Occupy Pittsburgh is pretty big. (Republic: loan, cost of, bill)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I think the fear most people have is that any increase in revenue will just be then used to increase spending.

Except history does not support that fear. I get that in the abstract, anything is possible, but at some point you have to actually take a look at how the world really functions. And the way it functions is that if you increase taxes, it will if anything help you slow spending growth afterwards.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Except history does not support that fear. I get that in the abstract, anything is possible, but at some point you have to actually take a look at how the world really functions. And the way it functions is that if you increase taxes, it will if anything help you slow spending growth afterwards.

Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

You linked to a graph that showed Federal Spending increasing even as revenue fell (a predictable result in such a dramatic economic downturn I might add) but I'm not sure how this is responsive to Brian's statement specifically contemplating a rise in revenue
.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Lobick

You linked to a graph that showed Federal Spending increasing even as revenue fell (a predictable result in such a dramatic economic downturn I might add) but I'm not sure how this is responsive to Brian's statement specifically contemplating a rise in revenue
.

It was to point out that historically the government cannot control its spending regardless of revenue. Throwing more & more revenue at that problem is not the end all answer; the spending problem also needs to be fixed.
I say that's the first priority is reigning in spending as then I might believe that any extra revenue more taxes would bring in will actually be wisely spent reducing our debt rather then just feeding more spending.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

It was to point out that historically the government cannot control its spending regardless of revenue. Throwing more & more revenue at that problem is not the end all answer; the spending problem also needs to be fixed.
I say that's the first priority is reigning in spending as then I might believe that any extra revenue more taxes would bring in will actually be wisely spent reducing our debt rather then just feeding more spending.

The federal government is doing far more now than they ever have and states are far more dependent upon federal funding than they've ever been. It would stand to reason that spending on the federal level would increase accordingly. It's implicit in your statement that you think this is an evil in and of itself but I'm not sure that the polity sees it that way. On a rhetorical level I'm sure they do but on a practical level, when actual federal spending is broken down to individual programs and the role of the government explained on a main street level, I'm far less certain.

It might just be that the people, in general, don't mind the federal government that they have, in terms of the large administrative state, but that the political branches are so good at stoking the fires of discontent and partisan bickering, that they are incapable of most efficiently and reasonably giving them what they've come to want.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

Right, think about recent history and that graph.

In 1993, we get the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which increased taxation. What happened to spending growth in the years immediately afterward?

In 2001 and 2003, we get the Bush tax cuts. Now what happened to spending growth?

The correlation between tax increases and spending growth is, if anything, the opposite of what you fear. And the correlation between tax cuts and spending growth is the opposite of what the Norquislings have promised.

Edit: By the way, in that link the Heritage Foundation claims: "Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession." That's partially true, but it is also true revenues have dropped because of the tax cuts in ARRA and the 2010 tax deal. I find it interesting that some parties seem highly reluctant to admit that Obama has been a big tax cutter so far.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

It was to point out that historically the government cannot control its spending regardless of revenue. Throwing more & more revenue at that problem is not the end all answer; the spending problem also needs to be fixed.

Note that chart only adjusted for inflation, and not the size of the economy/country.

A better approach for these issues is to look at receipts and outlays as a percentage of GDP:



Note when you do that, the inverse relation between spending and revenues becomes VERY clear--some of that is just cyclical (the short-lived spikes in outlays and drops in receipts, plus a lot of that big one at the end), but there is also a structural relationship, which again implies increasing taxes does in fact lead to less spending, and vice-versa.

[UKyank]

So there's no room for any significant cuts & reforms in spending? As much as some seem to scratch their heads as to why people are adverse to seeing increase in taxation, I scratch my head as to why some other people find attacking spending as if it's not a big problem.

Just because every proposed dollar cut has some champion out there yelling how it will be the end of the world if cut doesnt mean it's true. Closing a military base somewhere might be really bad for that community but that's also a bad reason to keep funding it if the base isn't actually needed.

[BigBob77]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Just because every proposed dollar cut has some champion out there yelling how it will be the end of the world if cut doesnt mean it's true. Closing a military base somewhere might be really bad for that community but that's also a bad reason to keep funding it if the base isn't actually needed.

Close bases around the world and bring those troops home to spend our money at home would certainly make lots of sense. Technology is more important than ground troops around the world. That is old school.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

So there's no room for any significant cuts & reforms in spending? As much as some seem to scratch their heads as to why people are adverse to seeing increase in taxation, I scratch my head as to why some other people find attacking spending as if it's not a big problem.

Absolutely there's room for both. But remember, that's not how you've framed the issue. For many, the issue is only one of cutting spending. It's a fetish, not a rational discussion about the best policy going forward.