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.
and Ronald Regan nearly tripled it when he was Pres.
But you know that Presidents do not make the budget right? The House of Representatives does. Of course they need to come up with something that the president will reasonably sign and that the senate will agree to, but if they don't if will just stay at the previous budget's level. In December of 2013 (that was last year), the house passed the first budget in 4 years! The entire government is dysfunctional, not just the executive.
And we can blame the debt on Republicans who said deficits don't matter and that the gov't surplus was a bad thing. The Republicans slashed taxes, drastically spent. So instead of wiping out the debt as predicted in 2012 the Republicans drastically increased.
The only Republican president to have ever lessened the debt was Einsenhower and he did that by raising taxes. Democrat presidents have either lessened the debt or not grown it by a huge margin. Republican presidents on the other hand these last 30 years have drastically grown it. Often tripling the size of the debt and then having to raise taxes six times because the tax cuts didn't increase revenues but instead shrank revenues.
Yeah Ronnie Reagan raised taxes six times because his tax cuts didn't increase revenue and his spending was so high that the country's debt would have been ten times as worse without those tax raises he had to do.
Bush the 1st also had to do the same thing.
Cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue. The Laffer Curve is bogus.
You could just as easily ask-why did we raise the debt limit without increasing any taxes?
Funny thing, our spending as a % of GDP has continued to remain fairly low....so what drives the deficit then? Well turns out if you drop the tax rates, and add in all sort of loopholes, and keep spending the same, or only drop it a little....you get deficits. Funny huh?
You're way off. Tax revenue has been on an upward trajectory for the past quarter century. Here is inflation adjusted federal tax revenue since 1970:
Revenue did go down slightly due to the crash of 2008 ($2.1 trillion in 2012), but not much, and still almost double what it was in 1980. And it had little to do with dropping of rates, or with loopholes. In general revenue has tended to go up, but spending has gone up even more.
It's the spending, stupid. Even liberal icon Bob Woodward ID'ed the "spending addiction" of DC as the real problem. If liberal Bob Woodward can see it, why can't you.
Revenue did go down slightly due to the crash of 2008 ($2.1 trillion in 2012), but not much, and still almost double what it was in 1980. And it had little to do with dropping of rates, or with loopholes. In general revenue has tended to go up, but spending has gone up even more.
It's the spending, stupid. Even liberal icon Bob Woodward ID'ed the "spending addiction" of DC as the real problem. If liberal Bob Woodward can see it, why can't you.
Wrong. As percentage of GDP revenue has not increased to what it should be. As a percentage of GDP it's 25% less then it should be. The gov't is collecting 20% less per person then a decade ago when corrected for inflation.
Revenue did go down slightly due to the crash of 2008 ($2.1 trillion in 2012), but not much, and still almost double what it was in 1980. And it had little to do with dropping of rates, or with loopholes. In general revenue has tended to go up, but spending has gone up even more.
It's the spending, stupid. Even liberal icon Bob Woodward ID'ed the "spending addiction" of DC as the real problem. If liberal Bob Woodward can see it, why can't you.
Sigh. yes and our revenue is FAR higher then when there were 1 million of us, and you could buy an acre of land with a quarter.
Its why I was very specific about as a % of GDP Which BTW your very own link provides the EXACT numbers I was looking for earlier
Revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 20.6% of GDP in 2000 down to....17.6 in 2008, and in 2012? 15.8%
Hmmmmm.....Cant imagine how that could be a problem. in fact, we've been under 16% of GDP in revenue for....4 years now. The last time we did that it was during the world war (when taxes went to nothing, and debt exploded while we fought for survival)
Wrong. As percentage of GDP revenue has not increased to what it should be. As a percentage of GDP it's 25% less then it should be. The gov't is collecting 20% less per person then a decade ago when corrected for inflation.
It is also a spending problem. Both parties seem to believe that we need an 11 carrier battle group Navy. Almost 4 times bigger than the next biggest navy.
Both parties seem to feel we need to play world cop.
Both parties pander to special interest groups. Look at the Immigration reform bill and the massive pork attached to it.
Look at the latest budget. Before we raise taxes we need to make realistic cuts. I have no issue with a tax increase on the 1%, but only after we make real cuts and eliminate the massive waste our elected reps feel entitled to.
Over the past 40 years, total federal revenues have averaged 17.4 percent of GDP—ranging from a high of 19.9 percent of GDP in 2000 to a low of 14.6 percent in 2009 and 2010. The variation over time in total revenues as a percentage of GDP is primarily the result of fluctuations in receipts of individual income tax payments and, to a lesser extent, of fluctuations in collections of corporate income taxes. In 2013, revenues equaled 16.7 percent of GDP.
Looking ahead, revenues are projected to increase under current law to 17.7 percent of GDP in 2014 and to 18.6 percent in 2015, and then to remain between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP from 2016 through 2023.
Raising Tax Rates.
Because revenues from individual income taxes and payroll taxes constitute over 80 percent of total federal revenues, increasing the rates of those taxes by just 1 percentage point would result in a sizable reduction in the deficit. For example, boosting all individual income tax rates on ordinary income (all income subject to the income tax except long-term capital gains and certain dividends) by 1 percentage point would increase revenues by $694 billion over 10 years, according to JCT’s estimates. And a 1 percentage-point increase in the combined payroll tax rate paid by employees and employers for Medicare hospital insurance would raise $859 billion over the 2014–2023 period, JCT estimates, or over 40 percent of the savings required to meet a goal of reducing the deficit by $2 trillion.
Which simply means:
Quote:
Decreasing that debt in 2038 to just below 70 percent of output—slightly less than what it is now but still quite high by historical standards—could be achieved if deficits were reduced by $2 trillion (excluding interest costs) during the next decade, and the reduction in the deficit as a percentage of output in 2023 was maintained in later years.
Quote:
However, those increases in revenues would be much smaller if rate increases were applied to a narrower tax base. For example, boosting rates on ordinary income in the top four brackets—those with statutory tax rates of 28 percent or more—by 1 percentage point would raise revenues by $152 billion from 2014 through 2023, according to JCT. Raising corporate income tax rates would produce smaller but still significant amounts of revenues: JCT projects that a 1 percentage-point increase in those rates would yield an estimated $113 billion over 10 years.
Dag, the CBO just stomped all over the "tax the rich" meme.
Quote:
In considering policies aimed at reducing deficits, policymakers and the public would need to make judgments about the proper size and scope of the federal government, including the types of activities they consider appropriate for the government to carry out or subsidize and the weight they give to various types of spending and to various benefits conveyed through the tax system.
Old white men (snickers) in the Tea Party controlling the narrative, again. In other words, if you want more government it's going to cost everyone their left arm and leg.
I'm sure that'll go over well with the majority of the tax paying populace.
It is also a spending problem. Both parties seem to believe that we need an 11 carrier battle group Navy. Almost 4 times bigger than the next biggest navy.
Well, that's part and parcel to keeping your way of life and standard of living to the extent that you can. I mean if the U.S. isn't playing world cop what good is it for? Consuming resources the rest of the world wants and doing it while borrowing money from them?
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.
