By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 on 28 April 2009
Edit Thread
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Its pretty plain and simple. Raise taxes and cut spending. But doing either of those during a particularly bad recession is not a good idea.

This is 100% true. It’s just that simple.

So, why is our spending double and tripling, and our taxes staying the same or lowering?

And why is doing it a good idea? If it’s not, how should we avoid it?

My opinion is to not spend more money, and collect more taxes (the opposite of what this administration is doing).

P.S. before anyone complains that Bush did the same thing, I agree, but there is nothing Bush can do about it now.

I'm all for what you are saying.  Once the economy turns around, we should decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP and raise taxes.  But those who are fiscally conservative should not complain when we raise taxes, although they are entitled to complain if spending increases.

 

 

So you're for at least keeping the spending the same until we find a way to collect more money?

Government spending will almost always increase over time as the economy grows larger.  People who huff and puff about that are just plain stupid.  Its much more important to look at how much government is spending as a percentage of GDP rather than the dollar amount.  One is a "real" increase while the other is a "perceived" increase.

This is also the only way to account for inflation.  Not taking inflation into account is equally dumb.

 

 

Ok From 1950 to today...

 

Income:

Spending:

 

The tax rate for the rich in that time as been as high as 92% in 1952, and as low as 28% in 1990.

It seems no matter what we do with the tax rates, we collect about the same vs GDP.

How are we going to cover these expenses? The answer is we can’t. It’s crazy to propose something when we have no solution of how we are going to pay for it.

I guess that makes sense if you don't count those big dips during the Reagan and Bush years.  Do you know how much more money just a few percentage points is when you are talking about GDP as a whole?  A SHITLOAD of money.  That 5% drop following the Bush tax cuts was substantial in terms of how much revenue it means we lost.  Did you even read what I posted article about increases in real revenue?

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period (1980-1988) — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson