Spending raises itself, as anyone familiar with modern budget history knows; the problem is when revenues are unnecessarily and unwisely cut, which then upsets the balance of increases in revenue tracking increases in spending.
It's kind of like a man working a full time job who is barely making enough money to pay his bills suddenly deciding to switch to part time employment. Democrats would say the man is an irresponsible fool, while Tea Party Republicans will applaud him and tell everyone that in order to balance his new budget situation he only needs to quit feeding and clothing one of his children.
LMFAO... that's classic... Please say that more often...
Spending raises itself... just ignore the $100B/yr from Medicare Part D (at curret rates), just ignore the $700B TARP, just ignore the $800B ARRA, just ignore the tax breaks created by Obama, just ignore the extension of unemployment benefits, just ignore the extension of COBRA benefits, just ignore the $100B/yr for the ACA (at current rates), etc... These things just happen on their own...
Yes, inflation if unchecked can raise nominal dollar amounts, but spending doesn't just raise itself... There are increases in mandatory spending program costs... but you have the ability to adjust them with better management (something which is of dire importance to the next administration)...
We didnt go from spending $2.7T to spending $3.8T "by itself"...
The debt cieling didn't raise "itself" 5 times under Obama to accompany the massive increase in debt, either...
Plus that whiny spiel about revenues not being there causing the problem... It doesn't match the facts of the situation... Revenue is about where it's been... Spending is the thing that is elevated at the moment...
Spending has typically been about 20% of our GDP... Revenue has unfortunately trailed at around 18%... ATM we've been spending between 25-27%, and getting about 16% in revenue... So revenue dropped 2%, but spending went up 5-7%... They've both contributed to the problem, but spending is the bigger concern, as it's grown faster, and the mandatory spending programs, one of the major contributors are bound to be going up in the future... whereas, revenues would naturally increase if the economy improves...
More specifically, with the nominal values...
In 2007 spending was at $2.7T, revenue was at it's highest at $2.5T ...
In 2008 spending was $2.7T again, revenue was at $2.5T and two years in a row staying level
In 2009, Bush submitted another $2.7T budget, but Obama raised it to $3.1T, and revenue dropped to $2T
In 2010, Obama submitted a budget of $3.6T, and revenue recovered somewhat to $2.1T
In 2011, Obama submitted a budget of $3.8T, and revenue is projected to be $2.3T
In 2012, Obama submitted a budget of $3.7T, and revenue is projected to be $2.6T
In 2013, Obama submitted a budget of $3.8T, and revenue is projected to be $2.9T
So... revenues have recovered, and are expected to spike... spending hasn't recovered, its increase diminished, but its height has remained lofty...
We need to reign in spending far more more than we need to increase revenue... I agree we need to bring revenue up, but not at the expense of a drastic lifting of tax rates... and I don't think tax rate increases should be used to justify the expenses of unwise spending increases...
Piss poor analogy, too, btw...
It's more like the two separate people trying to buy a car...
Democrats say, we should buy this really expensive car, saying it will help us in the long run... because it will stop our CO2 emissions... It doesn't matter that we just had to take a pay cut... we can just take out a loan (without realizing they can't afford to pay it off)... then they'd take out a higher interest loan to pay for the other loan to avoid getting it reposessed... Then they'd say, well if the government would help us out we'd be able to afford this, and if it wasn't for those rich people we could afford this car... everyone should be able to buy the top model car... rich people should give us some of their money to be able to buy them...
Republicans will say... you know, we could get by with a decent used car that costs much less with the money we have now, and we wouldnt have to take out a loan to pay for it... until we get more money, then we can use it as a trade in for the downpayment on a better car... without having to pay the interest...
As an independent party... ATM, with that line of reasoning... The Republicans have the better sense of spending approach...
