Is Spending Too High or are Taxes Too Low?
mg
"compared to what?". Looking back to 1903, for example, spending was
indeed very low at 6.8% of GDP. But since then we have had a lot of
military spending and a lot of wars; WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the
Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war. So it's hard to
say what is "normal" spending for the U.S. In addition, we also had
the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Spending reached a high of 53% of GDP in 1945 and then fell to 22.38%
in 1951 and then rose again to 29.02% in 1953, probably because of the
Korean war. In 1960, before the Great Society, it was 28.74%, and in
1970 it was 31%. In 1980, before Ronald Reagan, it was 33.72%. When
George Bush took office in 2001, spending was at 33.38%. In 2007,
spending was at 34.98%. When the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over,
the figure will probably drop by about 2% to approximately 33%. After
2007, the effects of the "Great Recession", and the bailouts, and
stimulus spending began to take effect, and spending for 2010 was
43.85%. When (and if) the economy fully recovers, though, and when the
wars are over, spending should return to approximately 2007 levels at
about 33%.
The bottom line is that (permanent) spending probably hasn't increased
much, if any, since 1980, and has only increased by about 2 percentage
points since 1970. Taxes, however, have been cut a lot. So, I don't
see how anyone can blame our current problems on spending.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
> So, I don't
> see how anyone can blame our current problems on spending.
Then you are, quite simply, a moron, a shill or a ward of the state.
--
Democrat donkey pontificating:
Americans only oppose Obama because they are racist....
Americans were against the stiumulus because they are uneducated....
Americans oppose socialism because they are greedy....
Americans are against Obamacare because they are stupid....
Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque because they are bigots....
I just can't figure why Americans are opposed to us.
Maybe 'cuz we're racist, uneducated, greedy, stupid bigots.
Or maybe it's 'cuz you morons sound like Nazis talking about Jews in the
1930s.
Ray Fischer
>mg <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mdvqg69psmiqo3bpnc9327ovvt18v7kv7a@
>4ax.com:
>
>> So, I don't
>> see how anyone can blame our current problems on spending.
>
>Then you are, quite simply, a moron, a shill or a ward of the state.
You delete his entire supporting argument just to show that you're a
narrow-minded asshole who is more interested in your cult insanity
than in the truth.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Christopher Helms
Too many people in this country want the government to do stuff, build
stuff, provide stuff and slash taxes all at the same time. So we get
Republican "fiscal conservatives" bitching about deficits in one
breath and expressing their determination to add more than three
quarters of a trillion dollars to it in the next. We get massive
deficits and politicians who continually insist that you can have
something for nothing. Half the country has been trained by right
wingers to go completely ape shit at any suggestion that they should
ever have to pay for government services.
"We want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, highways, a massive
military, we want NASA, a CIA, an NSA, we want wars on terror, wars on
drugs, wars on poverty, free healthcare for Congresscritters, we want
farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, unemployment, food stamps and
HUD. We want an EPA, national parks, war museums, war memorials, and
FBI and an SEC. We want all kinds of things from the government, and
don't touch the third rail by trying to tell us that we will ever have
to pay for any of it."
Libtardopia Lost
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4d0db3e5$0$43979$742e...@news.sonic.net...
The truth is that you're only interested in your freebies from the
goberment. You don't care who has to pay for them as long as you don't.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
Department of Education, protecting Europe from Russia, protecting the
Japanese from China, giving money to Chinese hookers so they wont get
intoxicated, etc, etc, etc.
The only thing our government should do are the things that are
clearly outlined in the US Constitution. (See limited constitutional
government)
>
> So we get
> Republican "fiscal conservatives" bitching about deficits in one
> breath and expressing their determination to add more than three
> quarters of a trillion dollars to it in the next.
Just progressives doing what they do. (Which is why the Tea Party is
growing)
>
> We get massive
> deficits and politicians who continually insist that you can have
> something for nothing.
No, you get Progressives insisting that. It's all part of their
beloved Cloward–Piven strategy.
>
> We want Social Security
I don't. (But it's not like the pro-choice party is going to give me
that choice, now is it?)
<...farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, s ...>
If Americans had real choice from the get-go, and not the progressive
lite vs progressive heavy rigged game, your list would have been a
shit load smaller and the government wouldn't be in a hole.
Kevin Cunningham
> Spending is too high.
>
> Go back 100 years and see what the Fed was
> funding. About one (relative) percent in
> comparison to toady.
If we base our nation's spending on what we did a hundred years ago
now that would be really moronic.
You can't base our military on what we did when we invaded small
countries and made them pay United Fruit Company. We can't base our
domestic agenda on making sure that whites and African-Americans are
kept separate. We can't operate our money system based on gold.
The world economy has changed, drastically. Now Japan and China lead
the way in exports, we import more than we export, by a huge amount.
We routinely use imported goods, we routinely sell ideas, not goods.
And the modern world doesn't need armies. The type and size of forces
changed during the Vietnam war for every one.
Repugs still want to re-fight the Vietnam war, as long as they aren't
in uniform.
Kevin Cunningham
Wow, how dumb are you?
Don't you know that there is a third branch of government? It's
called.....get ready.....the courts!
Yeah, idiot, there is a method for making sure that every law, even
the meaningless ones, can be constitutionally challenged.
Face it, you are to ignorant to be a part of a democracy.
Geo
> If you believe that spending is too high then you need to ask
> "compared to what?".
How about compared to the national debt. If you have a problem with
taxes being cut them maybe you ought to look at the bottom 50% of
taxpayers that pay less than 3% of the federal income tax burden.
wy
> Spending is too high.
>
> Go back 100 years and see what the Fed was
> funding. About one (relative) percent in
> comparison to toady.
100 years ago you had about 230 million fewer people to look after.
100 years ago you didn't have the societal infrastructure of roads and
highways and bridges and dams and electricity that you have now to
maintain. 100 years ago you didn't have the kind of military that
spends 97% of the total world military budget on itself. 100 years
ago was a long time ago and it seems your mind is still trapped
there. Wake up, it's the 21st century already.
Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
>On Dec 18, 10:38 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you believe that spending is too high then you need to ask
>> "compared to what?".
>
>How about compared to the national debt. If you have a problem with
>taxes being cut them maybe you ought to look at the bottom 50% of
>taxpayers that pay less than 3% of the federal income tax burden.
Yeah, with "official" unemployment hovering at 10%, there's a big hunk
of your "bottom 50%" right there. Of course being honest and saying
that the unemployed aren't paying their share of the tax burden you'd
rather whine about dehumanized statistics and paying too much.
First Post
Twisted logic you have there.
BTW, they aren't bitching about what the bottom doesn't pay.
You are the ones arguing constantly that somehow not taxing the fuck
out of the top earners somehow increases taxes on the bottom. Which
none of you have ever shown how that works.
And just how does increasing taxes create jobs, stimulate consumer
spending, increase retail sales, stimulate the home market, stimulate
the auto indiustry or increase investment?
You fools claim that increasing taxes will lower unemployment plus do
all of the above. So tell us how that works Einstein.
Galen Hekhuis
Easy. Lower taxes on the rich have not prompted them to provide jobs,
etc., therefore it is left for the government to tax the rich and help
the economy the way the rich haven't. I seriously doubt keeping
things the same (extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich) will create
jobs, cutting taxes on the rich in the past sure hasn't created any
jobs, so the only alternative left is to raise taxes on the rich so
that the government can at least try to do something about the
economy. If there are three doors, and behind the first two you
haven't found what you wanted, shouldn't you try door #3 instead of
just whining about how poorly it fits?
Jerry Okamura
"Christopher Helms" <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3799d74b-6c7f-44a5...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
What should this all tell us? That regardless of party labels, or
ideological bias, that neither one of them really want to solve the problem?
Maybe, we need to try a different approach? How about "forcing" them to do
what they should do? How abour passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution? Wouldn't that go a long way to solving the problem?
Jerry Okamura
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37dc0d03-8bd8-4ae0...@w21g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 3:13 am, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> Spending is too high.
>
> Go back 100 years and see what the Fed was
> funding. About one (relative) percent in
> comparison to toady.
If we base our nation's spending on what we did a hundred years ago
now that would be really moronic.
You can't base our military on what we did when we invaded small
countries and made them pay United Fruit Company. We can't base our
domestic agenda on making sure that whites and African-Americans are
kept separate. We can't operate our money system based on gold.
The world economy has changed, drastically. Now Japan and China lead
the way in exports, we import more than we export, by a huge amount.
We routinely use imported goods, we routinely sell ideas, not goods.
Why can't we?
WR
> Spending is too high.
>
> Go back 100 years and see what the Fed was
> funding. About one (relative) percent in
> comparison to toady.
100 years? 1910? During the 19th century and into the 20th the
Government subsidized all sorts of things including railroads,
universities, localities and people through land grants. It didn't
need to dole out money, because it owned vast tracts of land and could
use that to subsidize whatever it wanted to subsidize. It also
encouraged the wretched refuse of the teaming shores of Europe to
immigrate without limit, importing the poorest, cheapest white labor
for burgeoning American industries. (Asians were used too, but most of
them were made to go back home). It's a different world today, though.
The US couldn't exist in its present form without the national highway
system, air traffic control, and the enormous cost of defense.
WR
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Which doesn't include nation building, being the world's cop, the
> Department of Education, protecting Europe from Russia, protecting the
> Japanese from China, giving money to Chinese hookers so they wont get
> intoxicated, etc, etc, etc.
>
> The only thing our government should do are the things that are
> clearly outlined in the US Constitution. (See limited constitutional
> government)
The constitution wasn't written to be that prescriptive. It allows the
Government to whatever is necessary to carry out its functions
domestically and internationally. If you don't like what the
Government is doing, vote the politicians out who do the things to
which you object, but don't caterwall about the unconstitutionality of
American law. The legislature acts within its limits. If it doesn't,
sooner or later a court challenge will invalidate the transgression.
>
> > So we get
> > Republican "fiscal conservatives" bitching about deficits in one
> > breath and expressing their determination to add more than three
> > quarters of a trillion dollars to it in the next.
>
> Just progressives doing what they do. (Which is why the Tea Party is
> growing)
The Tea Party is a collection of cranks who want services but don't
want to pay taxes for them. Period.
>
> > We get massive
> > deficits and politicians who continually insist that you can have
> > something for nothing.
>
> No, you get Progressives insisting that. It's all part of their
> beloved Cloward–Piven strategy.
Progressives???? The last Progressive in office was Bill Clinton and
he left the country at full employment, the most respected and
powerful nation on earth, with a net budget surplus. When
"conservatives" finally had all three branches of government, they
stepped up spending, lied us into a useless and extravagant war,
pulled back on regulating the financial industry, and, as a result,
doubled the deficit and left our banking and financial industries
broken and bleeding. I'll take progressives any day over the insanity
of conservative.
>
> > We want Social Security
>
> I don't. (But it's not like the pro-choice party is going to give me
> that choice, now is it?)
Yes, but most of the country and certainly the Teabaggers want it.
>
> <...farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, s ...>
> If Americans had real choice from the get-go, and not the progressive
> lite vs progressive heavy rigged game, your list would have been a
> shit load smaller and the government wouldn't be in a hole.
Since when have Republican conservatives every come after farm
subsidies and corporate subsidies? Hell, they invented them.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
>
> Don't you know that there is a third branch of government? It's
> called.....get ready.....the courts!
>
> Yeah, idiot,
Again, never sad there wasn't, moron.
>
> there is a method for making sure that every law, even
> the meaningless ones, can be constitutionally challenged.
prisons shut down? Etc, etc, etc.
>
> Face it, you are to ignorant to be a part of a democracy.
Salty Stan
> On Dec 19, 7:22 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
>
> head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The only thing our government should do are the things that are
> > clearly outlined in the US Constitution. (See limited constitutional
> > government)
>
> The constitution wasn't written to be that prescriptive. It allows the
> Government to whatever is necessary to carry out its functions
> domestically and internationally.
Oh? Says who?
>If you don't like what the
> Government is doing, vote the politicians out who do the things to
> which you object,
Well, we did in -November, 2010.
> but don't caterwall about the unconstitutionality of
> American law. The legislature acts within its limits. If it doesn't,
> sooner or later a court challenge will invalidate the transgression.
>
>
-
> The Tea Party is a collection of cranks who want services but don't
> want to pay taxes for them. Period.
>
The bipartisan fiscal commission created by President Obama has pretty
much vindicated the Tea Party's platform.
So much for your opinion.
>
-
> Progressives???? The last Progressive in office was Bill Clinton and
> he left the country at full employment,
Well, not exactly...
> the most respected and
???
> powerful nation on earth,
Uh we were that before Clinton took office...
> with a net budget surplus.
Yes, after the GOP took over Congress.
>When
> "conservatives" finally had all three branches of government, they
> stepped up spending, lied us into a useless and extravagant war,
Uh oh, another "lied into war" kook.
> pulled back on regulating the financial industry, and, as a result,
> doubled the deficit and left our banking and financial industries
> broken and bleeding. I'll take progressives any day over the insanity
> of conservative.
>
>
>
> > > We want Social Security
>
> > I don't. (But it's not like the pro-choice party is going to give me
> > that choice, now is it?)
>
> Yes, but most of the country and certainly the Teabaggers want it.
No, I'd opt out of it if I could.I can invest my money much better
than any bureaucrat. As of now the politicians have spent all the SS
surplus.
>
>
>
> > <...farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, s ...>
> > If Americans had real choice from the get-go, and not the progressive
> > lite vs progressive heavy rigged game, your list would have been a
> > shit load smaller and the government wouldn't be in a hole.
Hear hear to that!
Salty Stan
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:55 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Face it, you are to ignorant
No, it should be "too", not "to". Before you start calling others
ignorant, maybe you should get an education first.
> > to be a part of a democracy.
>
> Your straw man clearly is, you fucking moron.
Do you really want to waste your time arguing with someone who can't
spell a three letter word?
Salty Stan
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:55 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Face it, you are to ignorant
No, it should be "too", not "to". Before you start calling others
ignorant, maybe you should get an education first.
> > to be a part of a democracy.
>
> Your straw man clearly is, you fucking moron.
Do you really want to waste your time arguing with someone who can't
lorad
> Is Spending Too High or are Taxes Too Low?
Both.. the US is spending one Trillion a year to blow up camel
jockeys.. for no apparent reason
And... not taxing neocon billionaires upon their robbing America
blind.
God's Debris
Your analysis fails to account for HOW the money is spent. Was it
spent on something productive "back then"? Only the blind can defend
our current spending levels for defense. We spend more then something
like the next 30 countries COMBINED. Instead of spending on USEFULL
things we are pissing it away supporting a welfare state that simply
perpetuates itself and insures that crime festers. We waste billions
on a completely ineffective drug war and our response is to increase
the funding. Just looking at the % is meaningless.
God's Debris
You apparently don't understand that not ever bad and wasteful law is
unconstitutional. Just because a law does nothing but shovel money
into a hole in the ground doesn't make it unconstitutional. We have
many such laws today. If the federal gvt were reduced by 50% we'd all
(at least those of us who aren't on welfare) be better off.
Gray Ghost
news:qiu7h6picgiolmr42...@4ax.com:
Surrender is always cheaper. do so.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> spell a three letter word?
bank, etc.
Plus, I figure if I talk to the progressive loons then maybe it will
keep them from going Amy Bishop and killing a bunch of innocent people.
God's Debris
And failing to defend your position is always easier. do so.