Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

[mudwhistle]

America, where republicans whine all day about government spending but refuse to do it to the bloated stuff they like. The sequestration cuts will not even put us back to 2005 spending levels yet for some we are gutting the military.

Cutting a trillion dollars out of the military budget will erase the military numb-nuts.

The current budget is $671 billion.

Budget 2012: Defense Department
By Walter Pincus

The president's proposed fiscal 2012 budget requests $553 billion for the Defense Department's base spending and another $118 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq for a total of $671 billion.

While the base budget would rise $22 billion above the fiscal 2010 figure expected to be available this year, the funds for Iraq and Afghanistan would drop by $41 billion from the $159 billion expected for this year. That would put the proposed overall fiscal 2012 figure almost $20 billion under overall defense spending for the current year. 44 - Budget 2012: Defense Department

Sequestration cuts defense by $500 billion part of $1.2 trillion in cuts.

Here is the chart I have been looking at, doesn't look all that disastrous to me.

30 Defense Spending Chart United States 2005-2017 - Federal State Local Data

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

 

[4Horsemen]

"Taxing the Rich" is just a play on words and Obama knew that, and that's how he won re-election.

Because even his dumbass knows that if you tax the rich outta existence there will be no jobs to be had.

 

[boedicca]

Revenues went up when Clinton raised taxes.

Clinton lowered the Capital Gains tax rate from 28% to 20%.

Well if that's the optimum rate then you shouldn't object to seeing it go back up to 20% in 2013.

Where did I say that was The Optimal Rate? The fact is Clinton lowered rates by over 25%.

What is Obama doing? Increasing the rate by 33% and then adding the 3.8% Obamacaretax, which results in an increase of over 50% on capital gains. With a shrinking labor force because people have quit looking for work due to lack of jobs.

That's really going to work well for his Jobs Agenda.

 

[boedicca]

No, actually, adjusted for inflation they did not. Revenues were lower than the 2000 revenues in 6 of the 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Do you remember the dotcom crash in 2000?

Do you remember 9/11?

Do you remember the 2001 recession?

Really, some historical perspective wouldn't hurt you.

I merely pointed out that the people who keep claiming that Bush's tax cuts increased revenues are wrong.

You're wrong:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[mudwhistle]

No, actually, adjusted for inflation they did not. Revenues were lower than the 2000 revenues in 6 of the 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Do you remember the dotcom crash in 2000?

Do you remember 9/11?

Do you remember the 2001 recession?

Really, some historical perspective wouldn't hurt you.

I merely pointed out that the people who keep claiming that Bush's tax cuts increased revenues are wrong.

In 2003 total revenues were $3.5 trillion.

After the Bush Tax Cuts revenues went up every year till 2007 when they were $5.2 trillion.

Then the Dems took back Congress and revenues dropped to $4.7 in 2008.

In 2009 revenues dropped to $3.7 trillion.


What happen?

Job losses from Democrat policies.


Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States for 2009 - Charts Tables

 

[boedicca]

Lack of economic growth is very bad for tax receipts.

Just sayin'.

 

[occupied]

Cutting a trillion dollars out of the military budget will erase the military numb-nuts.

The current budget is $671 billion.



Sequestration cuts defense by $500 billion part of $1.2 trillion in cuts.

Here is the chart I have been looking at, doesn't look all that disastrous to me.

30 Defense Spending Chart United States 2005-2017 - Federal State Local Data

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

 

[boedicca]

Here is the chart I have been looking at, doesn't look all that disastrous to me.

30 Defense Spending Chart United States 2005-2017 - Federal State Local Data

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

Trending Defense Spending is going to help you, bub.

In 1962, 49% of federal outlays went to Defense and 31% to Entitlements. In 2012, those ratios are 18% and 62% respectively.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

 

[occupied]

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

Trending Defense Spending is going to help you, bub.

In 1962, 49% of federal outlays went to Defense and 31% to Entitlements. In 2012, those ratios are 18% and 62% respectively.

Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Don't give me a heritage link to even prove water is wet, I was thoughtfully looking for a link that we all could believe. Those people have been dead wrong on so many economic policy projections that I cannot believe anyone gives them the time of day.

 

[Wiseacre]

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

Trending Defense Spending is going to help you, bub.

In 1962, 49% of federal outlays went to Defense and 31% to Entitlements. In 2012, those ratios are 18% and 62% respectively.

Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Don't give me a heritage link to even prove water is wet, I was thoughtfully looking for a link that we all could believe. Those people have been dead wrong on so many economic policy projections that I cannot believe anyone gives them the time of day.

Heritage's numbers come from the Office of Management and Budget.

 

[boedicca]

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

Trending Defense Spending is going to help you, bub.

In 1962, 49% of federal outlays went to Defense and 31% to Entitlements. In 2012, those ratios are 18% and 62% respectively.

Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Don't give me a heritage link to even prove water is wet, I was thoughtfully looking for a link that we all could believe. Those people have been dead wrong on so many economic policy projections that I cannot believe anyone gives them the time of day.

It's just data. Go to the White House and look it up.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[mudwhistle]

Here is the chart I have been looking at, doesn't look all that disastrous to me.

30 Defense Spending Chart United States 2005-2017 - Federal State Local Data

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

The military budget is less than what you want to cut so I would assume that would turn out to be pretty fucken severe.

 

[boedicca]

Trending Defense Spending is going to help you, bub.

In 1962, 49% of federal outlays went to Defense and 31% to Entitlements. In 2012, those ratios are 18% and 62% respectively.

Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Don't give me a heritage link to even prove water is wet, I was thoughtfully looking for a link that we all could believe. Those people have been dead wrong on so many economic policy projections that I cannot believe anyone gives them the time of day.

Heritage's numbers come from the Office of Management and Budget.

Math is So Hard for the Moonbats. Give him a break.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats see the same numbers that Republicans do and for some reason they get a totally different result.

 

[occupied]

Your chart doesn't include sequestration because it was never intended to become law.

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

The military budget is less than what you want to cut so I would assume that would turn out to be pretty fucken severe.

I never even suggested cuts that massive, I was hoping you would go back and read rather than keep on attacking me for such a ludicrous thing as cutting the defense budget by a trillion. If you are interested read back or you can just take my word for it that I suggested cutting them to 2005 levels as a kind of half-assed challenge to Rabbi who wanted to cut the federal budget to 2005 levels which happens to be a bigger cut than the sequestration cuts. edit: and an overall one year cut of a trillion dollars to the entire federal budget.

 

[Wiseacre]

Why don't we just cap spending increases to 3% year over year. Overruns from one year have to count against the next year. Maybe that would force the gov't to use our money more wisely and effectively.

 

[occupied]

Why don't we just cap spending increases to 3% year over year. Overruns from one year have to count against the next year. Maybe that would force the gov't to use our money more wisely and effectively.

That's as terrible an idea as a balanced budget amendment, tying their hands could be a disaster if something big happens, or conversely, useless if they write in enough escape hatches to prevent tying their hands.

 

[boedicca]

Why don't we just cap spending increases to 3% year over year. Overruns from one year have to count against the next year. Maybe that would force the gov't to use our money more wisely and effectively.

That doesn't go far enough. It allows government to continue wasteful and inefficient programs. Federal spending should be reduced from the current 24-25% of GDP to 18%. We need to freeze and then reduce spending, combined with tax and regulatory reform that takes the favor selling out of politics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

Agreed.

Just as reducing their taxes is equally pointless.

 

[boedicca]

Keeping tax rates the same is not a tax reduction.

Just sayin'.