As "fiscal cliff" negotiations heat up, congress can’t agree on whether Washington has a spending problem or a revenue problem. Nor can the American people or, in many instances, even economist
In an article on Marketplace.org, headed up “Washington has a spending problem not a revenue problem,” the argument is made that you can’t keep spending and just raising taxes to meet the outflow of money. The best way to fix the country’s deficit problem is to gut spending.
In a story in the Daily Kos, Joan McCarter looks at it from the other side in an article titled, “We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.”
In the story, McCarter shows the loss in revenue as a result of the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn in the economy between 2001 and 2011.
Our question is, if you believe that it is a spending problem and not a revenue problem, what programs would you be prepared to cut to fix the problem? On the other hand, if you believe it is a revenue problem and not a spending problem, what percentage of your income do you think it is fair for the government to take in taxes to fix the problem?
The UK tried the tax the rich tactic, and guess what? tax hikes on the wealthy LOWERED revenue to the government. In fact, it not only lowered revenue, but actually cost them the equivalent in US dollars of 11.2 billion. Now the government of Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that it will lower the top rate from 50 percent to 45 percent. Imagine that. The story will be the same here. Watch and see. Revenue goes up when you take the claw out of the neck of the producers. Google this stuff. Amazing that we not only don't read history and learn from it, but another country tried exactly what we're doing with disastrous results! We havethe proof but refuse to see it because it's all about politics and money in pockets .
And when we are told that it's NOT possible, the sky will FALL and the planets in our solar system will be forevermore out of alignment... Then try cutting ALL grants including those to states, cities, counties and staduim projects by 20 percent. For example ,we could live WITHOUT roadside/intersection flowers for a season or 2 right? Then try enforcing our current laws so we actually take care of our working, tax paying class... Does anyone have any idea how much revenue our governments have LOST by not enforcing our borders and leaving workers and families unprotected? Attention greedy politicians: If we can't make it, YOU can't tax or TAKE it. No matter how high you raise the rates, in the end you get a greater part of a SMALLER pie which is STILL less than a little sample of a MUCH greater pie. So what do you make of the thousands or MILLIONS of families whose earning potential was stunted for YEARS because of a premature death, caused by those who weren't even supposed to be here? Then you have the lucky ones who survive the encounter, they make marked less due to long term injury or become OUTRIGHT disabled and HELLO MEDICAID. Then there's always the LOCAL CIDs stop taking FED/State grants until this crisis is averted... Take Away? Gore all ox's EQUALLY without regard to race, creed or sexual orientation.
But if you're so inclined to buy me a hamburger today, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday...
Of which upward of 80 percent of the spending has NOTHING to do with actual farming per se, but providing/paying for food PROGRAMS. "It's the end of welfare as we know it, But I feel fine..."
Government spending is just taking the money in with the left hand and doling it out with the right. After, of course, skimming a large percentage of it off the top.
As for what we need to cut, we should eliminate all government activities not specifically authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no business being in the health care business, or the retirement business or the housing business or the education business or the transportation business (with the singular exception of the Interstate system). These are all the purview of the states (see Amendments, Tenth). We are being boiled like a frog, with ever-increasing "benefits" that are strangling our freedoms and making us into a dependent society.
karsten said: Government spending is just taking the money in with the left hand and doling it out with the right. After, of course, skimming a large percentage of it off the top.
Spending this year is projected to be about 25%, maybe a little more. Revenue has never been that high, why in the world would anybody be delusional enough to think that revenue is the problem? Here's your scenario - you work, let's say for yourself. You make $100,000 a year. Have made right at that amount for the last, let's say, 10 years. Not bad. But you're spending $120,000 (pretty close to the current ratio). Does it make more sense to think you're going to start making enough to cover your spending? Or would you reduce spending? Seems fairly simple when a little logic is applied, no?
And then, like has already been said, cut out the rest of what our government is not supposed to be doing. Pretty much, our federal government should be providing public safety, including courts and code enforcement, infrastructure, national defense, and that's pretty much it. Everything else is fluff. I'm one of the few with my level of conservatism or libertarianism or whatever you want to call it that does believe in a basic social safety net, but it needs to be very basic.
Obama owns it now GregRodgers. Your great hope and change is just as much a war criminal as bush. Tastes like a sh*t taco doesn't it?
You "know" the right answer and don't want to hear from someone else that you could be wrong. I "know" the opposite is right and feel the same way about you. Someone else "knows" we're both wrong and feels the same way about both of us. Round and around it goes. It's always blame the other group because that's easier than admitting the simple solution isn't always the correct one -and usually isn't when you're talking about something as complex as how to run the most powerful nation on Earth. Revenue problem? Maybe. Spending problem? Maybe. Both? Maybe. Neither? Maybe. We tried Bush tax cuts and wars we couldn't pay for and we got into a recession. We're trying raising taxes now (and not cutting spending; at least not quite yet). Maybe that will work. Maybe not. You don't know. I don't either. Admit to that and you just might be open enough to finding a solution that actually works.
This is a tired argument. If you don't like the laws, you should change them. That's why we have the process of changing the laws. And I, like many, feel that we are already taxed too much, in many different ways. And that our government spends far more than it should. So "go find someplace with laws you like" is an ignorant statement. At best.
"The guns don't come out unless you're a fugitive. Good citizens don't have to worry about govt. use of guns against them until they break the law. " So what you're saying is good little citizens follow the laws and don't question the status quo, right? Because to do so means that you're a bad person. Got it. Just because a law is a law does not make it a just law. Or a good law. And the government gets to enforce its bad decisions "at the point of a gun." It's up to us as citizens to question the government. It's our duty, actually. As Americans. We don't have that right just because somebody thought it would be a neat idea to be able to say whatever we want to say. It's so that we will question our leaders and keep them on the correct path, whatever that may be. So if they pass a law that is silly, such as, for example, forcing a company against its religious beliefs to supply something at its cost, then it is the duty of that company to stand up and refuse to comply. That is what America a great country. Not the over-indulged government arbitrarily passing laws because it thinks it knows what's best for us.
"So what you're saying is good little citizens follow the laws and don't question the status quo, right? Because to do so means that you're a bad person. Got it." Nope - not at all what I said. When good citizens follow the law, then no guns are pulled. You can question all you want, campaign against, protest, petition. But until the law is changed, you must obey or suffer the consequences. Laws are challenged all the time, which is why the courts stay busy. That's also our right. But until the law is struck down by the courts or amended or repealed, it is the law. Your opinion on the law doesn't negate it or make it unenforceable. That's pretty simple. I think Grant is right, you do have a problem with logic. I'm not sure if it's that you go around in circles or you're in a spiral. You make it way too hard on yourself. I think you have a distorted view of America.
What I said was, "If you don't agree to go with them to be incarcerated, they will brandish weapons, threaten you with weapons, and finally will use weapons. So yeah, laws are enforced at the point of a gun." And this is true. I never said that you should disobey the laws. I said that IF you did, then... This is a little different from what you said. And it doesn't make my statement untrue - in fact it goes along with our premise that we either follow the law or we face the consequences. The same thing I'm saying. My point is the terminal point of those consequences involve federal authorities with firearms....
But that's not really the point. My point was that the threat of force is what ensures compliance. There's plenty of laws that I follow because I want to. Plenty I follow because I don't feel it's important enough to me to face the consequences if I don't. And others I choose not to follow, and I'll accept the consequences should I get caught. Just like everybody else.
You and Racer remind me of a couple of little boys walking around in their daddy's shoes. You should rethink that breaking the law stuff. You might come to regret that. If you break laws (dishonest), you probably lie (dishonest), too, so it's a wasted effort to take you seriously. Not like everybody else. That's delusional. That's a sad and risky way to make yourself feel better about something you must know is wrong.
So, you never speed? At all, not one little bit? Maybe especially on roads that you think the speed limit is a bit too low for? If you find $20 in front of a supermarket, you report that to the IRS? There's lots of little examples every day. But, if you don't, you don't. Good for you. I guess you are a good citizen. Oh, and illegal isn't the same thing as wrong. Wrong has to do with morals. I follow my morals every day. Even on things that aren't illegal that I still know are wrong. I don't always stop and ask myself "Would Uncle Sam want me to do this?" I stop and ask if God would want me to do something, and try to act accordingly. THAT is my center. Not government.
No, I don't speed. Learned that lesson a few expensive times a couple of decades ago. Speeding doesn't get you there any faster, in most cases. Have you ever noticed, driving along and somebody flies past you. You stay steady on the speed limit, and then you pull up right behind or beside the driver in a hurry at the next traffic light? And speeding is dangerous, especially in the digital age adding more distractions. Haha. This driving talk reminds me of that old, old song, "Keep your mind on your driving, keep your hands on the wheel, and keep your snoopy eyes on the road ahead . . . " I haven't been lucky enough to find money, but I believe I would probably donate it to the church or a charity if there was no evidence of its owner in the vicinity. I'm not perfect by any means, but if it's not mine I can't enjoy it. Report $20 to the IRS? It's a wash if you just donate it. I don't cheat on taxes. If you're constantly asking yourself if something is wrong and whether to do it, maybe you're conflicted. You're the one who said you choose which laws to break - your confession, not my accusation. God probably wants you to obey the laws. You're nothing if not persistent.