The Great Taxer

[midcan5]

You did not answer the question. Typical.

Do you think there is 17% of unnecessary spending in the budget which can be cut?

hmm...17% percent seems a bit steep and 'unnecessary' like so many things is probably in the eye of the beholder. But I would probably agree if we work on reducing defense spending and pork projects. Sorta funny but check out 'The Big Con,' by Chait and see page 107. It notes the only times expenditures are reduced is when taxes are raised as the Atlantic article below argues.

"Cutting taxes to shrink government doesn’t work—and that spells trouble for the conservative movement"

"Again looking at 1981 to 2005, Niskanen then asked at what level taxes neither increase nor decrease spending. The answer: about 19 percent of the GDP. In other words, taxation above that level shrinks government, and taxation below it makes government grow. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, revenues have been well below 19 percent since 2002 (17.8 percent last year). Perhaps not surprisingly, government spending has risen under Bush."


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/tax-cuts

balanced piece on Reaganomics
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

 

[JeffWartman]

hmm...17% percent seems a bit steep and 'unnecessary' like so many things is probably in the eye of the beholder. But I would probably agree if we work on reducing defense spending and pork projects. Sorta funny but check out 'The Big Con,' by Chait and see page 107. It notes the only times expenditures are reduced is when taxes are raised as the Atlantic article below argues.

"Cutting taxes to shrink government doesn’t work—and that spells trouble for the conservative movement"

Perhaps you should read my posts again. I'm not cutting taxes to shrink government...I'm shrinking government so we can cut taxes.

"Again looking at 1981 to 2005, Niskanen then asked at what level taxes neither increase nor decrease spending. The answer: about 19 percent of the GDP. In other words, taxation above that level shrinks government, and taxation below it makes government grow. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, revenues have been well below 19 percent since 2002 (17.8 percent last year). Perhaps not surprisingly, government spending has risen under Bush."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/tax-cuts

balanced piece on Reaganomics
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

This is really irrelevant if you're paying attention. Oh well.

 

[midcan5]

Huh? you asked a question, I answered - and the piece answered your pov - perhaps you can't read? So tell us what you would cut.

 

[JeffWartman]

Huh? you asked a question, I answered - and the piece answered your pov - perhaps you can't read? So tell us what you would cut.

No, the problem is that you cannot read, or understand real economics.

This is the federal budget:

<img src="http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totaloutlaysfy2008.gif">

If you cannot find 17% to cut, you aren't paying attention.