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:

 

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.

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?

 

 

The lowest we collected was 16%, the highest ever was 21%. So a deviation is 5% is a shitload? Ok, I will give you that. In the next year, we expect to increase spending by 19%... 19%!!!!

If 5% is a shitload, what would you call 19%?

And if you look at the best we have ever done, it’s collect 21% of GPD. No administration has ever collected more. With trying ever possible tax bracket from 92% to 28%, we have never done better than 21%. This means there is no proven methodology to eclipse that number. Why then is it ok to have an expense of 45%? Even when it gets better by Obama’s standards, it’s still sitting at 42%.

Come on man, you can’t think this is a good idea?

Government increasing its share of GDP during a recession is normal, and during a recession such as this one necessary.

But yes, I totally agree with you, waging war on the national debt by raising taxes alone is not enough.  Nor is waging war on the national debt by cutting spending enough.  We have to do both.  That includes comprehensive reform of all our entitlement programs, all government spending, all government subsidies, and getting rid of sacred budget cows in both parties (like farm subsidies, which now go to corporations rather than farmers).

Obama's biggest weakness at this point is whether or not he will take this issue on.  Although I have to admit that the effect it will have on him politically is questionable.  Americans have an extremely short memory and don't ever seem to worry about the debt unless we are in a recession.  Hell, Reagan, Bush Sr., AND Bush W. got elected by Republicans running a deficit EVERY SINGLE YEAR they were in office.  All at the same time claiming they were fiscally conservative.

To the Republican Party, fiscally conservative means cutting taxes, not addressing the national debt.  I would like to see that change in BOTH parties as I think Democrats and Republicans have dropped the ball on this issue.

 



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