We Have a Spending Problem

[jonny5]

What State would turn down federal infrastructure dollars?

Lets take a vote and find out.

 

[James972]

Lets take a vote and find out.

obviously you would find out states that give to Washington more than they receive would turn down infrastructure money from Washington. CT for example is about richest state but very liberal so very very in debt and would love not to contribute more to Washington than it gets. Do you understand?

 

[jonny5]

obviously you would find out states that give to Washington more than they receive would turn down infrastructure money from Washington. CT for example is about richest state but very liberal so very very in debt and would love not to contribute more to Washington than it gets. Do you understand?

Of course, but thats not the only reason. Some states simply dont want the federal govt to have such power, and would gladly take the burden on themselves if given the choice.

 

[James972]

Of course, but thats not the only reason. Some states simply dont want the federal govt to have such power, and would gladly take the burden on themselves if given the choice.

liberals subversively promote welfare at every turn. The states buy in, like individuals do, figuring they get more than they give. It should be illegal.

 

[Waddy]

It seems pretty obvious we have a spending problem.

I think we have plenty of revenue to fund a government. It just has to be more efficient...

I come to this conclusion by looking at average tax revenue per capita. I think this statistic is important because it shows how much actual revenue the US government gets per person in comparison to other countries.

In 2015 the U.S. had 14.79k of revenue per person on average. This is actually slightly above the average among the 35 ish countries in this study https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm. And in 2015 we were almost right in the same ballpark as Germany, they got around 15.3k per person.

Countries like the U.K., Canada, Spain, Russia, Italy.... the U.S.A get's quite a bit more revenue per person than any of them.... and some of these have much higher taxes than we do.

Countries that get higher revenue per person are countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark.... and these countries debt to GPD ratio is very high

How come if I'm taxed like a European I don't have the cradle to grave benefits like a European?

 

[James972]

How come if I'm taxed like a European I don't have the cradle to grave benefits like a European?

they just did a simple study in NYC to find they pay 5 times more to dig underground tunnels per mile than in Europe!

 

[James972]

they just did a simple study in NYC to find they pay 5 times more to dig underground tunnels per mile than in Europe!

at one point NYC could pay to build subways now they can't even pay to maintain them

 

[yankintx]

Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.

How dare those starving children expect a free hand out of government cheese !! Thankfully Trump and his elite club have saved enough with the new tax breaks to have their tiolet taps regilted. The horror of tarnished gold !!

 

[James972]

How dare those starving children expect a free hand out of government cheese !! !!

don't be commie please poor kids in America are more likely to be fat than starving

 

[Kushinator]

It did work, except as usual they ****ed it up with spending. We have a spending problem.

Under Bush tax cuts, revenue rose by 200bn prior to recession, Spending rose by 600bn
Under Reagan , revenue rose by 300bn. Spending rose by 500bn

All they had to do was slow down spending, and revenue would have caught up. Same as now. Same as we did under Obama with the sequester.

You are failing to consider the role increased federal expenditures had on revenues. The sequestration reduced government spending and therefore lowered economic growth.

Balancing the budget tomorrow leads to economic depression: true or false?

 

[James972]

The sequestration reduced government spending and therefore lowered economic growth.

reducing govt spending lowers taxes and stimulates private economy. if all we had to do was tax and spend for growth we'd never have economic problems again! Private spending and private inventions got us from stone age to here, not monopoly soviet spending on bubbles that burst. You have learned this 46 times now. Must we go for 47?

 

[VanceMack]

This thread is a crack up. We have a spending problem...and it’s all YOUR fault. ****ing Democrats AND Republicans. There isn’t a dimes difference between them. We DO have a spending problem and it’s BOTH parties fault. Left and right you are all a bunch of toddlers with a blank checkbook and no personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

There isn’t a dimes difference between them.

sure there a huge difference. Republicans try to make deficits illegal and Democrats kill every single effort.

 

[Kushinator]

reducing govt spending lowers taxes and stimulates private economy.

No it does not! You are a liar.

if all we had to do was tax and spend for growth we'd never have economic problems again! Private spending and private inventions got us from stone age to here, not monopoly soviet spending on bubbles that burst. You have learned this 46 times now. Must we go for 47?

I never said we need to tax and spend for growth, but when the economy is emerging from a once in a generation financial crisis, cutting government expenditure is a drag on economic growth. This is simply a matter of fact.

 

[Kushinator]

This thread is a crack up. We have a spending problem...and it’s all YOUR fault. ****ing Democrats AND Republicans. There isn’t a dimes difference between them. We DO have a spending problem and it’s BOTH parties fault. Left and right you are all a bunch of toddlers with a blank checkbook and no personal responsibility.

Thanks for the... um... contribution? :lol:

 

[VanceMack]

Thanks for the... um... contribution? :lol:

Oh you are welcome. And this is the part where you attempt to use charts and graphs to show how republican spending is bad but the Democrat doubling of the entire national debt is a good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

This thread is a crack up. We have a spending problem...and it’s all YOUR fault. ****ing Democrats AND Republicans. There isn’t a dimes difference between them. We DO have a spending problem and it’s BOTH parties fault. Left and right you are all a bunch of toddlers with a blank checkbook and no personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The dilemma is, the right wing prefers to increase warfare-State spending and decrease welfare-State spending.

 

[Kushinator]

Oh you are welcome. And this is the part where you attempt to use charts and graphs to show how republican spending is bad but the Democrat doubling of the entire national debt is a good thing.

I could provide data to substantiate the claim that it's good economic policy for the federal government to fill the output gap... but you wouldn't understand what i'm talking about. But i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt: do you want to know what the output gap actually is?

 

[VanceMack]

I could provide data to substantiate the claim that it's good economic policy for the federal government to fill the output gap... but you wouldn't understand what i'm talking about. But i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt: do you want to know what the output gap actually is?

:lamo

Yep. You can pretend to find a way that 22 trillion and climbing is awesome. But only the GOOD debt.

So yeah...at the end of the day...it’s you...it’s people like you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kushinator]

Yep. You can pretend to find a way that 22 trillion and climbing is awesome. But only the GOOD debt.

$22 trillion you say? That you made it a point to involve yourself in this thread only to claim $22 trillion is nothing less than what is expected of you. By 2020, we will be $22 trillion in debt... but i digress.

So yeah...at the end of the day...it’s you...it’s people like you.

At the end of the day, it's people like you who don't have even the slightest clue but bark as though they have something of value to add to the discussion. Adding debt when there is an output gap is smart economics. Adding debt when there isn't an output gap is risky....

You don't even know what an output gap actually means (let alone why it is risky), so maybe you should consult google. I'll be here if you have any questions.

 

[MTAtech]

The entire premise of this thread, namely, that debt is necessarily bad and the cause of the current debt is too much spending and not insufficient revenue, is fatally flawed.

 

[danielpalos]

The entire premise of this thread, namely, that debt is necessarily bad and the cause of the current debt is too much spending and not insufficient revenue, is fatally flawed.

Too much warfare-State spending and inefficient welfare-State spending, is the problem.

 

[MTAtech]

Too much warfare-State spending and inefficient welfare-State spending, is the problem.

Did you mean warfare or welfare?

If you meant welfare, what is "too much" in your view? Among the advanced countries, the U.S. has the stingiest social safety net. Somehow, other advanced countries, such as Denmark (and, to a lesser extent, Canada,) have a much stronger social safety net than we do. In America, we’re constantly told that we can’t even afford even the safety net we have; strange to say, other rich countries don’t seem to have that problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you mean warfare or welfare?

If you meant welfare, what is "too much" in your view? Among the advanced countries, the U.S. has the stingiest social safety net. Somehow, other advanced countries, such as Denmark (and, to a lesser extent, Canada,) have a much stronger social safety net than we do. In America, we’re constantly told that we can’t even afford even the safety net we have; strange to say, other rich countries don’t seem to have that problem.

Our federal Congress is Only delegated the Power to provide for the common defense and general welfare; not, the common offense and general warfare. Especially during real times of Peace, as indicated by Tax Cut Economics of the right wing. Real times of War, require, real times of war tax rates, and not just, right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[MTAtech]

Our federal Congress is Only delegated the Power to provide for the common defense and general welfare; not, the common offense and general warfare. Especially during real times of Peace, as indicated by Tax Cut Economics of the right wing. Real times of War, require, real times of war tax rates, and not just, right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I'm not sure that I understand your solutions. Are you suggesting that taxes be raised; reduction in defense spending and/or cutting social spending?

My view is that the real problem that America has is income inequality. When we look at countries with a thriving middle-class they are countries that have high taxes on wealth and strong unions that fight for wages and benefits. America used to have strong unions -- and when it did, wages were higher. Since then, wages have lagged the increase in income that goes to the elite.