Since 2009, government spending as a percentage of GDP has been 24.4%. The prior 20 years, the average was 20.2%. That's a 21% jump. That sounds pretty huge to me.
How much of that is temporary spending? And how much of that is a result of the denominator rather than the numerator?
The temporary spending issue we've discussed before. I would argue that when spending took a huge jump to deal with the crisis and never went back down, it's not really temporary. As for the effect of the denominator, for FY 2012 spending ($3.795 trillion, according to the WH website's tables) to be the same 20.8% of GDP spending that FY 2008's $2.982 trillion represented, we'd have to have a GDP of $18.2 bn. Starting from 2008's $14.3bn, that would imply an annual growth rate of about 6.5%. That's about twice the long-term average for US GDP growth. So I think it's pretty safe to say that at least half of our current elevation in spending/GDP is due to the numerator rather than the denominator.
Spending is too high, taxes are too low. Bring both back to historical norms. Then when the economy picks up, we will collect more revenue than we spend, and (gasp) actually start paying off the debt. Let's not turn into Europe guys. While we're at it, refinance all our debt at these super low rates.
Stipulating to the general principle mentioned earlier in the thread that spending is too high and taxes are too low, what about the ratio? And why do Republicans insist that every time the government takes one dollar from a rich guy we have to take three dollars from a poor one? Does somebody in our country need to make more than a million dollars every year while so many American children and adults are starving? Isn't a million dollars a year enough? Is five million? If everyone would agree to pitch in everything they make over a million dollars for just one year I bet we'd wipe out the debt and the deficit. If we didn't, we'd put one hell of a dent in it. The government might be spending too much but it is not spending too much on poor people. And their lives really suck. I don't think it's very nice to throw rocks at them and tell them that they're putting us out.
This is a very interesting accusation when we live in a country where the top 1% of taxpayers pay something like 40% of the income tax and the bottom fifth have a negative effective income tax rate. It's not about how much money someone "needs" to make. I'm all for everyone having to pay their "fair share" in taxes, I'd just probably disagree with a lot of people about what that share is. However, what you're suggesting here is that maximum income should be capped because you think it's unfair that some people make much more than they need to survive. That's called theft. You're right about the deficit, but not the debt. If every American voluntarily gave up every dollar of income above $1 million, that would increase government revenues by about $800 billion (assuming that people worked as hard/risked as much to continue earning that additional income). When the deficit is more than $1 trillion every year, that would put a very significant dent in the deficit, but we'd still be adding to the debt. I agree that we need to stop demonizing the poor. You'll never find a post of mine where I've blamed poor people for what's wrong with our country.
No candidate you've ever supported has done anything to reduce the debt and deficit like what Clinton has done.
very shallow thinking on your part Bill Clinton even ADMITTED to raising taxes too much on "the rich". Clinton did do some good things: NAFTA, lowered capital gains taxes, and kept government spending increases below 3%. You lefties would be ready to hang Obama if he proposed such "atrocities".
My point stands. In addition your shallow thinking comment doesn't pass the texxx slogan about when you resort to insults you've already lost. It's a rough Sunday for you. I hope you get some more rest, and that you get a rest before Christmas so that you can have a good one, and be on your best game for your family.
looks like a white surrender flag to me You can't hang when you actually get popped in the mouth with truth
They should cut entitlements to naturalized citizens. Supplemental security income should not be granted to people, who never paid taxes. My neighbor's mom is a naturalized citizen in her 60's. She has never paid a dime in income tax, social security, or medicare. While she lives with her son, she is collecting free health insurance and gets an additional income from SSI. She has the never to say the check is too little. Those checks are coming out of the pockets of every tax paying American. They should cap the benefits on all naturalized citizens to whatever was contributed in tax dollars. It would be $0 for parents of anchor babies. The libs will never agree to it.
I believe the top 1% have about 40% of the country's wealth, yet they only pay about ~20% of the country's taxes. I think that needs to change.
Part of it all for sure, but I wonder how much $ this would save overall. Any idea? Any studies avail?
I'm not sure what the wealth numbers are, but the top 1% does seem to pay close to 40% of the taxes (see below links), while earnings 13% of the income. Obviously, they have a huge percentage of the accumulated wealth as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/07/26/how-president-obama-is-deceiving-you-on-tax-policy/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444246904577571042249868040.html http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Your neighbor has paid his taxes and it a nice for him to bring his mother over and have some help in doing so. She is now a citizen of the United States. Most Americans like this type of privilege to being a citizen. You need to get out of thinking that it has all come out of your pocket. Hopefully you have enough money so it will be easier for you to not see everything in such a zero sum manner.
These entitlements are good. Yeah. Look at this video. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well, evidence in the thread went on to show him confusing the terms numerator and denominator when someone raised exactly your point. Just sayin'.
