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%.
at

15 comments:

  1. Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC6/23/2011 6:12 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gregory6/23/2011 9:45 PM

    I agree with Deekman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim6/23/2011 9:52 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC6/24/2011 5:48 AM

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim6/24/2011 11:10 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dad296/24/2011 11:26 AM

    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!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6/24/2011 12:02 PM

    Dad and his Nazi nostalgia...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim6/24/2011 9:56 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dad296/25/2011 6:28 AM

    Umnnnhh...."restore them".

    That would be "UP", right?

    So "up" is not "up"?

    You Lefties....such humorists.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC6/25/2011 10:10 AM

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC6/25/2011 10:18 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. J. Strupp6/26/2011 12:19 AM

    What's our current tax revenue/GDP dadster?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dad296/26/2011 12:21 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. J. Strupp6/27/2011 11:13 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dad296/27/2011 11:32 AM

    OK, 16%.

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

    It's the SPENDING.

    ReplyDelete