More healthcare for ALL Americans less $, $ that could be deployed more productively elsewhere in your economy as you guys see fit. It's a no-brainer.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875