View Full Version : Excellent Chart on Govt Revenue vs Expense
Here is an excellent chart which breaks-down revenue vs expenditures:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/30-years-spending-priorities-federal-budget-2012/
This is pure insanity. I think the only way we get in balance is to slash the budget in all areas AND raises taxes. People always talk about one or the other. I think we are the point we need to do both.
As I suggested in another thread, I think we need to slash the "Defense" budget and raise taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, enact tariffs, and close loopholes, along with removing the SS payroll tax cap. What has been done to our government is called "starving the beast" by those who prefer oligarchy to democracy.
As I suggested in another thread, I think we need to slash the "Defense" budget and raise taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, enact tariffs, and close loopholes, along with removing the SS payroll tax cap. What has been done to our government is called "starving the beast" by those who prefer oligarchy to democracy.
amen sister Jane
Actually, it more like preferring a constitutional republic with equal protection under the law rather than a pure democracy or mobocracy where there is no equal protection.
Luckily, we're already the former. The question is, can we remain?
Equal protection under the law if you have the money to pay for the best possible attorneys and if the Supreme Court hasn't been packed with Friends of the Oligarchy. I rather like living in a representative democracy, you know--"One man (sic), one vote," and all. Is that your idea of a "mobocracy?" How tiresome that the rabble can still vote.
What this chart seems to indicate is that no amount of military enfeeblement and new taxes are likely to eliminate the deficit if some way isn't found to control at least the growth in entitlement spending. If we lack the will to do that, a long period of inflation and economic stagnation is coming our way.
I rather like living in a representative democracy, you know--"One man (sic), one vote," and all. Is that your idea of a "mobocracy." How tiresome that the rabble can still vote.
No, my idea of a democracy/mobocracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
No, my idea of a democracy/mobocracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
So it's better that a small minority tramples on individual rights? This is much more the model we have right now.
So it's better that a small minority tramples on individual rights? This is much more the model we have right now.
You'd have to give me an example. Is there a small minority trampling on individual rights?
I mean other than a President who ignores a class of individuals property rights and gives their interest in publicly traded companies to his supporters while a lackey Congress does nothing to stop it. Or perhaps a lackey Congress which thinks it has the authority to force all citizens to purchase a product? Those are a couple of recent examples of a minority mobocracy trampling individual rights in action just off the top of my head.
Of course, I'm only supposing you'd agree that the right to own property and the right of inactivity are individual rights that the government should be protecting.
California is a good example. The Democratic governor wants to allow the people to vote on keeping the tax increases put in place by the former Republican governor. Those tax increases will expire this year. Our current governor wants to keep them for 5 years as part of solving our deficit. Brown has already cut half the deficit by cutting 12 billion in spending and he wants the tax increases to remain in place to avoid having to cut another 12 billion.
The Republican who are in the minority refuse to allow the people to vote on Browns proposal. It takes a 2/3 vote in the legislature to allow the tax initiative to go to the people for a vote. It would take 2 or 3 Republican votes and the Republicans are refusing as a block to do anything. Any Republican that falls out of line will be punched by the party leadership.
The polls show the majority of the people in California are for extending the tax increases.
THE REPUBLICANS IN CALIFORNIA DO NOT KNOW HOW A DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSE TO WORK!!!!
California is a good example. The Democratic governor wants to allow the people to vote on keeping the tax increases put in place by the former Republican governor. Those tax increases will expire this year. Our current governor wants to keep them for 5 years as part of solving our deficit. Brown has already cut half the deficit by cutting 12 billion in spending and he wants the tax increases to remain in place to avoid having to cut another 12 billion.
The Republican who are in the minority refuse to allow the people to vote on Browns proposal. It takes a 2/3 vote in the legislature to allow the tax initiative to go to the people for a vote. It would take 2 or 3 Republican votes and the Republicans are refusing as a block to do anything. Any Republican that falls out of line will be punched by the party leadership.
The polls show the majority of the people in California are for extending the tax increases.
THE REPUBLICANS IN CALIFORNIA DO NOT KNOW HOW A DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSE TO WORK!!!!
It sounds like they're simply representing their districts in a manner expected of them by their constituency. It's not a valid example of a minority or a majority trampling individual rights since "the majority of people in California" have no right to force everyone else to pay more taxes. If they did have that right, it would be a perfect example of a mobocracy.
You'd have to give me an example. Is there a small minority trampling on individual rights?
I mean other than a President who ignores a class of individuals property rights and gives their interest in publicly traded companies to his supporters while a lackey Congress does nothing to stop it. Or perhaps a lackey Congress which thinks it has the authority to force all citizens to purchase a product? Those are a couple of recent examples of a minority mobocracy trampling individual rights in action just off the top of my head.
Of course, I'm only supposing you'd agree that the right to own property and the right of inactivity are individual rights that the government should be protecting.
Your examples are fine. I'm just saying that most (pretty much all?) decisions made in government are not driven by the desires and wants of a majority of citizens but by interests of much smaller groups.
Anyone know what exactly "Income Security" is? For a $546 billion line item that seems vague to me.
Many Republicans voters are also wanting to extend the tax increase. The reason for this is education spending will be cut dramatically throughout the state if another 12 billion is cut from the budget. The programs for the poor have been cut to the bone and the next cuts will be to education which will affect the middle class more than the poor.
Edited to change 12 million to 12 billion.
Your examples are fine. I'm just saying that most (pretty much all?) decisions made in government are not driven by the desires and wants of a majority of citizens but by interests of much smaller groups.
That's true enough, and luckily for the most part they do not infringe on individual rights as they are held sacrosanct in a Republican form of government. Although the recent turn to "pure Democracy" has taken us down a path of moral relativism, empathy and collectivism that has the potential to make individual rights meaningless.
Anyone know what exactly "Income Security" is? For a $546 billion line item that seems vague to me.
I'm not sure either. I'm thinking food stamps and unemployment insurance maybe? That is a very big number.
The Fair Tax is the best solution. Even the National Small Business Association has come on board. Don't listen to other people's criticism of the plan. Read the book The Fair Tax by Neil Bortz. Or go online www.fairtax.org. Or friend the Fair Tax on Facebook and learn all you can. Those who make the effort to learn about the plan support the idea. Including a substantial number of congresspeople.
The Fair Tax is the best solution. Even the National Small Business Association has come on board. Don't listen to other people's criticism of the plan. Read the book The Fair Tax by Neil Bortz. Or go online www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org). Or friend the Fair Tax on Facebook and learn all you can. Those who make the effort to learn about the plan support the idea. Including a substantial number of congresspeople.
I took a look at this and I'm not convinced. They say it will result in an economic boom. There will not be a disincentive to earn income but there will be a disincentive to consume. If consumption is reduced how does that help the economy?
I also think it would be regressive since lower income earners spend a greater percentage of their earnings on consumption, their tax burden would increase. I used the calculator and supposedly I would save a significant amount on my taxes. If I'm saving, who is paying more?
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-11, 1:12am
Many Republicans voters are also wanting to extend the tax increase. The reason for this is education spending will be cut dramatically throughout the state if another 12 billion is cut from the budget. The programs for the poor have been cut to the bone and the next cuts will be to education which will affect the middle class more than the poor.
Edited to change 12 million to 12 billion.
Yea, the spending cuts on higher education will be massive if it doesn't pass. There have already been lots of cuts. The governor was really just trying to split the difference between tax increases and spending cuts via this proposal.
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-11, 1:14am
On the "fair" tax: I did the calculation and I would be paying more (well if I was working :)). As I already take only the standard deduction under the existing system, paying even more was shocking.
Oh I'm willing to spend more to help save some state spending, but not to play tax redistribution games with the tax system.
On the "fair" tax: I did the calculation and I would be paying more (well if I was working http://www.simplelivingforum.net/images/smilies/8834%5B1%5D.gif). As I already take only the standard deduction under the existing system, paying even more was shocking.
Oh I'm willing to spend more to help save some state spending, but not to play tax redistribution games with the tax system.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think the fair tax is a smoke screen. Whom are taxed unfairly now? A lot of people pushing tax simplification are really masking tax redistribution. For example, the flat tax would be a big tax cut for the rich.
Europe has a so called fair tax the VAT tax. Europe kept income tax because the VAT tax was not enough. One very very important thing to remember about the VAT or Fair Tax is it taxes everything. When we buy food in Germany we pay a VAT tax on it not as much as the regular VAT but enough to notice. For a fair tax to be fair you must tax everything and it will hit the poor real hard.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.