Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By your own charts, receipts in 2003 were 1,780 and in 2009 they were 2,105.
The budget as a percentage of GDP was much smaller in the 50's and 60's and, the rates of increases in spending were nowhere near what they are today.
Oh, so the answer is to raise taxes and jack up spending? Because that is what is being proposed.
By that logic, tax rates will at some point be 100%. Then what?
Oh, so the answer is to raise taxes and jack up spending?
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., abandoned the budget talks Thursday, saying congressional Democrats continued to press for part of the $2.4 trillion in savings to come from fresh revenue, or taxes.
Democratic leaders wanted as much as $400 billion in new taxes on corporations and the nation's richest households, The Washington Post said.
Also walking from the talks was Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., representing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying Republicans would not give in to a Democratic push for new revenues.
Where should the dems cut? Red states obviously.What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
Second, stop taking money from Blue States and giving it to Red States. It's not our fault that Republicans, Rednecks and Conservatives are the laziest people on earth and don't know anything about money. It's not our fault and I'm sick and tired of seeing my tax money fund those people who keep threatening to secede. Let them. Good riddance.
We know that Obama's 1st budget got shot down in the Senate with no votes at all for it. He has not put forth another one, nor has the dems inthe House or the Senate to compare with the House budget. They talk about reducing spending, how are they planning to do that? What do they think can be cut? And what kind of leadership doesn't put up an alternative budget? That's lame guys, really lame.
This is what the American people should be willing to cut from our budget.
I am willing to bite the bullet. I'll give up foreign aid to any and all countries, if they are our friends as they claim they will understand, if not fuck them. The next thing I'm willing to give up is all military bases overseas, close them all. With aircraft carriers today, overseas military operations will happen from foreign bases. I'm willing to take the hit from China, let them retaliate, but we are going to defend ourselves financially by all means. When all those things are done and all foreign handouts have ended then and only then should the American public ever consider eliminating social programs or raise taxes on anyone.
Wipe out the Bush tax cuts and there is no need to cut anything. Then get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we run a surplus.
We know that Obama's 1st budget got shot down in the Senate with no votes at all for it. He has not put forth another one, nor has the dems inthe House or the Senate to compare with the House budget. They talk about reducing spending, how are they planning to do that? What do they think can be cut? And what kind of leadership doesn't put up an alternative budget? That's lame guys, really lame.
While the talks were on hold, a small political party claiming to represent "a synthesis of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties" proposed "a minimal 50-cent transaction fee on all stock trades" as a way of raising money.
"This simple action will generate approximately $300 billion a year," the Light Party said in a statement.
The party, which has headquarters in Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, also proposed "a flat tax on currency movements as proposed by [late] Nobel laureate [economist] James Tobin of Yale University."
"A small levy of 1 percent would have virtually no effect on global capital flow and will generate $3 trillion annually for sustainable international economic development," the party said.
Wipe out the Bush tax cuts and there is no need to cut anything. Then get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we run a surplus.
Really? There wouldn't be enough revenue from taxing people more to balance the budget, not to mention drawing the debt down. But, it makes for a nice sound bite for the aloof.
While the talks were on hold, a small political party claiming to represent "a synthesis of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties" proposed "a minimal 50-cent transaction fee on all stock trades" as a way of raising money.
"This simple action will generate approximately $300 billion a year," the Light Party said in a statement.
The party, which has headquarters in Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, also proposed "a flat tax on currency movements as proposed by [late] Nobel laureate [economist] James Tobin of Yale University."
"A small levy of 1 percent would have virtually no effect on global capital flow and will generate $3 trillion annually for sustainable international economic development," the party said.
3 trillion annually is a lot of capital.
Wipe out the Bush tax cuts and there is no need to cut anything. Then get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we run a surplus.
What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
Second, stop taking money from Blue States and giving it to Red States. It's not our fault that Republicans, Rednecks and Conservatives are the laziest people on earth and don't know anything about money. It's not our fault and I'm sick and tired of seeing my tax money fund those people who keep threatening to secede. Let them. Good riddance.
There's no need to pay down the debt. In fact, since 2/3 of that debt is owed to Americans who are holding bonds as investment vehicles, paying down the debt would actually hurt investors..
Your Boy Obama has increased Discretionary Spending by 26%
Usually when people use numbers to prove their point on this issue....it's using the rosiest of numbers and usually fall far short. That's exactly what the government does when they sell their bills to the American citizen. Take Obamacare for an example....another would be medicare.Wipe out the Bush tax cuts and there is no need to cut anything. Then get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we run a surplus.
Really? There wouldn't be enough revenue from taxing people more to balance the budget, not to mention drawing the debt down. But, it makes for a nice sound bite for the aloof.
There's no need to pay down the debt. In fact, since 2/3 of that debt is owed to Americans who are holding bonds as investment vehicles, paying down the debt would actually hurt investors.
As for the assertion on tax receipts, if we go back to 20% of GDP for tax revenue, that's almost $3T right now, which means the deficit drops to $700B. End the wars and we can get down to, what, $550B in deficit or so. Yes, that's not a surplus, but what a great start to balancing the budget! At that point, you could actually do the rest with minor tax increases if you wanted to.
Your Boy Obama has increased Discretionary Spending by 26%
Inflated numbers are inflated. Your counting the Recovery Act in there, which obviously won't be an every year expense.
There's no need to pay down the debt. In fact, since 2/3 of that debt is owed to Americans who are holding bonds as investment vehicles, paying down the debt would actually hurt investors..
Another person who has no idea what they are talking about. The Truth is one of the Biggest Chunks of the Debt is actually in the form of Government IOU's wrote to the SS "slush" Fund.
That most definitely does need to be paid down.
