Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem

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

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

Message

erieangel -> Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/2/2011 9:44:52 PM)
The republicans would have us believe that the US has a spending rather than a revenue problem. But as the linked page shows, federal spending has been, at least since the end of WWII, between 20%-28% of GDP. This year it is at about 25% of GDP. WWII saw federal spending at above 40% of GDP, implying that our federal spending today is lower than it could be, considering we are in so many wars (lets not forget the "secret" war with Pakistan). And while spending has been around 25%, revenue has been about 18% of GDP, giving us the discrepancy and the national debt. The final link defines obligations of the government as all spending that people are entitled under current law due to age, income, disability or military service. Discretionary spending is all spending that must have annual approval and appropriations--military spending, roads, bridges, pork and the like. So when Congress talks about cutting "discretionary spending" they are speaking with a forked tongue because what they really want to do is cut the obligatory spending without changing the laws. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/ http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/general/federal-outlays-and-revenues-1930-2015-perc-gdp/ http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3246 http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/government-share-economy.html

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/2/2011 9:47:16 PM)
Why dont you look at periods of time where there was BOTH high spending AND high national debt, you might begin to see the problem. Hint: when economies approach debt of 90% of GDP the shit really hits the fan. Why dont you check where ours is.

erieangel -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/2/2011 9:52:36 PM)
I did look at one particular period--WWII. High spending and debt because of the war, over 40% of GDP. And yes that is a problem. I said in '02 that war time is no time to be cutting taxes, and I was right...our deficit has ballooned since, though not so much when Bush was in office because he kept the actual cost of the wars off the books. Nearly $10M a month to stay in Afghanistan. If we were to use that money here at home, think of all the good it could do.

tolovetolaugh -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/2/2011 10:31:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I did look at one particular period--WWII. High spending and debt because of the war, over 40% of GDP. And yes that is a problem. I said in '02 that war time is no time to be cutting taxes, and I was right...our deficit has ballooned since, though not so much when Bush was in office because he kept the actual cost of the wars off the books. Nearly $10M a month to stay in Afghanistan. If we were to use that money here at home, think of all the good it could do. That number feels really low. http://costofwar.com/en/

Termyn8or -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/2/2011 11:17:43 PM)
FR I think we need to stop figuring out unemployment figures and instead figure out EMPLOYMENT figures. You see after you eliminate those who work for the government who are just folding back a part of what they take from tax money, you will find that there are alot fewer taxpayers in this country than most people would ever realize. But because THEY do not give you the figures you don't now. The figures have been published, but they are not put out front like the new ipod for you to peruse. You have not been led to see this therefore it does not matter, and that is fine, because in the end you will not be aware of the collapse of the economy. People are so stupid to not take things in context. I make twenty bucks an hour, thirty years ago I made almost three times that. You just don't see the past and how good it could be for innovators and people willing to take a risk. But it was. Those days are over unless you have capitalisation in the six figures, and even then it is iffy. My ex bosses are trying to open a business in a new venue, out of scratch, that is the kind of balls that used to make people money, but I think it is going to cost them, and cost them big. And I might just capitalise on it as their resources are spread thin now, and this is my chance. Uncle Glenn taught me well. Their economy is not mine, and never will be. ETA: And BTW, nobody knows shit about this business, so I can make a SHITLOAD of money and "never turn a profit". No fucking taxes. Done it three times, once more is no problem. T^T

popeye1250 -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 12:10:12 AM)
quote: No, we have a government problem. It's too big, they do things they shouldn't be doing and don't do the things they should be doing, it needs to be WAY smaller than it is! Who in here would want the govt interfereing in their lives on a daily basis? Add signature \| Notify me via e-mail when someone replies

Hillwilliam -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 7:12:21 AM)
It is BOTH a spending problem and a revenue problem. One side thinks that the way out of this mess is to increase revenue but keep spending like a drunken sailor. The other side seems to think that the way out is to reduce revenue and make a few token efforts at reigning in spending and we'll be OK.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 7:16:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It is BOTH a spending problem and a revenue problem. Exactly

Sanity -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 7:59:46 AM)
If the cost of war is a problem why did Dear Leader start another one quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I did look at one particular period--WWII. High spending and debt because of the war, over 40% of GDP. And yes that is a problem. I said in '02 that war time is no time to be cutting taxes, and I was right...our deficit has ballooned since, though not so much when Bush was in office because he kept the actual cost of the wars off the books. Nearly $10M a month to stay in Afghanistan. If we were to use that money here at home, think of all the good it could do. That number feels really low. http://costofwar.com/en/

tolovetolaugh -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:07:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If the cost of war is a problem why did Dear Leader start another one quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I did look at one particular period--WWII. High spending and debt because of the war, over 40% of GDP. And yes that is a problem. I said in '02 that war time is no time to be cutting taxes, and I was right...our deficit has ballooned since, though not so much when Bush was in office because he kept the actual cost of the wars off the books. Nearly $10M a month to stay in Afghanistan. If we were to use that money here at home, think of all the good it could do. That number feels really low. http://costofwar.com/en/ Do you mean Tripoli? Because that is the only one I support. It is the only one we have any hope of pulling out of in a fairly short amount of time, considering that they had already stood up for themselves as a people and actively asked for help. The rest of the wars which are far more expensive then this recent conflict(not really a war), were bullshit. And I betcha the military budget goes above and beyond almost any other one budget. 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.

Sanity -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:25:59 AM)
OF COURSE you support THIS ONE Dear Leader started it... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh Do you mean Tripoli? Because that is the only one I support. It is the only one we have any hope of pulling out of in a fairly short amount of time, considering that they had already stood up for themselves as a people and actively asked for help. The rest of the wars which are far more expensive then this recent conflict(not really a war), were bullshit. And I betcha the military budget goes above and beyond almost any other one budget. 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.

MileHighM -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It is BOTH a spending problem and a revenue problem. Exactly Word.. Any belief to the contrary is partisan hackery

Sanity -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:39:51 AM)
And the best way to boost revenues is to grow the economy And the best way to kill the economy is to boost taxes "Word" [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It is BOTH a spending problem and a revenue problem. Exactly Word.. Any belief to the contrary is partisan hackery

tolovetolaugh -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:41:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity OF COURSE you support THIS ONE Dear Leader started it... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh Do you mean Tripoli? Because that is the only one I support. It is the only one we have any hope of pulling out of in a fairly short amount of time, considering that they had already stood up for themselves as a people and actively asked for help. The rest of the wars which are far more expensive then this recent conflict(not really a war), were bullshit. And I betcha the military budget goes above and beyond almost any other one budget. 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. Yes. I voted for Obama. My support of the war in Tripoli has nothing to do with him- I wish we had moved in sooner, not just when it was determined popular to do so. Personally I blame the republicans for the other choice I had. I mean, troubled as things are I still would not change my vote and give a chance that the old man would die and leave that crazy bitch in charge.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity OF COURSE you support THIS ONE Dear Leader started it... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh Do you mean Tripoli? Because that is the only one I support. It is the only one we have any hope of pulling out of in a fairly short amount of time, considering that they had already stood up for themselves as a people and actively asked for help. The rest of the wars which are far more expensive then this recent conflict(not really a war), were bullshit. And I betcha the military budget goes above and beyond almost any other one budget. 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. Yes. I voted for Obama. My support of the war in Tripoli has nothing to do with him- I wish we had moved in sooner, not just when it was determined popular to do so. Personally I blame the republicans for the other choice I had. I mean, troubled as things are I still would not change my vote and give a chance that the old man would die and leave that crazy bitch in charge. Gosh, where's the respect? That "crazy bitch" is "Madam Governor", and dont you fucking forget it. -Yours truly Deviantly D.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:46:29 AM)
Your little statistic implies that keeping government spending below 28% of GDP is perfectly acceptable. When in fact, that kind of spending is why we are $14 trillion in debt already. I would argue that if we eliminated all the Unconstitutional federal programs and agencies, we would probably only need to spend 10% for National defense, and a handful of other important agencies like NASA, the CIA, and center for disease control, to name a few. Another fact is that if we allow them to keep increasing the revenue or find new sources of revenue by sticking it to the rich or passing a whole slew of backdoor/hidden taxes which are passed on to the consumer, there is no motivation for them to ever control spending. This is why we must limit their revenue. 10% sounds like a good number too. The feds shouldn't be entitled to any more than 10% of a persons paycheck, the state 10%, and municipalities 10%. That's still 30% of a persons paycheck which is way too much, but better than the direction we are headed in now.

tolovetolaugh -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:51:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Gosh, where's the respect? That "crazy bitch" is "Madam Governor", and dont you fucking forget it. -Yours truly Deviantly D. I think there is a discussion on respect going on at the moment. Neither side seems to feel it means shit. http://www.collarchat.com/m_3832059/tm.htm When that crazy bitch starts respecting wildlife as something other than her own private entertainment to kill, maybe she will get respect. Than again, if you are holding any office in the states and don't know anything about American history, you might have bigger problems. http://www.feastoffun.com/videos/2011/06/03/video-sarah-palin-doesnt-know-what-paul-revere-did/

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 8:52:33 AM)
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.

Louve00 -> RE: Its not a spending problem; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 9:01:32 AM)
I agree its a spending problem...and I don't mean spending too much on wars, but I mean spending on all the money we ship to other countries all over the globe, and have been for years. If the economy is bad globally, than surely its time to reel in our "donations". And a revenue problem, with huge corporations (the kind with profits in the billions) and the super rich and even the poor not paying taxes. Any business man will tell you revenue is key to a business. If you don't make money, you don't have money! While we all know the shrinking and poor to midland middle class would scuffle to pay taxes, I do think its time to collect revenue (taxes) from them, even if its proportionate to what those top 2% of the richest make. Just as a bit of trivia, to put it in perspective, here is a link of what the filthy rich can afford that we can't afford. And why are we so intent on defending them? Oh, right!! Because they line the pockets of the politicians who are fighting for them to keep their money in their pockets, while fighting to extract all they can from the middle class, who can't afford to line their own pockets, much less the politicians. http://faireconomy.org/enews/11_things_the_richest_us_households_can_buy_that_you_can%E2%80%99t *edited to add, if you see the link to "make money" I didn't do that, and didn't paste those words from an article for any embedded links to show up. So please disregard it or don't associate it with me, cuz I don't know what on earth happened there!!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not a spending; it is a revenue problem (9/3/2011 9:33:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Gosh, where's the respect? That "crazy bitch" is "Madam Governor", and dont you fucking forget it. -Yours truly Deviantly D. I think there is a discussion on respect going on at the moment. Neither side seems to feel it means shit. Really? wow what a coincidence [8\|][8\|]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125