Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[MaggieMae]

Earmarks.

Earmarks have never been more than 2% of any spending bills, even at their height in 2005.

 

[Polk]

Not enough revenue is the primary problem. Those arguing that it's all about spending don't really understand the situation.

 

[MaggieMae]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

Until now, Republicans were the Don't-Tax-But-Spend-Anyway party. The current batch appear to have damaged memory cells.

 

[Polk]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.

 

[MaggieMae]

Earmarks.

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

Sometimes merging agencies can result in behemoths, i.e., Homeland Security where there are now more chiefs than indians, each with a funding agenda.

 

[ShackledNation]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP being at it's lowest point in decades probably has something to do with it...

Spending as a percentage of GDP being at its highest point in decades probably has something to do with it...

In fact, we are at the highest spending levels in the history of the United States minus WWII when government completely took over the economy. We are at higher spending levels than WWI, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and the Great Depression. Revenue problem? Really? Not to mention we are in a recession, during which people have less jobs (lower income tax revenue) less money to spend (lower sales tax) and lower productivity.

Raising taxes drains wealth from the private sector. This wealth deteriorates via government bureaucracy. By further sucking resources from the private sector and giving them to the waste of government bureaucracy, nothing will be fixed. Revenue problem? I think not.

 

[MaggieMae]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

I have to disagree with you. The problem is not revenue per se because the government could triple its revenue tomorrow and by the day after they would quadruple spending. No matter how much revenue they get in Congress does not have the discipline to spend within its means.

Immie

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

Sorry, you need a third: Both.

Too bad most of you just can't grasp that.

No, too bad you can't grasp that I am asking which of the two is the primary problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

Spending without thinking about how bills will be paid=spending problem.

Exactly. Let's start with Iraq and Afghanistan, which should have been funded with a war tax. Then we can move to the Medicare prescription drug bill, and any other huge chunks of mandated adventures, the cost of which was not even debated.

 

[Polk]

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

I have to disagree with you. The problem is not revenue per se because the government could triple its revenue tomorrow and by the day after they would quadruple spending. No matter how much revenue they get in Congress does not have the discipline to spend within its means.

Immie

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

Republicans replaced it with "CUTGO".

 

[ShackledNation]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.

And we should listen to advisers of a failed and terribly run campaign why?

 

[MaggieMae]

Earmarks.

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

Super rail? No.
Department of Education? Abolish.
Streamlining other departments? Of course. And cut their budgets.

Talk about shackling a nation...Quality education and modernization are key to remaining a super power.

 

[Dr.House]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

When that happens at home, people stop spending...

 

[MaggieMae]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

You're assuming allowing the tax cuts to expire is the only way to more revenue. The entire tax code needs to be rewritten to remove the thousands of perks. THAT should be the first agenda item for the 2012 presidency.

 

[MaggieMae]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

You realize that is a total non-answer.
I said PRIMARY reason...as in...which is the greater problem.

Well I'll go back and check the revenue box, then, although it's far more complicated than those black or white choices, as you know. Since taxes have not been raised in 16 years, and even with that tax windfall, it really didn't do much to spur on "trickle down," part of the reason for more spending is that more people MUST rely on government umbrellas.

 

[Polk]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.

I'm getting really sick of Bernanke. Being too lazy to do anything else is different from not being able to do anything else.

 

[MaggieMae]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP being at it's lowest point in decades probably has something to do with it...

Spending as a percentage of GDP being at its highest point in decades probably has something to do with it...

In fact, we are at the highest spending levels in the history of the United States minus WWII when government completely took over the economy. We are at higher spending levels than WWI, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and the Great Depression. Revenue problem? Really? Not to mention we are in a recession, during which people have less jobs (lower income tax revenue) less money to spend (lower sales tax) and lower productivity.

Raising taxes drains wealth from the private sector. This wealth deteriorates via government bureaucracy. By further sucking resources from the private sector and giving them to the waste of government bureaucracy, nothing will be fixed. Revenue problem? I think not.

I almost want to cry every time I see that nonsense.

Paid Off for Layoffs: CEOs at Pink Slip Leaders Earned 42% More in 2009 - DailyFinance

I have a slew of other links that can prove that theory dead wrong, but I get sick of posting them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

When that happens at home, people stop spending...

Surely you jest. I guess you didn't hear about the public's credit card spree, which has resulted in the average American STILL owing around $3,000 on old credit for "stuff" they've already charged. The whole country, including individuals were max'd out, in debt up to their eyeballs.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.

I'm getting really sick of Bernanke. Being too lazy to do anything else is different from not being able to do anything else.

I think he meant pulling money out of stone.