Do we have a revenue problem or a spending problem?

[Wiseacre]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.






Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

 

[Politico]

Yes.

 

[Avatar4321]

Spending. No question. When we take in 2 Trillion dollars, there is no reason we shouldnt be able to cover all the bills and then some.

 

[Wiseacre]

Here's another one, it looks at the outlays per capita. It's changed from around $6,000 at the beginning of the Carter term to about $12,000 after Obama's first 4 years.



Please read this if you think deficits don't matter and that spending doesn't drive deficits. - Reason.com

 

[del]

yes

 

[The Infidel]

We con$ervatives love to bash Obama, but Bush started it.... The GOP has offered no real leadership, and this has to change.
The Dems would say we need to be more like them, and I say no freekin way. That's what got us to where we are.
I say we need to be more libertarian (i.e. Ron Paul) in our ways.
Lets get back to The Constitution.

 

[del]

We con$ervatives love to bash Obama, but Bush started it.... The GOP has offered no real leadership, and this has to change.
The Dems would say we need to be more like them, and I say no freekin way. That's what got us to where we are.
I say we need to be more libertarian (i.e. Ron Paul) in our ways.
Lets get back to The Constitution.

and that has what to do with solving the deficit/debt problem?

oh, that's right

nothing

 

[Care4all]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.

View attachment 22893




Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Well, you are wrong on one thing....on 2009 being the stimulus and obama....it was ALL President Bush's spending/budget with the exception of $150-$200 billion attributed to obama.
READ THIS:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

and try to REMEMBER it, so that you can CORRECT your right wing friends when they REPEAT the LIE that the 2009 budget deficit belongs to Obama, pretty please!

The stimulus was a 2 year stimulus bill, and passed only a few months before of the fiscal end of 2009...not even a quarter of it was outlayed/spent in fiscal 2009.

 

[Claudette]

Spending for sure.

 

[ba1614]

Without a doubt spending

 

[zeke]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.

View attachment 22893




Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Yea and I can't understand that if the increase in taxes to be paid by the ultra rich is such a little bit of "chump change", why are you right wing whack jobs so opposed to the increase.

But go ahead and tell me why a person netting, lets say 600,000 a month, what bad things will happen if that person were only netting 550,000 a month. Tell me about the tradegy that will occur if the ultra weathy are paying a little more in taxes.

No one else has been able to do it, but with your vast knowledge and experience, I am sure you can.

btw, are you of the "ultra wealthy" class? Do you make 10 million a year. Or even 1 million a year? Just curious.

 

[ba1614]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.

View attachment 22893




Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Yea and I can't understand that if the increase in taxes to be paid by the ultra rich is such a little bit of "chump change", why are you right wing whack jobs so opposed to the increase.

But go ahead and tell me why a person netting, lets say 600,000 a month, what bad things will happen if that person were only netting 550,000 a month. Tell me about the tradegy that will occur if the ultra weathy are paying a little more in taxes.

No one else has been able to do it, but with your vast knowledge and experience, I am sure you can.

btw, are you of the "ultra wealthy" class? Do you make 10 million a year. Or even 1 million a year? Just curious.

I'm against any tax increase on anyone until at least such time as the government(all levels right down to the municipalities) show at least some restraint in spending. Not 10yrs down the road spending either, real life spending cuts that don't kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

 

[Mac1958]

.

One of our biggest problems is that we tend to ask either/or, black & white, binary questions and run with the either/or, black & white, binary answers.

Things are a little more complicated than this.

.

 

[Freewill]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.

View attachment 22893




Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Well, you are wrong on one thing....on 2009 being the stimulus and obama....it was ALL President Bush's spending/budget with the exception of $150-$200 billion attributed to obama.
READ THIS:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

and try to REMEMBER it, so that you can CORRECT your right wing friends when they REPEAT the LIE that the 2009 budget deficit belongs to Obama, pretty please!

The stimulus was a 2 year stimulus bill, and passed only a few months before of the fiscal end of 2009...not even a quarter of it was outlayed/spent in fiscal 2009.

Congress runs the budget, so if you want to take the blame off of Obama then put it onto Congress.

 

[Freewill]

Inflation is going to drive outlays up that is fact. The only way to counter that is with an economy that grows at the same pace. A short term fix is a tax cut which should increase disposable income and should actually increase revenue over the short term. The problem is that the economy is not growing anywhere near the inflation rate. Also the unemployment rate, thus revenue drops and outlays increase, at 8 percent or more for a very long time. The government is printing and borrowing money at a pace that can not be sustained. So whether it is income, from fewer people, or a outlay problem to more people, I doubt seriously any one in Washington is capable of fixing, sadly. At least in my opinion.

 

[zeke]

Check out the chart, look at the divergence between revenue and spending after the turn of the century. Bush43 and Obama have both increased spending big time. BTW, the chart comes fromthe WH OMB ofice.

View attachment 22893




Some blame Bush43 for the steep rise in 2009, but I think Obama's $862 billion Stimulus package was mostly to blame for that. I cannot understand how libdems can possibly think that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire on the top 2% will have much effect on the debt/deficit. We're talking about 8 cents on the deficit dollar here, how dumb is that?

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Yea and I can't understand that if the increase in taxes to be paid by the ultra rich is such a little bit of "chump change", why are you right wing whack jobs so opposed to the increase.

But go ahead and tell me why a person netting, lets say 600,000 a month, what bad things will happen if that person were only netting 550,000 a month. Tell me about the tradegy that will occur if the ultra weathy are paying a little more in taxes.

No one else has been able to do it, but with your vast knowledge and experience, I am sure you can.

btw, are you of the "ultra wealthy" class? Do you make 10 million a year. Or even 1 million a year? Just curious.

I'm against any tax increase on anyone until at least such time as the government(all levels right down to the municipalities) show at least some restraint in spending. Not 10yrs down the road spending either, real life spending cuts that don't kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

Hey its cool to be against whatever you want to be against. But you didn't answer the question. Which is; if a person netting 600,000 a month would only net 550,000 a month, what terrible things would happen to this person?

And who you want to cut spending on? What do you want less of? How many more people needing assistance do we need? What is it you think will happen if the guv cuts spending by lets say 10%. What are the positives that will occur when welfare is cut 10%.. Military spending 10%.......fed assitance for education, fema cut 10%. and so on.

What will be the great positive impact if all the cuts were to happen? You think we will all of a sudden have more jobs. When people are laid off?

 

[ba1614]

Yea and I can't understand that if the increase in taxes to be paid by the ultra rich is such a little bit of "chump change", why are you right wing whack jobs so opposed to the increase.

But go ahead and tell me why a person netting, lets say 600,000 a month, what bad things will happen if that person were only netting 550,000 a month. Tell me about the tradegy that will occur if the ultra weathy are paying a little more in taxes.

No one else has been able to do it, but with your vast knowledge and experience, I am sure you can.

btw, are you of the "ultra wealthy" class? Do you make 10 million a year. Or even 1 million a year? Just curious.

I'm against any tax increase on anyone until at least such time as the government(all levels right down to the municipalities) show at least some restraint in spending. Not 10yrs down the road spending either, real life spending cuts that don't kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

Hey its cool to be against whatever you want to be against. But you didn't answer the question. Which is; if a person netting 600,000 a month would only net 550,000 a month, what terrible things would happen to this person?

And who you want to cut spending on? What do you want less of? How many more people needing assistance do we need? What is it you think will happen if the guv cuts spending by lets say 10%. What are the positives that will occur when welfare is cut 10%.. Military spending 10%.......fed assitance for education, fema cut 10%. and so on.

What will be the great positive impact if all the cuts were to happen? You think we will all of a sudden have more jobs. When people are laid off?

Of course as long as it's someone else paying it's all good right? This bullshit about taxing the rich is just that, vote getting divisive bullshit that does absolutely nothing to address the structural problems of Americas debt and dependency on government for every little thing.

Who do I want to cut spending on ? Every American in every corner of the country. 25% across the board on every government program there is, and get rid of every single tax deduction there is. Yes even the military, bring our boys home and let them turn the desert into glass if they chose. Maintain a military that we can sqash anyone who dare fuck with us, but other than that, fuck 'em all till we have our own issues dealt with.
We have all the resources we need if we stop being idiots and get together with Canada and truly work towards NA energy independence. It is very possible.
And yes, I would lose a lot of deductions myself, and yes it would hurt. But how and the fuck are we to pay off over 50grand of debt for every man women and child in the country without a little hurt from everyone?

 

[ilia25]

I'm against any tax increase on anyone until at least such time as the government(all levels right down to the municipalities) show at least some restraint in spending. Not 10yrs down the road spending either, real life spending cuts that don't kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

Hey its cool to be against whatever you want to be against. But you didn't answer the question. Which is; if a person netting 600,000 a month would only net 550,000 a month, what terrible things would happen to this person?

And who you want to cut spending on? What do you want less of? How many more people needing assistance do we need? What is it you think will happen if the guv cuts spending by lets say 10%. What are the positives that will occur when welfare is cut 10%.. Military spending 10%.......fed assitance for education, fema cut 10%. and so on.

What will be the great positive impact if all the cuts were to happen? You think we will all of a sudden have more jobs. When people are laid off?

Of course as long as it's someone else paying it's all good right? This bullshit about taxing the rich is just that, vote getting divisive bullshit that does absolutely nothing to address the structural problems of Americas debt and dependency on government for every little thing.

Who do I want to cut spending on ? Every American in every corner of the country. 25% across the board on every government program there is, and get rid of every single tax deduction there is. Yes even the military, bring our boys home and let them turn the desert into glass if they chose. Maintain a military that we can sqash anyone who dare fuck with us, but other than that, fuck 'em all till we have our own issues dealt with.
We have all the resources we need if we stop being idiots and get together with Canada and truly work towards NA energy independence. It is very possible.
And yes, I would lose a lot of deductions myself, and yes it would hurt. But how and the fuck are we to pay off over 50grand of debt for every man women and child in the country without a little hurt from everyone?

By rising top marginal taxed to something like 70%. This way we can make it painless for everyone else.

 

[ilia25]

BTW, notice the nice little bulge in the blue line there, from around 2003 to 2007? You can thank the Bush tax cuts for that.

Yeah, right That bulge came from the economic recovery. But thanks to the Bush tax cuts the revenues stayed below the pre-crisis trend, ensuring that the deficits never went away even after the economy was booming.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Corruption rules the day. We have problems no matter how ya wanna size it up.