It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
There's no telling how much it cost to get Obamacare passed. Printing costs, alone, probably ran into the millions.
How Speed Traders Are Changing Wall Street - 60 Minutes - CBS News
(CBS) It may surprise you to learn that most of the stock trades in the U.S. are no longer being made by human beings, but by robot computers capable of buying and selling thousands of different securities in the time it takes you to blink an eye.
These supercomputers - which actually decide which stocks to buy and sell - are operating on highly secret instructions programmed into them by math wizards who may or may not know anything about the value of the companies that are being traded.
Well, thanks for proving my point. Your tax receipt numbers were way off. From your site, which I also use a lot, that's why I was questioning your receipts by year by the way. Guess you just can't learn a lot.Grow the economy and the numbers increase. BEA.gov will give you the breakdown of revenue and expenses as they were spent, so does the U.S. Treasury site. The numbers I gave you came from bea.gov because captures history in a form that even you can understand. Go to bea.gov, go to Gross Domestic Product, click on most frequently requested tables and go to revenue and expense. You will learn a lot there.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Federal Tax Receipts by year:
2000 - $2.085 Billion
2001 - $2.048 Billion
2002 - $1.885 Billion
2003 - $1.907 Billion
2004 - $2.039 Billion
2005 - $2.315 Billion
2006 - $2.552 Billion
2007 - $2.681 Billion
2008 - $2.531 Billion
2009 - $2.227 Billion
These numbers are nowhere near where you had posted previously. And less than is expected for 2011 by the way ($2.589 Billion).
There is no historical evidence that reduced taxes increases net revenues from tax receipts. Even a conservative foundation admits this:
The Tax Foundation - Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts
Myth on the Right: The Bush tax cuts caused revenues to go up.
Republican spokespeople and other tax-cut enthusiasts have asserted that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 actually increased revenue. They often point to rising revenues from 2004 through 2007 following the tax cuts in May 2003. Unfortunately, as any Economics 101 student will tell you, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yes, revenue did rise, but we have to answer the question: Would it have risen anyway?
We can never be absolutely sure how the economy would have reacted if the tax cut legislation had failed for some reason in 2001 and 2003, but the consensus among experts is that the economy would have grown in the mid-2000s with or without the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts had no feedback effect at allópeople reported more taxable income than they would haveóbut those beneficial effects were not so great that the tax cuts could have "paid for themselves."
The most damaging result of this myth is that Republican lawmakers feel less pressure to propose spending cuts. Why bother when cutting a tax rate will raise more revenue?We also have to pay interest on our current debt, so you need to add another $250 Billion or so.Not really, VA is about 100 billion a year, Defense should be about 750 billion aa year, Justice should be about 50 billion a year. The total expenses of what the Constitution requires is about 1.8 billion dollars.
So, you think Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid should not be government programs? If so, fine, but the states will have to fund them then so federal taxes will go down but state taxes will go up, a lot if they are to be funded properly.
That's fine, but as I proved above you are using the wrong numbers.Please name for me one projection or prediction that Obama Wh has made that has beena accurate. I will take the Treasury data any day, that is the bank account of the nation
What are you trying to point out here? I've said above that Medicaid outlays by the federal government are not being properly funded. So, I guess we agree.We have a law on the books called unfunded mandates. The states get help from the Federal Govt. on mandated programs by the Federal Govt. Many states are going to opt out of Medicaid if the Federal Govt. keeps sending down mandates without the money to fund them long term.
Again, you are reiterating my points from previous posts. The Federal government does pay into Medicaid programs, but does not have the related revenue from tax receipts to fund those payments.Right, but it is funded by your withholding taxes as a line item on your paystub. That money goes to the state not the Federal govt.