We have a serious spending problem - and it can't be disputed

[BluesLegend]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Nothing like ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP, revenues are still significantly lower than they have been for the vast majority of the past 60 years.

Link?
So what?
It is record revenue that has done nothing to reduce the deficit.
Reagan was right. The only way to cut spending is to cut revenue and starve the beast.

Damn straight. FACT we cannot continue racking up trillions of dollars in debt forever, the bill is going to come due and there will be hell to pay on that day. $7-$8 trillion in new debt under just one president that's fucking insane.

 

[Dad2three]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Weird, ECONOMISTS MEASURE BY PERCENTAGE OF GDP


Dubya took US to Korean war levels, Obama isn't near where Clinton had US


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP




CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com





The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

And? Since wages have stagnated since the 1970's, the feds responded and lowered the tax rate. The problem is, is that while the feds lowered it, state and local governments went up. In reality, when you include all taxes and fees, about 30 cents of every dollar goes toward taxes.

Mark

DON'T LET FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[80zephyr]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Weird, ECONOMISTS MEASURE BY PERCENTAGE OF GDP


Dubya took US to Korean war levels, Obama isn't near where Clinton had US


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP




CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com





The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

And? Since wages have stagnated since the 1970's, the feds responded and lowered the tax rate. The problem is, is that while the feds lowered it, state and local governments went up. In reality, when you include all taxes and fees, about 30 cents of every dollar goes toward taxes.

Mark

DON'T LET FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

A Closer Look at Popular USA Today Article Claiming Historically Low Taxes Tax Foundation


Despite these problems of data definition, the headline's claim about 2009 being a year of historically low taxes isn't far off. Tax Freedom Day, which is calculated by taking total taxes divided by a broad income measure, NNP (which is somewhat close to personal income), had a rate of about 26.6 percent in 2009, which was the lowest since 1959.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Problem began way back when we went off the gold standard. Now that money isn't backed by anything of real value, it's literaly imaginary. Make, circulate, and spend as much as you like. Doesn't actually matter because it isn't backed by anything anyway. It's whole value is purely based on the collective belief it has value.

 

[boilermaker55]

Raw data and sources

2012 (in billions of dollars)	2012 percent of federal funds budget
Source: Where Do Our Income Tax Dollars Go? , Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 2013. Note, due to rounding, totals and percentages may not add up. Current military spending includes Pentagon budget, nuclear weapons and military-related programs throughout the budget.
Current Military Spending	806	27%
Interest on Pentagon Debt	188	6%
Costs of past wars	129	4%
Total military percent	1,123	37%
Health care	558	19%
Responses to Poverty	452	15%
Interest on Public Debt	263	9%
Supporting the Economy	241	8%
Federal Government Operations	258	8%
Energy, Science, & Environment	81	3%
Diplomacy, Development and War Prevention	45	2%

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social security benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages

Year	Total ($)	Defense ($)	Defense (%)	Education ($)	Education (%)	Health ($)	Health (%)
Sources and notes The link for each year takes you to that year’s source The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009	997	541	54	61.9	6.2	52.7	5.3
2008	930	481.4	51.8	58.6	6.3	52.3	5.6
2007	873	460	52.7	56.8	6.5	53.1	6.1
2006	840.5	438.8	52	58.4	6.9	51	6.1
2005	820	421	51	60	7	51	6.2
2004	782	399	51	55	7	49	6.3
2003	767	396	51.6	52	6.8	49	6.4

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000

And, of course, this will come from American tax payer money. Many studies and polls show that military spending is one of the last things on the minds of American people.

But it is not just the U.S. military spending. In fact, as Jan Oberg argues, western militarism often overlaps with civilian functions affecting attitudes to militarism in general. As a result, when revelations come out that some Western militaries may have trained dictators and human rights violators, the justification given may be surprising, which we look at in the next page.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sadly, it's what both major parties are about. Take off the party blinders, my friend, before you trip and hurt yourself.

You know what, buddy. The only time we passed balanced budgets in my lifetime was when Bill Clinton was president. He also gave us peace and 3% unemployment and an awesome stock market.

You mean the budgets that were sent to him by a very conservative Republican Congress?

By the way, they weren't truly balanced; they just used some accounting gimmicks. They basically transferred money from intergovernmental holdings (ie. Social Security) to "balance" the budgets.

 

[Dad2three]

How much money did we spend on Republican war mongering and the military industrial complex?

You mean how much have both statist, interventionist parties spent on war mongering and the military industrial complex? Way too fking much.

60% OF Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice

 

[Dad2three]

Except most civilized countries spend more than we do.

I do agree that we borrow too much, but here's the thing. borrowing is easier politically than taxing or cutting spending.

Soooo, spending like a drunken Marine makes me more civilized?

Borrowing is easy when rates are in the cellar...saving not so much. Perpetual low rates encourage debt and spending and discourage saving and investment. An economy that is dependent on citizens spending at the expense of saving is not sustainable. An economy that is depends on citizens taking on more debt to sustain their spending is a disaster waiting to happen.

I agree, borrowing is bad. Letting the rich impoverish the working class and destroying your tax base is bad.

Sadly, this is what Republicans are about.

Why do we need to borrow if we have all this revenue or money to spend? Yep, didn't expect that one did you? Yet, so simple...........................................You're a joke.

Weird, you don't know how the debt has been created?

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

3 Trillion in a 18 trillion dollar economy? That is hardly excessive. Even adding in State and Municipal spending, the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than most industrialized democracies.

If government spending is more than 10% of GDP, government is too big and is spending too much. Additionally, outside of MAJOR national emergencies, if government needs to borrow to spend, it is spending too much.

I don't expect fans of big government to agree.

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Sadly, it's what both major parties are about. Take off the party blinders, my friend, before you trip and hurt yourself.

You know what, buddy. The only time we passed balanced budgets in my lifetime was when Bill Clinton was president. He also gave us peace and 3% unemployment and an awesome stock market.

"Oh my God, he lied about a blow job! Let's impeach him!!!"

Actually that was the 2 future Presidential candidates John Kasich Gov of Ohio who is up to a 54% lead in Ohio which is a true 50/50 state and what needs to be won to win the Presidency, ANG Newt Gingrich who had to corner Clinton into signing those budgets will brilliant political moves. Wrong again. This is fun keep it going.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997


AFTER BJ BILL'S FIRST SURPLUS, HE HAD TO VETO THE $700+ BILLION TAX CUT THE GOP PASSED TO GET 3 MORE!

 

[Dad2three]

Why do we need to borrow if we have all this revenue or money to spend? Yep, didn't expect that one did you? Yet, so simple...........................................You're a joke.

We don't have revenues because we gave the rich obscene tax cuts. We had balanced budgets before your Boy Bush got there, gave tax cuts to the rich and put a trillion dollar war on a credit card.

The federal Government brought in 3+ trillion in reveues this year and we are doing what you "claim?" you don't like, which you are full of shit. Who signed those tax cuts into law? I'll give you a hint it was Obama who extended them. See you are also a hypocrite. The GOP balanced those budgets. Get the facts straight. LOL

You mean the GOP blackmailed Obama on moving the tax increases from a family at $250,000 to $450,000? And all along Obama said we STILL needed more revenues?

IF the GOOP balanced the budget, PLEASE tell me how? BJ Bill had to veto their $700 billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus? Hmm, then Dubya came into office and we saw how fiscally responsible thew GOPers were, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Actually that was the 2 future Presidential candidates John Kasich Gov of Ohio who is up to a 54% lead in Ohio which is a true 50/50 state and what needs to be won to win the Presidency, ANG Newt Gingrich who had to corner Clinton into signing those budgets will brilliant political moves. Wrong again. This is fun keep it going.

Horseshit. Kasich and Gingrich didn't cut shit, and it was his fellow Republicans who drove Newt out on a rail.

we had balanced budgets because Clinton made the rich pay their fair share, and cut the bloated military budget.

Ohh... The truth hurts! Doesn't it? Someone pissy. Take your hormones. Just accept it. Your party is fucked.

Citizens for Tax Justice’s Bob McIntyre wrote, it was actually the 1993 budget, which all Republicans opposed, that laid the groundwork for the balanced budgets that occurred under President Bill Clinton

In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here's what really happened.

In 1993, Bill Clinton undid some of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, in a bill that every Republican in Congress opposed. In the years that followed, federal revenues shot up. By 1996, the deficit had fallen by more than half from its 1993 level.

McClatchy Sorry Newt. You never balanced the budget CTJ in the News

 

[Dad2three]

Typical partisan party horsepucky...rail on about what the other party did in the past, ignore what your own party is doing in the present

I see the partisan party blinders also impact your memory. I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass, but being from Chicago, the view wouldn't change much.

In 1998, I was one of the Republican Assholes screaming for his impeachment. Yes, yes, I really, truly thought that the worst thing was a President lying about a blowjob, and i said "Subornation of Perjury" like that was a real thing.

And then we got Bush. We got two wars and two recessions that pretty much wiped most of us out. We watched a major city get wiped off the map because his giant new agency that handled disasters didn't know what to do. We earned the contempt of the whole world by starting a war over weapons that didn't exist.

Gee, I look at the bad old days when the worst thing I had to worry about was a President lying about a blow job.

In 1998 I was in elected office...as an independent...and I would have called you a moron for wanting to impeach the President. Clinton's blow job was the least of his crimes. That you don't know that is why you have your head up your ass.

Both Bushes, Clinton and Obama should be swinging from a rope.

And Ronnie who traded weapons for hostages (WITH TERRORISTS) and lied about it?

 

[Dad2three]

Does Clinton first 4 years completely escape your memory or something?

You mean the ones where he cleaned up the mess Bush-41 left, turned the economy around, got unemployment down to 5%, and got easily re-elected?

You mean remember Hilarycare? LOL.. Oh I almost forgot! Hilary is running in 2016! You are an idiot if you can't see where I'm going with this.. Who controlled the federal Gov during Clinton second term that passed all of those budgets? Who got Clinton who was jumping from liberal agenda to liberal agenda on his knees waving the white flag and to sign all of these bills that the liberals like Obama and Reid don't sign? Remember the contract of America? Who had the American public on their side during all of this? The Republicans. Good guess. I'm eating you for breakfast now.

The Truth: The last Republican president who ever balanced the budget was Dwight Eisenhower.


Between 1998 and 2000, President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Department paid off more than $360 billion in debt. As a result of 115 straight months of economic expansion that began after an increase in the top income tax rate — which was virulently opposed by the right — the huge deficits left by 12 years of Republican rule had been transformed into a surplus.

Within months after taking office in the narrowest victory of nearly any U.S. president—by only one vote in the Supreme Court—George W. Bush had begun to turn that surplus back into deficits that grew and grew, despite funding two wars on emergency supplemental bills that were not figured into the budget.


The Big Lie of the Day Republicans Balance Federal Budgets The National Memo

 

[Dad2three]

[Q

Hey moron...Independent means no party, not some dwarf third party. I know you need some party to do your thinnin for you, but not all of us share your handicap. You and one of your precious major parties are the folks that spent 70 million bucks prosecuting a blow job...so don't lay your guilt on me.

Uh, guy, you need a party to get something done. Just because you got elected dog-catcher for one term before people realized they made a horrible mistake doesn't impress anyone.

Point was, Clinton was a pretty awesome president. Bush was a horrible one.

He wasn't a very good president at all actually. He was very political smart, which is why things actually got done in his second term that actually helped this country. Liberals don't make good president when it comes to the economy. FDR prolonged the depression by a good 5-10 years. Obama is doing the same. How ironic!

Weird, CATO's revisionist history on FDR comes in, again


Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
  
  
  Want a Better Economy History Says Vote Democrat - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

He wasn't a very good president at all actually. He was very political smart, which is why things actually got done in his second term that actually helped this country. Liberals don't make good president when it comes to the economy. FDR prolonged the depression by a good 5-10 years. Obama is doing the same. How ironic!

Uh, no, things got done in his FIRST term. That's why he GOT a second term.

and frankly, the last four recessions we've had have been on Republican watches. You have to go back to 1980 to find a "Democrat" recession.

How was the economy after Jimmy Carter? God you are history retarded. Which liberal school did you go to? This is a game you don't want to play.

You mean wage and price controls Nixon/Ford left him AND OPEC's actions and yet in 4 years STILL 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs were created?


Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.

 

[Dad2three]

No the war that was inevitable did. manufacturing did. Where the manufacturing today? Oh it's crushed by the Obama admin.. Play again?

Uh, guy, "Manufacturing" was manufacturing war materials, not consumer goods. We put 16 million men in the armed forces and spent millions on weapons and warships and war materials. And the rich paid for it with a 94% top marginal rate.

what World War II did was get the Country to go along with the kind of central planning and Keynesian spending that FDR would have loved to have had in the 1930's but got nothing but resistance.

And it gave us 40 years of prosperity that followed.

So much bullshit, so little time


"
The Myth of War Prosperity

"What actually happened was no mystery. In 1940, before the mobilization [for war], the unemployment rate … was 9.5 percent. During the war, the government pulled the equivalent of 22 percent of the prewar labor force into the armed forces. Voil — the unemployment rate dropped to a very low level.

And Higgs reminds the reader that

the welfare significance of the decline is hardly the usual one. Of the 16 million persons who served in the armed forces at some time during the war, 10 million were conscripted, and many of those who volunteered did so only to avoid the draft and the consequent likelihood of assignment to the infantry.

For all these people, being employed did not exactly mean an improvement in their standard of living. As for the common contention that “real personal consumption increased during the war,” Higgs notes that it

fails to take sufficiently into account the understatement of actual wartime inflation by the official price indexes, the deterioration of quality and disappearance from the market of many consumer goods, the full effect of the nonprice rationing of many widely consumed items, and the additional transaction costs borne and other sacrifices made by consumers to get the goods that were available. When one corrects the data to provide a more defensible measure of what happened to real consumer well-being during the war, one finds that it declined."

Yes, leave out the REASON for the recovery was Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affiar' garbage or that 9% you spoke of, actually is a HUGE drop from the rate the GOP left US, around 25%

PROGRESSIVE POLICIES AFTER THE WAR, like VA education and VA backed home loans, BOOMED the economy!

 

[Dad2three]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Nothing like ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP, revenues are still significantly lower than they have been for the vast majority of the past 60 years.

Link?
So what?
It is record revenue that has done nothing to reduce the deficit.
Reagan was right. The only way to cut spending is to cut revenue and starve the beast.

Damn straight. FACT we cannot continue racking up trillions of dollars in debt forever, the bill is going to come due and there will be hell to pay on that day. $7-$8 trillion in new debt under just one president that's fucking insane.

Yes, Insane Ronnie tripled the debt and both Bush's doubled it, and those policies CONTINUE to create debt today

 

[Dad2three]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Weird, ECONOMISTS MEASURE BY PERCENTAGE OF GDP


Dubya took US to Korean war levels, Obama isn't near where Clinton had US


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP




CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com





The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

And? Since wages have stagnated since the 1970's, the feds responded and lowered the tax rate. The problem is, is that while the feds lowered it, state and local governments went up. In reality, when you include all taxes and fees, about 30 cents of every dollar goes toward taxes.

Mark

DON'T LET FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

A Closer Look at Popular USA Today Article Claiming Historically Low Taxes Tax Foundation


Despite these problems of data definition, the headline's claim about 2009 being a year of historically low taxes isn't far off. Tax Freedom Day, which is calculated by taking total taxes divided by a broad income measure, NNP (which is somewhat close to personal income), had a rate of about 26.6 percent in 2009, which was the lowest since 1959.

WAY less than 50% right?


The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

 

[Dad2three]

Sadly, it's what both major parties are about. Take off the party blinders, my friend, before you trip and hurt yourself.

You know what, buddy. The only time we passed balanced budgets in my lifetime was when Bill Clinton was president. He also gave us peace and 3% unemployment and an awesome stock market.

You mean the budgets that were sent to him by a very conservative Republican Congress?

By the way, they weren't truly balanced; they just used some accounting gimmicks. They basically transferred money from intergovernmental holdings (ie. Social Security) to "balance" the budgets.

Really? So the 1993 tax increases 3 new brackets and top to 39.6%) and Clinton/Dems deficit reduction of almost $500 billion in 1993 budget bill, which ZERO GOPers voted for, isn't the reason? No it was budgets the GOP presented *shaking head*

NOT that AFTER Clinton's first surplus (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT, IT'S CALLED A SURPLUS) THE GOP DIDN'T PASS A $700+ BILLION TAX CUT BJ BILL HAD TO VETO TO GET 3 MORE, RIGHT?