We have a revenue problem, absolute proof we need to raise taxes

[GreatDay]

All of those gubmint spending increases are NOT due to people living longer, idiot.

'Broaddrick was not alone in being sexually abused by Clinton. Indeed, in the Ken Starr investigation, Broaddrick emerged as “Jane Doe No. 5.”



I'm bettin' you'd like Clinton to "abuse" you a bit.....

 

[Bfgrn]

This is not that difficult, peeps.:

A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.

Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

 

[SniperFire]

All of those gubmint spending increases are NOT due to people living longer, idiot.

neither is all those gubmint tax cuts taking us to lowest level since the robber barons ruled the Land, oh just saw your avatar I see you work for robber barons, I guess everybody's got to make a livin...

I happen to believe the working class in not paying anywhere NEAR what they should be paying, relative to what they consume.

 

[SniperFire]

This is not that difficult, peeps.:

A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.

Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?

Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.



LOL

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

Communist Party USA.
I dont give a shit what you believe. Tax receipts prior to the recession were just fine. Receipts are low not because tax rates are low but because the economy sucks, thanks to Obama's stupid policies. Get rid of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and other monstrosities and the economy wil grow and tax receipts along with it.
VAT is an incredibly stupid idea, unless you're a politician looking for a new revenue stream to create sweetheart programs to get you re-elected.

From the annals of the 'Einstein of economics'...Rabbi a.k.a. rabies

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[Wry Catcher]

The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation

Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554

Sarcasm aside, other than cut, cut and cut some more what solution would you support?

My reading of comments posted on this message board have lead me to believe some who post here often are Callous Conservatives; yes, people who are "heartless and cruel" and some who are idiots in the colloquial sense of the word.

Government can be inefficient, those of us who worked in government know this to be true. The problems is systemic, and not endemic to government as we saw when those institutions to big to fail were exposed to the light.

The solution is not a simple one; the fix is not as simple as the simple minded believe.

 

[dblack]

I suppose it might seem counter intuitive, but I believe radically raising taxes across the board - to a point that actually approached a balanced budget - would be the single most important step toward returning to sensibly limited government.

The reason government has grown into such a bloated, pervasive mess is that we're not actually paying for it; we're pushing it off on future generations. We won't be able to have a genuine national discussion on how much government we want and need until we're actually paying for the government we vote for.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is not that difficult, peeps.:

A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.

Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?

Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.



LOL

Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?

 

[chikenwing]

The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation

Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554

Without a doubt, streamlining of many of these programs could save a lot of money. I don't think you will find many who deny government has gotten too big, but the fact remains that we also have a revenue problem. Since WWII, the federal government has run with revenues of just over 18% of GDP. During Reagan's first term, even with a horrible economy, revenues were over 19% of GDP, yet the last few years we have been running with around 15% of GDP. Over half of our yearly deficits are due to having such low revenue. What is shocking is that Republicans are trying to sell us on the idea that we should be running with even less. Pawlenty tried to sell us on cutting spending to 13% of GDP, and many cons think this is a great idea. It's really laughable.

So learning to live within your means is a bad thing??

We hear time and time again how the middle class has lost ground,how the middle class pays all the bills. Then it would be a logical assumption that the Gov should be getting less.

We must as tax payers learn to live with what we have,so can every Gov entity from the village,county,state and the FEDS.

Demanding more,will only result in more being spent foolishly.

You think a rational bank loan officer would lend money to an organization that is debt like we are??

 

[SniperFire]

A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.

Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?

Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.



LOL

Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?

It is the only thing that matters, moron.


LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation

Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554

Sarcasm aside, other than cut, cut and cut some more what solution would you support?

My reading of comments posted on this message board have lead me to believe some who post here often are Callous Conservatives; yes, people who are "heartless and cruel" and some who are idiots in the colloquial sense of the word.

Government can be inefficient, those of us who worked in government know this to be true. The problems is systemic, and not endemic to government as we saw when those institutions to big to fail were exposed to the light.

The solution is not a simple one; the fix is not as simple as the simple minded believe.

So what is your solution, cocksucker? Just tax more and more? How is that not "heartless"?
The solution is to reduce revenue and cut those programs that are not mandated in the Constitution, turning them back to the states. It really is pretty simple.

 

[chikenwing]

The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation

Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.

U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554

Sarcasm aside, other than cut, cut and cut some more what solution would you support?

My reading of comments posted on this message board have lead me to believe some who post here often are Callous Conservatives; yes, people who are "heartless and cruel" and some who are idiots in the colloquial sense of the word.

Government can be inefficient, those of us who worked in government know this to be true. The problems is systemic, and not endemic to government as we saw when those institutions to big to fail were exposed to the light.

The solution is not a simple one; the fix is not as simple as the simple minded believe.

So what is your solution, cocksucker? Just tax more and more? How is that not "heartless"?
The solution is to reduce revenue and cut those programs that are not mandated in the Constitution, turning them back to the states. It really is pretty simple.

He might gain some credibility,by calling out not just the "heartless conservative" but also the irresponsible spending liberal at the same time,youknow admit that both sides have screwed us financially.

 

[Bfgrn]

Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?

Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.



LOL

Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?

It is the only thing that matters, moron.


LOL

I'm not letting you off the hook. Your premise is moronic. You lashed out without thinking, didn't you SniperFire? And if you didn't then it should be easy to explain. Please tell me how percentage of GDP is a factor when you are comparing spending vs. revenues on a timeline? Is MORE spending better or worse? Is less revenue better or worse?

If more spending with less revenue is better, then Reagan and Bush are your men.

How would that work at home SniperFire? Go buy a Lexus and quit your job...

 

[The Rabbi]

Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?

It is the only thing that matters, moron.


LOL

I'm not letting you off the hook. Your premise is moronic. You lashed out without thinking, didn't you SniperFire? And if you didn't then it should be easy to explain. Please tell me how percentage of GDP is a factor when you are comparing spending vs. revenues on a timeline? Is MORE spending better or worse? Is less revenue better or worse?

If more spending with less revenue is better, then Reagan and Bush are your men.

How would that work at home SniperFire? Go buy a Lexus and quit your job...

Reagan's tax code revision brought in more revenue, not less.
Another fail for you, me bucko.

 

[Katzndogz]

As long as the people are confused and think that taxes is the same as revenue, we will have the erroneous belief that raising taxes increases revenue.

Most countries already got over this mistake.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is the only thing that matters, moron.


LOL

I'm not letting you off the hook. Your premise is moronic. You lashed out without thinking, didn't you SniperFire? And if you didn't then it should be easy to explain. Please tell me how percentage of GDP is a factor when you are comparing spending vs. revenues on a timeline? Is MORE spending better or worse? Is less revenue better or worse?

If more spending with less revenue is better, then Reagan and Bush are your men.

How would that work at home SniperFire? Go buy a Lexus and quit your job...

Reagan's tax code revision brought in more revenue, not less.
Another fail for you, me bucko.

REALLY Rabies? Not according to the Heritage Foundation...

And the accusation that Obama is the biggest spender in history...Not according to the Heritage Foundation...

This is the best chart I have ever seen. Too bad you pea brains don't know how to read and comprehend just what the Heritage Foundation is ADMITTING...Do you have to stand on your little pea brain head to be able to come up with "Reagan's tax code revision brought in more revenue, not less"??????????

Let me post the chart again. I will continue to post this chart...again and again and again...

 

[The Rabbi]

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The chart you yourself posted shows revenue higher. And revenue is expressed in terms of GDP, not in absolute dollars.
A double fail.

 

[alan1]

Low incomes paying the same rate as upper incomes is fair?

Yes.

 

[AmyNation]

Low incomes paying the same rate as upper incomes is fair?

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

 

[dblack]

Low incomes paying the same rate as upper incomes is fair?

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

Along with eliminating all deductions(/incentives/abatements/credits/bribes/etc...) not directly attributed to calculating net income.