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.
Yes, we need to significantly cut spending. But that doesn't mean that some portion of increased taxes should not be considered within the mix of actions to take.
See how the little red line dips below the blue one? Most of us would call that a revenue short fall. One other small point, spending is based upon forecasted revenue, it isn't like the Congress waits until the end of the fiscal years sees how much money it has in the kitty and then decides how to divvy it up. WHen you project a growth in spending and at the same time cut your revenue stream, GWTF happens.
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.
Please note the steepest slope of the spending graph was the Bush years. The GOP weeps crocodile tears about spending. Most of the current debt is THEIR spending.
thanks; i was actually curious what goes on in some of y'all's brains during an economic discussion.
You call this an economic discussion? Its the usual Bush tax cuts increased revenue or not BS. Who cares how much revenue did and didn't come in. IF YOU SPEND MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN YOUR GONNA HAVE A DEFICIT.
Maybe you should drop your blinders and join reality Mr. Know it all nothing.
IF YOU SPEND MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN YOUR GONNA HAVE A DEFICIT.
Let me try this again, federal budgets are based upon projected revenue prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. In short the government starts spending before receiving a dime, soooo, when revenues don't meet projects its a bit late to do much about it unless Congress is to meet every four months and renegotiate the budget. So, when you cut taxes you damn sure better be right that such a tax cut is going to raise sufficient revenues. On that point Bush, et.,al., were dead wrong. That is why that discussion isn't going away.
Let me try this again, federal budgets are based upon projected revenue prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. In short the government starts spending before receiving a dime, soooo, when revenues don't meet projects its a bit late to do much about it unless Congress is to meet every four months and renegotiate the budget. So, when you cut taxes you damn sure better be right that such a tax cut is going to raise sufficient revenues. On that point Bush, et.,al., were dead wrong. That is why that discussion isn't going away.
Wow that makes you some economic genius? Right back to Bush bla bla bla. Maybe provide a budget so somebody knows how much they can spend to begin with?
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.
For those who can read and grasp graphs...
