Out Debt is caused by too much spending? NOPE!!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Decepticon, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    [​IMG]
    USGovernmentSpending.com Past Spending Briefing


    From this chart we can see that we are currently spending as a percentage of GDP on a par with historic norms.
    Hell, we're spending less as a percentage of GDP than REAGAN did.


    Now, lets look at revenues...
    [​IMG]

    See the dips there? When it dipped, that means we were borrowing money.
    Gee what happened in the 80's? Oh...Reagan's tax cuts. Gee...then Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up again...oh...then George Bush got in office and REALLY cut revenues by a good 2% of our GDP. 2% OF GDP!
    Not the budget...but of GDP!


    Why can't we go back to the days when import tariffs paid much more of our revenue burden? Why not start COLLECTING taxes from corporations instead of giving them an unneeded handout.

    The question is, do we slit our own throats or do we PROTECT our industries and also collect funds to pay for our own government?

    But this method of eliminating the debt won't be popular with businesses. Well tough crap!
    The US is the largest consumer market in the world. If our foreign competitors don't like it, they can go screw. What are they gonna do? Have a trade war with their biggest customer? Besides, it's not like Germany and other EU nations don't do this as well to protect their own domestic industries.


    Solving our debt problem will require courage. And that includes the courage to start taxing people and businesses at a HISTORICALLY proper rate. What got us into this mess in the first place are people who bought their votes by cutting taxes, regardless of the consequences.
     
  2. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Riiiiight.

    Massive debt has nothing to do with spending far far more than "revenues."

    Dayum but some libs are fucking stupid.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. asaratis
    Offline

    asaratis Uppity Senior Citizen Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,285
    Thanks Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Stockbridge
    Ratings:
    +4,469
    Most...
     
  4. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,628
    Yup.

    Get spending under control and add some of those Regs the Govt is so fond of.

    Wonder how they would like Regs applied to their ability to spend, spend and spend some more??
     
  5. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,396
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,719
    I wonder what our debt would look like if the world was not so eager to buy our bonds? It's not like we have to beg anyone to lend to us, they eagerly line up to buy any form of federal government debt. As long as this dubious form of revenue is available and cheap there is no reason to raise it the solid way.
     
  6. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Actually you are the one who is ignorant of the facts....

    Government spending as a percentage of GDP is the same now as when Reagan was in office....23%.

    But since the financial crisis in 2008, revenues as a share of GDP have hit 60-year lows, coming in at around 15%.

    And yet the Republicans signed the Grover Norquist "tax pledge" not to raise taxes.

    If you want SS, Medicare, and a strong defense, you are going to have to pay for it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    I guess we can add MATH to the things CONZ don't understand along with ethics, evolution, and logic.


    And to the dumbass who replied to my op...debts are comprised of TWO factors. Revenues and spending.

    Saying that ONLY SPENDING is a factor, ignores basic reality and is just fucking stupid. Just because you don't LIKE it, doesn't mean it's not possible to raise revenues through taxation and balance our budgets.
    What CONZ don't want people to realize is, that how little raising taxes on the rich would impact the middle class. Hell, it might even make a few of these CEO types GROW THEIR BUSINESS instead of just buying another yacht to water ski behind.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  8. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,154
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    Can we get a name change for Decepticon? Maybe Stupticon or Moronicon?
     
  9. LogikAndReazon
    Offline

    LogikAndReazon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,850
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,285
    If only the wealthy paid their "fair" share, and greedy corporations paid more in taxes.........

    social justice could be achieved !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
     
  10. amrchaos
    Offline

    amrchaos Pentheus torn apart

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,501
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +2,573
    I don't mean to sound like an ignoramus here, but.........


    Is there some other way that you can create a deficit without overspending? Over spending as in spending more than you take in in terms of revenue.

    And is not Debt the acculmulation of such deficits? Thus is not debt the result of overspending without sufficient surplusses to pay off past debt?

    I am not confused, mind you. I just find the op's post fundementally WRONG. At least to my notions of deficits and debt.

    PS--There is no need to compare "percentages of GDP spending" to the our present financial problem of the day. 23% is still too much!
     

Share This Page