Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, that's a good point with regards to tax revenues. Regarding spending, not so much.
If we go by spending (as a percentage of GDP), over each decade since 1950, 1980s would qualify as the worst decade, yes even worse than the 2000s and the 1970s.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,879,148 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin
We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.
OMG -I hope your kidding, but know whether you are or not this represents the attitude of a significant segment of our population. Does anyone remember "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country"?
We cannot sustain our current spending levels, even if we had the revenues which we don't it is immoral and impractical.
Note Bush tax cuts increased revenue until the recession kicked in and unemployment increased and the left took over Congress. Tax revenues were at all time highs during the Bush years - both individual and corporate.
Chart 2 - Tax Revenues vs. Spending
Since the left took over Congress, spending and revenues have went in opposite directions.
We will almost have to double revenues to match the current spending levels. Tax increases will not do that.
Also - spending has NEVER decreased in almost 50 years. This is unsustainable.
This is not a revenue problem. Raising taxes will not solve over-spending problems.
The truble with bubbles is that they pop. The revenue that you are referencing is from bubbles. That revenue is not sustainable. The peek was in 1999. The year that the dot com bubble popped. If you want more tax revenue and to have it sustainably then we need full employment and higher wages.
Obama seems to blame tax cuts for the deficit in the lack of revenue generated - can't have it both ways.
If the years following implementation of tax cuts demonstrate lower revenues, he is right. And they do. OTOH, tax rate increases (as the Clinton increase) did not show any adverse effect. It took EGTRRA (2001) and then JGTRRA (2003) to demonstrate the issue.
Nice try at making a data driven post. Your analysis started with your bias towards a certain point of view. You made several false leaps of logic.
Yes, federal revenues have grown over time. The population grew, GDP grew, productivity grew. Pointing this out really means nothing. You should be looking at taxation as a percentage of GDP. That's remained basically the same over time and since the great recession, it has declined. There are other posts on here that discuss this.
Quote:
Note Bush tax cuts increased revenue until the recession kicked in and unemployment increased and the left took over Congress. Tax revenues were at all time highs during the Bush years - both individual and corporate.
You provide no data to justify this. The CBO actually disagrees with you on this. I'm sure you'd probably argue that people like Democrats want bigger government. They listen to the same economists as Republicans. In the case where lowering tax rates made for more revenue, and thus bigger government, wouldn't they be tripping over themselves to lower tax rates?
Of course taxes increased. The economy grows over time. To boot, the interests rates were lowered to 0, lax financial regulation also led to excessive lending. There was an economic bubble, so of course tax revenues were high. You're seem to forget to mention this, but you do show your bias.
Quote:
Since the left took over Congress, spending and revenues have went in opposite directions.
We will almost have to double revenues to match the current spending levels. Tax increases will not do that.
Also - spending has NEVER decreased in almost 50 years. This is unsustainable.
This is not a revenue problem. Raising taxes will not solve over-spending problems.
Well the left didn't have full control of the government. It seems like you have your head in the ground and are oblivious to the factors that led to the Great Recession. It seems like you want to pin blame on the left so you won't have to confront your own support for the people who had FULL control of the government from 2000 to 2006 and created this recession.
By the way, most of the overspending is due to the recession. Feel free to outline what to cut since you seem to think you know what you're talking about.
According to YOUR chart, we should be cutting spending to balance the deficit, just like what happened during the late 1990's. Your chart actually validates the OP's thread more than the OP did..
According to YOUR chart, we should be cutting spending to balance the deficit, just like what happened during the late 1990's. Your chart actually validates the OP's thread more than the OP did..
Now only if the economic times in 2008-2010 were anything like the 1990s. Even in the early 90s, government spending was about 22% of the GDP. It wasn't this bad even in 1982-83 when the government spending was almost as high. It is logical to worry about deficits, with the realization that it makes sense when there is less risk in doing so. Every spending cut has been met with a recession which is fine following an era of expansion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
