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

[Conservative]

RealClearMarkets - Government Spending, and the 18% of GDP Myth

Human nature drives people to believe and repeat information they hear as a method of simplification. Social psychologists call these cognitive shortcuts, heuristics. By and large they serve us well in helping to tame a complicated world.

Unfortunately, in circumstance that impact the daily struggle of American citizens, mindlessly spewing out disinformation as though it is fact can be a recipe for disaster. One notable example of a falsehood being perpetuated is the question of appropriate levels of government spending.

The Democrats and President Obama have increased federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to 25.3%. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan looks to cap government spending at 18% of GDP. The claim is that the 18 percent number mirrors historic average levels of government spending.

The truth here is that the U.S. has thrived with far less government spending. Indeed, a look at times when we as a nation were imperiled offers a far different story than what you have been told.

Why should we care? Because government spending is taken directly out of your pocket, or out of the economy. Spending is today's burden becaue every dollar consumed by our profligate government is one less that could fund productive advancement in the private economy.

Every dime needlessly spent by government comes at the cost of efficiency in moving scarce resources to their most valuable use. As Milton Friedman said, "nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own." So any policy that reduces personal freedom in economic decision making inhibits economic growth which forces people to suffer needlessly.

In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.'s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%!

The just and proper fiscal balance is to give the state what it needs to protect you and your property while at the same time protecting you and your property from the state. ...A good rule of thumb would be to give half of what the politicians ask for.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK, smart guy. Do for us the math. Place the tax burden back to 90% on all 200,000+ incomes, raise corp. taxation to 40% and lets see how much dent that puts in the deficit spending and debt.

Then, lets discuss the consequences of doing that in our current economic condition.

Spending is the reason we have a deficit. Regardless of which party you want to lay blame too. Since we're already here, ya dumb fucks, we can sit around and point fingers all day. The truth is that both parties over spend because the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

That is what thieves do. They steal to spend.

200,000 in 1950 is actually about 1.9 million today.

Its obvious to anyone that understands math that budget shortfalls are caused by revenue not meeting spending. You can't blame one or the other in particular - they are both part of the same damn equation.

One can compare to previous times, however, and at this point in time, spending is close to the highest ever and taxation close to the lowest, as a % of GDP. So clearly there's a problem there.

 

[Claudette]

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??

Which Regs?

Balanced Budget ammendment for one.

Pay as you go is another.

I'm sure there are loads of others as well.

 

[g5000]

From this chart we can see that we are currently spending as a percentage of GDP on a par with historic norms.

And it has always been...DEFICIT spending.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, smart guy. Do for us the math. Place the tax burden back to 90% on all 200,000+ incomes, raise corp. taxation to 40% and lets see how much dent that puts in the deficit spending and debt.

Then, lets discuss the consequences of doing that in our current economic condition.

Spending is the reason we have a deficit. Regardless of which party you want to lay blame too. Since we're already here, ya dumb fucks, we can sit around and point fingers all day. The truth is that both parties over spend because the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

That is what thieves do. They steal to spend.

200,000 in 1950 is actually about 1.9 million today.

Its obvious to anyone that understands math that budget shortfalls are caused by revenue not meeting spending. You can't blame one or the other in particular - they are both part of the same damn equation.

One can compare to previous times, however, and at this point in time, spending is close to the highest ever and taxation close to the lowest, as a % of GDP. So clearly there's a problem there.

Like I said. Do us the math. I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is part of the problem. But I'm also of the realization that more revenue will not translate to balancing a budget. Which hasn't been done in decades by ANY president or congress (dont bother bringing up the Clinton BB myth, its a myth. We're trying to deal in facts). So, go ahead, tax the piss out of America to pay for the failing programs america loves so much. Lets turn 40-50, or hell, even 90% of all incomes over to the govt. and see if they can balance a budget and start carving out debt reductions.

I know they will not balance that budget. They will see this new found revenue as just the means to justify more spending and round we go.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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??

Which Regs?

Balanced Budget ammendment for one.

Pay as you go is another.

I'm sure there are loads of others as well.

No, I mean which ones are they so fond of?


A balanced budget amendment? You want Congress to be unable to raise money through deficit borrowing if need be to protect the National Security?

 

[Conservative]

revenue needs to go up at the same time that spending goes down.

 

[kwc57]

Our taxes are too low....

Speak for yourself comrade.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And then there are the unseen consequences tot he private sector that will occur. I guess if America wants to be run totally by the government, then lets fuckign do it. I'm tired of hearing bullshit like this OP. CONZ....CONZ...CONZ, kids a broken fucking record of partisan hackery.

 

[Claudette]

Which Regs?

Balanced Budget ammendment for one.

Pay as you go is another.

I'm sure there are loads of others as well.

No, I mean which ones are they so fond of?


A balanced budget amendment? You want Congress to be unable to raise money through deficit borrowing if need be to protect the National Security?

I see what your saying.

Govt is fond of slapping loads of Reg on everything to do with business, banking and you name it.

Seems to me what good for the goose should be good for that spendthrift gander.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK, smart guy. Do for us the math. Place the tax burden back to 90% on all 200,000+ incomes, raise corp. taxation to 40% and lets see how much dent that puts in the deficit spending and debt.

Then, lets discuss the consequences of doing that in our current economic condition.

Spending is the reason we have a deficit. Regardless of which party you want to lay blame too. Since we're already here, ya dumb fucks, we can sit around and point fingers all day. The truth is that both parties over spend because the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

That is what thieves do. They steal to spend.

200,000 in 1950 is actually about 1.9 million today.

Its obvious to anyone that understands math that budget shortfalls are caused by revenue not meeting spending. You can't blame one or the other in particular - they are both part of the same damn equation.

One can compare to previous times, however, and at this point in time, spending is close to the highest ever and taxation close to the lowest, as a % of GDP. So clearly there's a problem there.

Like I said. Do us the math. I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is part of the problem. But I'm also of the realization that more revenue will not translate to balancing a budget. Which hasn't been done in decades by ANY president or congress (dont bother bringing up the Clinton BB myth, its a myth. We're trying to deal in facts). So, go ahead, tax the piss out of America to pay for the failing programs america loves so much. Lets turn 40-50, or hell, even 90% of all incomes over to the govt. and see if they can balance a budget and start carving out debt reductions.

I know they will not balance that budget. They will see this new found revenue as just the means to justify more spending and round we go.

So your solution to the deficit is to raise taxes to 90%?

Is there anyone in Congress advocating this or are you a lunatic?


What programs are failing?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Balanced Budget ammendment for one.

Pay as you go is another.

I'm sure there are loads of others as well.

No, I mean which ones are they so fond of?


A balanced budget amendment? You want Congress to be unable to raise money through deficit borrowing if need be to protect the National Security?

I see what your saying.

Govt is fond of slapping loads of Reg on everything to do with business, banking and you name it.

Seems to me what good for the goose should be good for that spendthrift gander.

No, you name it. Name even one.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

My solution is to seriously reduce spending on the federal level. Cut their incomes back to the national average, gut useless and highly wasteful departments, cut overseas military spending, cut, cut ,cut.

Leave the private sector to keep their money and invest and spend as they see fit and have govt. get out of the way. They cannot run an economy better than the market (the people) can.

 

[Dr.House]

Our taxes are too low....

You can always pay more...

Why don't you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So your solution to the deficit is to raise taxes to 90%?

Is there anyone in Congress advocating this or are you a lunatic?

No, Ive heard this dipshit OP say that they were 90% "back then". So lets give that another go. We certainly arent going to make any difference by a few percent point jumps to the top earners. Frankly, it doesn't matter anyway, no budget will ever get balanced until the economy is sunk. So there is that.

 

[FireFly]

The income tax rate tables are completely bogus percentages. The government fails to collect most of those taxes from the rich.

This country has insurance, charity, religious & investment tax loopholes that allow anyone who can afford a good tax attorney to get them out of paying taxes. The rich actually pay a way lower percentage of tax than the poor & middle class. Many of the rich who sent our jobs over seas to increase their wealth pay no income tax at all.

I am all for lowering the tax rate tables to make us more competitive on paper. Just plug the damn leaks in the tax code.

 

[Liability]

It is crystal clear that idiots like that dishonest moron, derpocon, are unwilling to face reality.

If you want to balance your budget, but you spend WAY the fuck too much and too fast, increasing taxes to increase so-called "revenues" has a VERY limited utility. Eventually, you kill the fucking golden goose. As a practical matter, you cannot tax at 100%, but that would constitute the absolute upper bound, anyway. WELL before you get to that absurd situation, however, you WILL (necessarily) have reached the point of diminishing returns and then negative returns.

Libs can lie to themselves and others all day every day for the rest of time, and nothing they do or say will alter that reality one iota.

Question: What does that leave?

Answer: CUTTING spending.

It's not all that difficult. If you can't tax your way out of the problem, there really is only one viable alternative. STOP spending so fucking much. CUT spending.

When planning your upcoming yearly budget, Pay Down the fucking debt as part of the outlays, PAY the interest on debt (minimally) as it becomes due as part of the outlays, and then -- but ONLY then -- divide the rest in as wise a fashion as your projected revenues will permit.

Libs REFUSE (stubbornly, dishonestly and stupidly) to recognize something as BASIC, fundamental and actually as OBVIOUS as this. You CAN control spending. So stop pretending otherwise. FACE the problem. Do it.

Yeah yeah. It will be hard. And yes, it WILL be painful. That's not a valid reason NOT to do it anyway. Do it because it is necessary. Do it because it is crucial. Do it because it is unavoidable. And do it because refusing to do it is suicidal.

STOP spending so fucking much.

 

[The T]

Our taxes are too low....

You can always pay more...

Why don't you?

Because he's all talk.

 

[The T]

The income tax rate tables are completely bogus percentages. The government fails to collect most of those taxes from the rich.

This country has insurance, charity, religious & investment tax loopholes that allow anyone who can afford a good tax attorney to get them out of paying taxes. The rich actually pay a way lower percentage of tax than the poor & middle class. Many of the rich who sent our jobs over seas to increase their wealth pay no income tax at all.

I am all for lowering the tax rate tables to make us more competitive on paper. Just plug the damn leaks in the tax code.

I am for Flat or FAIR Tax...and doing away with the 16th and the IRS.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My solution is to seriously reduce spending on the federal level. Cut their incomes back to the national average, gut useless and highly wasteful departments, cut overseas military spending, cut, cut ,cut.

Leave the private sector to keep their money and invest and spend as they see fit and have govt. get out of the way. They cannot run an economy better than the market (the people) can.

So we should cut all government workers incomes back to the national average? Great idea.

How many nuclear scientists do you think the government will be able to hire for $40,000 a year?

For $40,000 a year, how many MD's do you think the government will be able to convince to join the military ?

Speaking of the military, 40k a year is about the starting pay for an Army 2nd Lt. I'm betting lots of them will want to stay in the military as a career when they find out they won't get any pay raises with advancement in rank.

For 40k a year, I'd be the government will be able to secure a top notch FBI director.