Thursday, June 23, 2011

It's the SPENDING, Stupid!! Part 68,775

Nice chart over here.

Note that 'revenues' remain constant at ~19% of GDP. That number wasn't picked out of thin air; it's been the average for-almost-ever, no matter the "rate" of tax applied to "rich" folks.

One could goose the revenue rate, but only briefly; perhaps 1 or 2 years. As you can see, that wouldn't make a difference worth spit in the debacle.

Spending simply MUST decrease--on SocSec, Medicare, and other transfers. And reduce Education, EPA, and Homeland Security by 50%, Pentagon by 15%.

15 comments:

Deekaman said...

The only spending eever discussed that is a Constitutional responsibility of the Feds is National Defense. All else can be reduced to "zero".

Gregory said...

I agree with Deekman.

Jim said...

Hope you like your e coli fresh, your airspace crowded, and can fend for yourself when the plague hits.

Deekaman said...

Glad to see ol' Jimbo has completely missed the point and provided the same old answer.

Jim said...

Note that the linked article shows only the CBO's "alternate" scenario and not the extended baseline scenario that says if current law is followed with no changes, the deficit will be gone by the end of President Obama's second term.

Dad29 said...

Sure, Jimbo.

Increase taxes AND screw the doctors, who will simply dump all their Medicare patients to the curb.

Mengele would be proud of you!

Anonymous said...

Dad and his Nazi nostalgia...

Jim said...

It's not increasing taxes if you restore them to the levels they were before the deficits started.

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhh...."restore them".

That would be "UP", right?

So "up" is not "up"?

You Lefties....such humorists.

Deekaman said...

If that's the case, Jimbo, what is a tax rate that is "high enough"? I suppose we should take them back to the 1961 rate of 91% for anyone over $300,000? Or should we just confiscate everyone's earnings and redistribute it? Tell me, oh wise Jimbo....how much are YOU willing to give up?

Deekaman said...

Back to my previous comment and Jim's response:

So you are saying that without the federal government to protect us, we are doomed to be at the mercy of evil big business and evil agri-monopolies? There is no other entity to protect our health and welfare? Like...maybe sovereign States?

The Feds have two purposes: National Defense and regulation of interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause was intended only to establish free trade between the States, not regulate everything in sight. The states have the regulatory right and the Fed courts are the remedy if States can't play nice together.

J. Strupp said...

What's our current tax revenue/GDP dadster?

Dad29 said...

Without looking it up, I'd guess it's <19%. Since un/under-employment is rampant, that's no surprise.

J. Strupp said...

A touch over 16%. Take GDP and do the math on how much revenues are deviating from average.

"Since un/under-employment is rampant, that's no surprise"

And it should be no surprise that revenues will run below trend for the forseeable future.

It's not just the spending.

Dad29 said...

OK, 16%.

Now look at Fed revs during the period 1929-1935 as % of GDP.

It's the SPENDING.