Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[Sallow]

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

Outspent how?

With TARP? With the GM bailout?

Those are two iniatives left by the Bush administration.

Conservatives ROYALLY fucked things up. And continue to do so.

It is their mission statement to bankrupt the government and create a Plutocracy in this country.

Tax cuts have never done anything to help unemployment. In fact..everytime tax get cut, the economy gets worse.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

Outspent how?

With TARP? With the GM bailout?

Those are two iniatives left by the Bush administration.

Conservatives ROYALLY fucked things up. And continue to do so.

It is their mission statement to bankrupt the government and create a Plutocracy in this country.

Tax cuts have never done anything to help unemployment. In fact..everytime tax get cut, the economy gets worse.

So you think to solve this crises - raising taxes should be the primary "fix"?
You do realize just how much higher they would have to be to have a meaningful effect?

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Like the most trusted man in America used to say, "And that's the way it is...."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sallow - you just can't answer direct questions can you?
Someday after you have aged a few years and you get sick and tired of paying an INCREDIBLE amount of taxes in all of it's forms...your mind will open up and see things beyond red vs. blue.

 

[Avorysuds]

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 see where you're coming from but I can't agree... If a recession can damage the Government this bad then it's a spending problem. If you took a pay cut do you spend more and complain it was the pay cut that put you in this situation or do you find ways to cut your personal spending?

Big Government is great during the good times, it's when everything goes though that inevitable cycle that a giant Government never seems to plan on ends up sucking the life out of the country. If our Government were a quarter the size "revenue" would not be an issue even in a Great Depression 2.0

 

[Immanuel]

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

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

So, you don't think the Stimulus Package or Health Care Reform are new spending plans?

Obviously he was not as interested in PayGo as he was forcing his socialistic ideas on health care into our laps. Or was it that he was more interested in giving the health insurance companies a huge and I do mean huge gift. What he asked for with reform was socialism. What he gave the insurance companies was a gift.

Immie

 

[auditor0007]

Here is a question; was spending too high in 2000? We had a great economy, although the dotcom bubble was about to burst, but the fact is the economy was good and we had just gone through a Republican led Congress that pretty much had taxes and spending in line with what they felt was responsible, and as I recall, nobody was really complaining.

In very basic and simple terms, federal revenue was 20% of GDP or just over $2.0 trillion while spending was just under $1.8 trillion, which made spending 18.2% of GDP. In 2009 and 2010, revenue was $2.1 trillion, but had dropped as a percentage of GDP to 14.9 percent for both years. Estimated revenue for 2011 is only 14.4 percent of GDP. GDP for 2011 is expected to be around $15 trillion. Had revenues held steady with GDP, we should be seeing revenue of $3.0 trillion in 2011. In 2009 and 2010, it should have been just under $3.0 trillion. So for the last three years, we are running revenue deficits of between $800 billion to just over $1.0 trillion per year.

Now let's look at spending. Spending in 2000 was 18.2% of GDP. In 2009 it was 25% of GDP; 2010 it was 23.8$ of GDP (we actually cut spending in 2010), and for 2011 it is estimated to be 25.3% of GDP. Over the three years it is running about 7% above what we spent in 2000. In terms of dollars, and based on these numbers, we have been and are spending, as a percentage of GDP, we spent $600 billion more in 2009 than 2000, $500 billion more in 2010 than in 2000, and we will spend approximately $800 billion more in 2011 than 2000.

So over the last three years, we have lost approximately $2.7 trillion in revenue and we have spent approximately $1.7 trillion more than we should have. Now let us also consider that military spending has increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were unfunded, and we can see that adds to the underfunding and reduces the amount that we overspent by another $200 to $300 billion per year. On top of that, a great deal of the excess discretionary spending is directly due to the bad economy, which the argument can also be made that a good portion of the lost revenue is due to the same. But in the end, what we see is a very simple truth. More of our problems are due to underfunding than they are to overspending.

If you want to check my numbers, here is a link;

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[ShackledNation]

Here is a question; was spending too high in 2000? We had a great economy, although the dotcom bubble was about to burst, but the fact is the economy was good and we had just gone through a Republican led Congress that pretty much had taxes and spending in line with what they felt was responsible, and as I recall, nobody was really complaining.

In very basic and simple terms, federal revenue was 20% of GDP or just over $2.0 trillion while spending was just under $1.8 trillion, which made spending 18.2% of GDP. In 2009 and 2010, revenue was $2.1 trillion, but had dropped as a percentage of GDP to 14.9 percent for both years. Estimated revenue for 2011 is only 14.4 percent of GDP. GDP for 2011 is expected to be around $15 trillion. Had revenues held steady with GDP, we should be seeing revenue of $3.0 trillion in 2011. In 2009 and 2010, it should have been just under $3.0 trillion. So for the last three years, we are running revenue deficits of between $800 billion to just over $1.0 trillion per year.

Now let's look at spending. Spending in 2000 was 18.2% of GDP. In 2009 it was 25% of GDP; 2010 it was 23.8$ of GDP (we actually cut spending in 2010), and for 2011 it is estimated to be 25.3% of GDP. Over the three years it is running about 7% above what we spent in 2000. In terms of dollars, and based on these numbers, we have been and are spending, as a percentage of GDP, we spent $600 billion more in 2009 than 2000, $500 billion more in 2010 than in 2000, and we will spend approximately $800 billion more in 2011 than 2000.

So over the last three years, we have lost approximately $2.7 trillion in revenue and we have spent approximately $1.7 trillion more than we should have. Now let us also consider that military spending has increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were unfunded, and we can see that adds to the underfunding and reduces the amount that we overspent by another $200 to $300 billion per year. On top of that, a great deal of the excess discretionary spending is directly due to the bad economy, which the argument can also be made that a good portion of the lost revenue is due to the same. But in the end, what we see is a very simple truth. More of our problems are due to underfunding than they are to overspending.

If you want to check my numbers, here is a link;

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Interesting information, but there is one key problem. The economy in 2000 was not a healthy economy. It was a bubble economy. The bubble popped in 2001, was then reinflated by the Federal Reserve, inevitably popping again in 2007.

In fact, a bubble economy is an incredibly unhealthy economy--and unsustainable economy--especially since everyone mistakes it for real growth.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

After removing PAYGO in 2002, the Democrats put it back in 2007. That, of course, was before all hell broke loose with the housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown, which was dealt with by TARP and the stimulus bill. People like to compare government spending to personal spending, so use the analogy that you've just paid off your house mortgage and you can look forward to that extra money to either save or pay down other bills, when all of a sudden the whole roof caves in and you need to refinance the mortgage in order to save your home (and your family).

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

No, Obama signed off on it, but the wiggle room is that PAYGO only applies to direct spending, and the separate bill that allows for supplemental appropriations, which are voted on separate from the budget. So here we are.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

He has had a lot more to deal with than any other president before him.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sallow - you just can't answer direct questions can you?
Someday after you have aged a few years and you get sick and tired of paying an INCREDIBLE amount of taxes in all of it's forms...your mind will open up and see things beyond red vs. blue.

Wages/taxes/spending have always been in conflict with each other, but in decent economic times, they usually offset one another so that most people accept the obligations. Even Ben Franklin knew that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

 

[ShackledNation]

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

He has had a lot more to deal with than any other president before him.

I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. The Great Depression, the Nazis, the Cold war, the Civil war, etc. were much harder to deal with.

 

[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 see where you're coming from but I can't agree... If a recession can damage the Government this bad then it's a spending problem. If you took a pay cut do you spend more and complain it was the pay cut that put you in this situation or do you find ways to cut your personal spending?

Big Government is great during the good times, it's when everything goes though that inevitable cycle that a giant Government never seems to plan on ends up sucking the life out of the country. If our Government were a quarter the size "revenue" would not be an issue even in a Great Depression 2.0

The "government" can't be faulted for the recession as much as the manipulations of the private financial markets, all done by complicated mathematical accounting. If "government" is at fault, it's for turning a blind eye (or not understanding) what the hell was going on, the SEC in particular, which should have known better. It's their JOB to oversee those kinds of transactions and make sure they don't become triggers for financial collapse.

 

[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 see where you're coming from but I can't agree... If a recession can damage the Government this bad then it's a spending problem. If you took a pay cut do you spend more and complain it was the pay cut that put you in this situation or do you find ways to cut your personal spending?

Big Government is great during the good times, it's when everything goes though that inevitable cycle that a giant Government never seems to plan on ends up sucking the life out of the country. If our Government were a quarter the size "revenue" would not be an issue even in a Great Depression 2.0

The "government" can't be faulted for the recession as much as the manipulations of the private financial markets, all done by complicated mathematical accounting. If "government" is at fault, it's for turning a blind eye (or not understanding) what the hell was going on, the SEC in particular, which should have known better. It's their JOB to oversee those kinds of transactions and make sure they don't become triggers for financial collapse.

Who manipulates the private financial markets? Do you mean the Federal Reserve, which manipulates interest rates?

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

So, you don't think the Stimulus Package or Health Care Reform are new spending plans?

Obviously he was not as interested in PayGo as he was forcing his socialistic ideas on health care into our laps. Or was it that he was more interested in giving the health insurance companies a huge and I do mean huge gift. What he asked for with reform was socialism. What he gave the insurance companies was a gift.

Immie

The health care reform package contained strategies to pay for it down the line, by removing overlapping and/or redundancy, by reducing the amount insurers were subsidized for Medicare ADVANTAGE programs (said subsidies coming out of the Medicare General Fund), and a myriad of other adjustments, all scored by the CBO. However, the 10-year forecast for $700 billion in costs for the Medicare Drug plan had no provisions like that at all. It was just signed off on, a mandated add-on, with no plan at all how it was to be paid for. And no one seemed to go totally off the wall about that. Strange indeed.

For the health care reform bill to be defined as "socialistic," it would have had to be a universal single-pay (by the government) plan. The insurance companies will need to begin competing for business in 2014, which is a capitalistic system. They may like it now because they're still free to hike premiums at the drop of a hat, but the insurance companies know that's short-lived, which is actually why they're doing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

He has had a lot more to deal with than any other president before him.

I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. The Great Depression, the Nazis, the Cold war, the Civil war, etc. were much harder to deal with.

The country didn't go broke during any of that time. In fact, the economy on the home front was booming during WWII. The cold war was fought on paper, with jobs galore building as many nuclear bombs as we could. Ironically, if you studied just basic history of the causes of the Great Depression, you'll see there are real similarities to the current financial crisis and resulting Great Recession.

 

[Brutus]

For the health care reform bill to be defined as "socialistic," it would have had to be a universal single-pay (by the government) plan.

give me a break. BO is a communist who had 2 communist parents. Any increased control the government has is creeping socialism. BO care is rampaging socialism. Communists don't understand competition so don't expect the insurance companies to compete any more than they do now. You are crazy to pretend BO's socialist/fascist take over is capitalistic.

 

[MaggieMae]

I see where you're coming from but I can't agree... If a recession can damage the Government this bad then it's a spending problem. If you took a pay cut do you spend more and complain it was the pay cut that put you in this situation or do you find ways to cut your personal spending?

Big Government is great during the good times, it's when everything goes though that inevitable cycle that a giant Government never seems to plan on ends up sucking the life out of the country. If our Government were a quarter the size "revenue" would not be an issue even in a Great Depression 2.0

The "government" can't be faulted for the recession as much as the manipulations of the private financial markets, all done by complicated mathematical accounting. If "government" is at fault, it's for turning a blind eye (or not understanding) what the hell was going on, the SEC in particular, which should have known better. It's their JOB to oversee those kinds of transactions and make sure they don't become triggers for financial collapse.

Who manipulates the private financial markets? Do you mean the Federal Reserve, which manipulates interest rates?

No, the private investment banks, the first of which to collapse was Bear-Stearns. Use Wikipedia, which will at least point you in the right direction as to what actually happened. The Federal Reserve didn't cause the meltdown either.

Late-2000s financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

For the health care reform bill to be defined as "socialistic," it would have had to be a universal single-pay (by the government) plan.

give me a break. BO is a communist who had 2 communist parents. Any increased control the government has is creeping socialism. BO care is rampaging socialism. Communists don't understand competition so don't expect the insurance companies to compete any more than they do now. You are crazy to pretend BO's socialist/fascist take over is capitalistic.

You know what? Fuck you, idiot. My dog has more brains.