Not a revenue problem......

[JustRalph]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fed-revenue-overall.jpg

Food for thought

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/do-we-really-have-a-revenue-problem/


Interesting debate going on......check out the data after tax cuts

[ArlJim78]

another graph from that story which I think tells the story. We simply can't let them beg for more revenue when it will only add more fuel to the runaway spending that has occurred. I think this was the plan all along, spend, spend spend and then say "well it looks like we're going to need more revenue for all these new programs that people are demanding"

there should be ZERO talk about revenue "enhancers". the only thing that will wring out the excesses and reduce waste and fraud is if we do not allow any tax hikes. and yes that is what they want, tax hikes, not as the president falsely claims that Republicans want tax cuts for the rich, they simply want no tax increases on anyone.

notice how the spending took off, oh about 2007. this is the leagacy of madame speaker Pelosi and president Obama.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fed-revenue-spending.jpg

[mostpost]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fed-revenue-overall.jpg

Food for thought

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/do-we-really-have-a-revenue-problem/


Interesting debate going on......check out the data after tax cuts
What the story fails to point out is that in 1965 GDP was $687 Billion. Today it is
16 trillion 580 Billion. That is an increase of 24 times. Yet the increase in Revenue is only three times.

As for the claim that revenues increase after tax cuts. That is usually true. What they don't tell you is that revenues increase a lot more after tax increases. ArlJim's chart shows a slight decrease in revenue after the Reagan cuts. There was a big spike in revenue after Clinton raised taxes. Finally there were two big drops during GWB's tenure. If you are going to make a claim, might I suggest you not include a chart which disproves your claim. WE HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM.

[ArlJim78]

yeah just press the magic REVENUE button, like every business or household does when they need more cash.

[Robert Goren]

yeah just press the magic REVENUE button, like every business or household does when they need more cash.No business I ever heard of ever survived by deliberately cutting revenue. Maybe you can point out one.

[rastajenk]

Businesses earn revenue. Governments steal it.

[bigmack]

No business I ever heard of ever survived by deliberately cutting revenue. Maybe you can point out one.
Dick Wolf called. He insists you stop using that moniker as you're making the character look like a dunce.

[ArlJim78]

No business I ever heard of ever survived by deliberately cutting revenue. Maybe you can point out one.
It's hard to know where you are coming from. I don't know how it is you always manage to get things so turned around.

No one is talking about deliberately cutting revenue. We're talking about what to do when your revenue drops. Were talking about government demanding an revenue increase from a private sector which is not growing and in fact reeling from failed government programs and regulations which have it smothered. Maybe you can point out a business where you can get away with demanding more revenue from it's customers when times are bad? You don't do it. Yet we're told that when it comes to government that we must buck up and pay more so our government can accomodate a 30% growth rate over a 3 year period while our economy sputters along.

We're in a debt death spiral and unless we change course soon it's going to collapse like a house of cards. It may be too late already but we must try.

[Tom]

What the story fails to point out is that in 1965 GDP was $687 Billion. Today it is 16 trillion 580 Billion. That is an increase of 24 times. Yet the increase in Revenue is only three times.

With such a huge increase in our output, there is no reason we need nearly as much government spending as back then. Entitlement programs should be shrunk to about nothing with all that prosperity. A prosperous country should not need to depend on nanny spending.

[elysiantraveller]

What the story fails to point out is that in 1965 GDP was $687 Billion. Today it is
16 trillion 580 Billion. That is an increase of 24 times. Yet the increase in Revenue is only three times.

As for the claim that revenues increase after tax cuts. That is usually true. What they don't tell you is that revenues increase a lot more after tax increases. ArlJim's chart shows a slight decrease in revenue after the Reagan cuts. There was a big spike in revenue after Clinton raised taxes. Finally there were two big drops during GWB's tenure. If you are going to make a claim, might I suggest you not include a chart which disproves your claim. WE HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM.

How can you say that and completely ignore the first graph that blatantly shows we also have a spending problem....

Also, you read this yet?

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility: Moment of Truth (http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf)

A lot of good ideas about raising revenues which surprisingly aren't being pursued by the person who requested it... or his party...

[mostpost]

Businesses earn revenue. Governments steal it.
How does H&R Block earn money? They don't provide a product. If you're saying they earn money by providing a service, then why does government not earn money by providing a service. Government keeps the roads repaired. It provides fire and police protection. Government provides schools and regulates industry, transportation and commerce. Government keeps the playing field level so that one giant company can't monopolize an industry. (Or it did before Reagan).
All this talk about government doesn't earn its money shows a severe lack of understanding about how a complex society works.

[mostpost]

How can you say that and completely ignore the first graph that blatantly shows we also have a spending problem....
I'm not ignoring it. I'm putting it in context. If you just look at the raw figures we are spending more money. We would have to be. Population is up 60% or more since 1965. The wealth of the country as measured by the GDP has increased 24 fold.
We are currently spending between 18% and 19% of our GDP. Through the 80's that figure was over 21%. It was above 20% from 2003 to 2009. I am pointing this out not to start a discussion of who spends more, but rather to point out that current spending is not relatively higher than ever.

[mostpost]

With such a huge increase in our output, there is no reason we need nearly as much government spending as back then. Entitlement programs should be shrunk to about nothing with all that prosperity. A prosperous country should not need to depend on nanny spending.
There is none so blind as he who will not see. A country where one segment of the population has a disproportionate share of the wealth is not a prosperous country. It is a country with a lot of rich people. In the United States, the 2.8 million richest people have the same wealth as the 110 million poorest.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_income_facts.aspx#6
This is a chart of the growth in income for the various economic groups.
Between 1979 and 2001 middle class income grew by 17% while upper class income grew by 53%. Contrast that to the period between 1947 and 1979.
Middle class income grew by 111% and every single category grew by almost 100% or more. Did all this come at the expense of the rich? Not hardly. The income of the top 5% grew at at faster rate from '47 to '79 than it did during the second era.

The difference? During era #1 we had strong unions. Companies were expected to pay their share of the cost of running a nation. Companies were not allowed to ignore safety and environmental laws. Companies were not allowed to keep profits overseas. Our businesses were protected from foreign competition.

[elysiantraveller]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm putting it in context. If you just look at the raw figures we are spending more money. We would have to be. Population is up 60% or more since 1965. The wealth of the country as measured by the GDP has increased 24 fold.
We are currently spending between 18% and 19% of our GDP. Through the 80's that figure was over 21%. It was above 20% from 2003 to 2009. I am pointing this out not to start a discussion of who spends more, but rather to point out that current spending is not relatively higher than ever.

But the Stimulus packages aren't calculated into the budget. We have been spending more and it isn't showing up on the balance sheet. I agree with you that spending isn't the sole problem and neither is revenue both need to be adjusted...

Thats why I posted the White House Commissions findings, actually, I've done it on here three times now... Not a word about it from anyone leaning to the left on here... or from the President for that matter.

[Tom]

All this talk about government doesn't earn its money shows a severe lack of understanding about how a complex society works.

On YOUR part! :lol:

The government doesn't earn money, it costs money.
That is our tax dollars they are using to do all those things.

You kill me some days! :lol:

[mostpost]

But the Stimulus packages aren't calculated into the budget. We have been spending more and it isn't showing up on the balance sheet. I agree with you that spending isn't the sole problem and neither is revenue both need to be adjusted...

Thats why I posted the White House Commissions findings, actually, I've done it on here three times now... Not a word about it from anyone leaning to the left on here... or from the President for that matter.

I don't think that is right that the stimulus packages are not calculated into the budget. Can you provide some proof?

I will read you link to the White House Commission tonight.

[TrifectaMike]

How does H&R Block earn money? They don't provide a product. If you're saying they earn money by providing a service, then why does government not earn money by providing a service. Government keeps the roads repaired. It provides fire and police protection. Government provides schools and regulates industry, transportation and commerce. Government keeps the playing field level so that one giant company can't monopolize an industry. (Or it did before Reagan).
All this talk about government doesn't earn its money shows a severe lack of understanding about how a complex society works.

I would be inclined to agree with you, if what you listed is what government does. But we know it doesn't. And many of the services you listed are done on the state and local level.

Given the present state of government... it is wasteful and more interested in government employment and wealth distribution.

Mike

[elysiantraveller]

I don't think that is right that the stimulus packages are not calculated into the budget. Can you provide some proof?

I will read you link to the White House Commission tonight.

They aren't.

A simple google/yahoo/wikipedia search will yield you that. They are emergency funding so they fall outside the realm of a planned budget.

[ArlJim78]

the stimulus was not in the budget, but it is on the balance sheet. if you look back at the spending graph you will see the giant spike in 2009. that was the stimulus.

[elysiantraveller]

the stimulus was not in the budget, but it is on the balance sheet. if you look back at the spending graph you will see the giant spike in 2009. that was the stimulus.

Yes its on the graph... the point I am making is that when we show the public the deficits we have been running we are ignoring that they also took place.

[ArlJim78]

Yes its on the graph... the point I am making is that when we show the public the deficits we have been running we are ignoring that they also took place.
I don't follow you, what is being ignored?
the stimulus is included in the deficit and debt numbers that are commonly bandied about.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't follow you, what is being ignored?
the stimulus is included in the deficit and debt numbers that are commonly bandied about.

Its not shown on any Federal Budget.

[ArlJim78]

right but that doesn't matter when speaking of the deficit number. Bush didn't put the war funding in the budget, it was done with supplemental appropriations, but at the end of the day it was tallied up as an outlay.

the deficit (revenue minus outlays) takes into account all government spending, not only what is budgeted.

[elysiantraveller]

right but that doesn't matter when speaking of the deficit number. Bush didn't put the war funding in the budget, it was done with supplemental appropriations, but at the end of the day it was tallied up as an outlay.

the deficit (revenue minus outlays) takes into account all government spending, not only what is budgeted.

You realize this is semantics don't you? :)

[dartman51]

The Stimulus Is Now Permanent
Free Republic ^ | 4/9/11 | Self (VANITY)

Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2011 7:38:04 AM by Haiku Guy

With the passage of the continued funding at FY2010 levels through the end of the year, the Congress has endorsed the spending of the Stimulus, and incorporated it into the baseline figure for the FY2012 budget.

That is why nobody wanted to produce a FY2011 budget. In 2011, they would have either had to explicitly incorporate the stimulus spending into the budget or pass a baseline budget with a one-year stimulus on top. By not passing a budget, the Congress is able to carry the entire amount of spending forward without having to pass a temporary stimulus package. Now that combined figure will become the basis of the 2012 budget, and we will have stimulus spending forever.

Only problem is, we can't afford it. Things that can't go on forever don't. The trainwreck is coming, and we just passed the last siding last night at 11:30 PM