Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: If we taxed everyone, 99%ers and 1 %ers 100% of their income, the deficit will still increase

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 6, 2012, 4:45 p.m. EST by TheRazor (-329)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If Washington took every red cent of yearly income, rich and poor alike, every single penny, took the crumbs and scraps of the poor and the diamonds and furs of the rich, it still isnt enough.


Paul Ryan argues from facts, all else is garbage, posturing.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

Hmm. Isn't this the guy who said he ran a marathon in less than 3 hours when in fact it was over 4 hours?

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 10 years ago

Yes, that's the Paul Ryan, and the dulled Razor offers no evidence or even a questionable source for his very questionable statement. More mindless propaganda.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

money passes through the government

they pay people out

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 10 years ago

Hmmmm, it sure isn't the guy who claimed to be Indonesian to get help with college, Kenyan to sell a book, and American to screw this country!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

Um, Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, he is of Kenyan descent and he was born in the U.S.A. And, while I'm no apologist for Obama, this country was screwed up long before he took office.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 10 years ago

Yeah, and he sure hasn't taken his hand off the screwdriver, has he?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

Who's zim? Obama is weak, not the same guy he was when he campaigned in 2008. Hmmm. I wonder why? This is not a rhetorical question.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 10 years ago

He's in over his head. Also, not much of a politician. I mean, working within the political system....he is a master campaigner, and that's the extent of his abilities.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

I will never criticize a person for not being much of a politician.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Consider : Sensible comments to 'Right-Wing-Nuts' are like bicycles for fish !!! But you'll still persevere, right ?!! Bravo ! & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=proCHzzH8hM (new), "Man Crawls, Spirit Flies" ~*~

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

Thanks. :)

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Paul Fkn Ryan doesn't know SH!T !!!

Geometrically Increasing Usurious Compound Interest - means that there is NOT (nor can there ever be, as 'New Money Creation = New Debt') ... enough money to pay "The Debt" - nor can this ever happen within our current utterly twisted system of Debt Money Creation !!

Go Get A Fkn Clue --- You're 'TheRazor' but you're not very sharp, are you ?!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

Seems like you and TheRazor are pretty much saying the same thing....that there is NOT enough money to pay "the Debt"....

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

most of the money was created by loans not backed by money

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

BetsyR, Matt has it in a nutshell but I'll be more verbose. 'The(Dull)Razor' thinks 'Randian Ryan' has some grasp of "facts" ; whereas I think Ryan is 0.01%er 'pseudo-Austrian', Neo-feudalist, 'Economics Retard' with his head up his (x) ; his brains in neutral & with a non-human heart (Romulan maybe ?).

Any 'Austrian School Economics' that doesn't reference 'Carl Menger'' is a sort of Cultic Fraud !!! Von Mises, Hayek and onto all the Chicago School, Freidmanite BS - are all a 'weak foundations but huge theoretical super-structure', pseudo-intellectual, house of cards without Carl Menger's ideas about 'sound money' !!

WTF 'Economic Theory' can anyone really have without some critique of "The Theory of Money" ?

J.K.Galbraith (1908-2006) said :

  • “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important a deeper mystery seems only decent.”

Re. "Debt & Money", I'll refer you & any interested readers to these links :

"None of our problems will disappear until we correct the creation, supply and circulation of money. Once the money problem is solved, everything else will fall into place."

Re. what Matt so succinctly said :

Ergo et encore : "Paul Fkn Ryan doesn't know SH!T !!!"

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

"None of our problems will disappear until we correct the creation, supply and circulation of money. Once the money problem is solved, everything else will fall into place."

Which to me, means that "taxing" our way out of this won't work, no matter how much we tax the rich. Correct?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

If you take the creation, supply and circulation of money" to mean taxes, then you are hopelessly tied into a MSM circus.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

If you read the rest of my comments you will see that wasn't my point. My point was that if "NONE" of our problems will disappear until we do those things, then we'd better do them BEFORE do anything else.


[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Nope. Utterly Incorrect. The trend to cut taxation on the richest in society has made the situation - and the deficit - far, far worse. Furthermore, 'taxation' is after the event, as 'money creation' is the case in point. Your comment and question reveal far more than any answer to any question that I could possibly imagine to ask you.

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

You just posted that statement to back up your argument. NONE of our problems will disappear until we correct the creation, supply, and circulation of money.

Taxation applies to the circulation of money between citizens and government-but not the creation and supply of money.

[-] -2 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Whatever BetsyR !!! You mentioned Taxation, NOT I !! I 'posted a statement to back up my own arguments', huh ? Well blow me down ... how utterly outrageous of me & what was I thinking ?!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

So then is your argument about the problem being "the creation, supply and circulation of money" or not? Since you chose that comment to bolster your position, I assumed it was. If it's not, then it seems an odd choice to use.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

BetsyR : You're still desperately trying to fashion a specious 'straw man' argument & pedantically tease out some kind of tendentious 'non point' out of the one phrase in my substantive post which appeared in "quotation" marks ! What does that tell us, I wonder ?!

So, "assume" what you wish as I will forever remain "odd" to you & as you seem to be confused as to what my "argument" is, please re-read my substantive comment and if you are still confused - then so be it , lol.

fiat lux ...

[-] -2 points by Suetorp (-104) 10 years ago

shadz66, I just read this thread and your position is contradictory has BetsyRoos showed. You use one argument, then you use another that conflicts with it. It would be good to clarify your position, you can't have it both ways.

I'll also say that it's sad to see you descend into insulting BetsyRoss after she noted this discrepancy. You should clarify your position, push new arguments, or simply back away from the discussion. There is no reason for you to insult her. She has been polite throughout this thread.

Try to be inclusive rather than divisive.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

'Thr@symaque' : Thanx for your invigilation here (I must be in a good mood - I seldom call you that, lol). Spell out the discrepancy as you see it & please note that I used a quote from the video, "I Want The Earth (+5%)" and I shall do what I can to disabuse you of your (specious) quandary !

Further - you know little to nothing about BetsyR and I or the history of our comments to each other, so your opinions of what I should or should not do, are revelatory in themselves. I'll speak to reactionaries & right-wing-nuts like Bestsy & you in any manner I see fit and for as long as this forum has not been shut down, which as we both know - can NOT be soon enough for you !!

Despite your tenuous, anodyne platitudes - there are limits to 'inclusive' and we all have limited time to do as we must IF we truly believe what we say !!!

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 10 years ago

Further - you know little to nothing about BetsyR and I & the history of our comments to each other

I do not need to know the history of your comments, I was commenting on this thread in particular. All the information is there. BetsyRoss clearly remarked your contradiction. I don't need to remark it again.

I'll keep speaking to right-wing-nuts like Bestsy & you

I'm not right-wing, I'm very far to the left. The fact that you fail to understand this after a year is bewildering. I suggest you read my past comments.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

'T' : So, post factum editing again & re. "I'm not right-wing, I'm very far to the left." ... LOLOLOL !!!

waay too funny for Latin - again ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

'Tr@shy' : NB - 'Subjective Opinion =/= Objective Reason' ! I never would've had you down as not up for a debate or a stand up scrap !! You are really a special sort of Chicken Hawk !!!

Regretting commenting now ? Still can't remember who you are supposed to be when you post from your multitude of monikers ? Such are the woes of being a Dis-info-Troll lol !!

temet nosce ...


[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

The logical next step for the 99%ers is to create locally recognised script(money),and work at collective growing areas in the town commons.

If you don't have a town commons, picket your local authority until they create one for you. It's your right to have one.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

If you build it, they will come. But you know, all of this is pointless. It seems we've got a cash flow problem. And how do you solve a cash flow problem? Well, with cash. Sooo... who's got the money? Does Wells Fargo have the 20 tril we need? What about the Chinese?

Actually I think the combined wealth of the US is at least double our debt, is that correct?

So take it to the source - that's where we're going to get da money. Aside from worldwide depression of default, I don't believe there is any other way.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

you are admiring lyan ryan ???????????? run any marathons lately??????????

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago


The dedicated on Wallstreet used advanced algebra and calculus to get us in this mess.

Arithmetic......You funny guy.

Buy the way, who be getting all of our stuff in your scenario?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

no, just compound interest and fees

the market wants us to believe that the common people can't understand economics

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

The derivatives and it's attendant markets are what I'm talking about.

That's where they bet all that simple compound interest.

I read somewhere, that the formula for the modern derivatives market was written by some layed off physicists.

[-] 2 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

Right...the derivatives market was born under Clinton and blamed on Bush!! Least that's what I got out of Money and Wall St from PBS last year.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Whatever, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

You are the one who brought derivatives up...or at least it was your post concenrning them that I was replying to. Clinton laid the groundwork for the financial collapse. But Bush got the blame. Now, Obama insists all our problems today are Bush's fault. And yes, I realize that has nothng to do with derivatives.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

Uhh, no, they are now attributing most of this to Blythe Masters... I think just did an interview, too, didn't they?

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

Never heard of her, but from my understanding this crap started in the 90's and the removing of Glass Seagal just opened the floodgates. Federal encouragement of sub prime mortgages goes back to the last century, too. You should read about Obama's role in subprime lending back in early 90's. Add 9/11 in and it's no surprise that Bush got taken down the tubes.


[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

Well that's all true but you need to Google Blythe... it seems she was primarily responsible for the creation of derivative swaps... and guess what she does now? Enviro caps... Oh, if I only had a brain.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

Will do.

Are Enviro caps related to carbon credits? Those are as big a joke as Investment tax credits were in the 80's.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

Well, duh... they've been interviewing her. It's interesting, too.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 10 years ago

well, duh...she invented them during the CLINTON YEARS, as I said to begin with! It was during the 90's that financial oversight failed, but it took another decade to see the consequences.

Responsible for the structuring and distribution of credit derivative products at J.P. Morgan, Masters became a managing director at 28, the youngest woman to achieve that status in the firm's history.[5] She is widely credited with creating the modern credit default swap, a form of insurance that protects a lender if a borrower of capital defaults on a loan.[6] In 1994, J.P. Morgan had extended a $4.8 billion credit line to Exxon, which faced the threat of $5 billion in punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A team of J.P. Morgan bankers led by Masters then sold the credit risk from the credit line to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development in order to cut the reserves which J.P. Morgan was required to hold against Exxon's default, thus improving its own balance sheet. J.P. Morgan later bundled together packages of these loans and offered them to market as BISTRO, for Broad Index Secured Trust Offering, and these new financial instruments were quickly adopted by other banking institutions.[6]

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

See? We learn something new everyday. You know it's really kind of funny because behind every published major event is a cast of characters, real people, who seek personal gain, that are hidden from our view by "history."

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

weird science?


My Bad - this is weird science.

Nope maybe this one = Science

[-] -3 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

To the both of you: dumb, dumb, dumb. But not surprising.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Go On ! Bring The Pain !! See above before you do tho' to get an idea of where I'll be coming from !!!

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago


Well then,, You're idiotic, idiotic, idiotic, and more than just a trifle inane.

Now that's a surprise.............:)

So c'mon, who gets all our stuff?

[-] 1 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

Why does the US pay interest?

They should print the interest, so the principle can be paid back.

Restructure the bloody deficit, and pay the banks, China, and Wall Street from the money tree.


There is about $829 billion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation; the majority is held outside the United States.

The Federal Reserve Banks distribute new currency for the U.S. Treasury Department, which prints it.

Depository institutions buy currency from Federal Reserve Banks when they need it to meet customer demand, and they deposit cash at the Fed when they have more than they need to meet customer demand.

As of December 2007, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $829 billion dollars. The amount of cash in circulation has risen rapidly in recent decades and much of the increase has been caused by demand from abroad. The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil

yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58 +L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA


[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Where are you going with this?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

the US needs to retool it's industry

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

You gotta start somewhere. So throw out the Ryan garbage numbers and take whatever we can from his rich masters.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

Some people have too little money. Some have too much. Instead of borrowing from those with too much and paying interest, tax them for it and the interest on the existing debt. Then we can tax them for the principal and instead of borrowing ever again, tax them some more. When the rich have been taxed out of existence, we can consider other ways to get the money we need to live. It will be a while before that becomes a problem.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 10 years ago

Your argument is ridiculous because no one is saying we should tax all or even most of all the money of the top 1%. Its about fairness. If we keep giving all of the tax breaks to the people that don't need them while telling middle class and poor that they need to be apart of "shared sacrifice". When really shared sacrifice means everyone else sacrifices while the rich get richer and we further create a system that is rigged for the top.

Hence the huge income inequality problem we have in this country and its getting worse.

So yes it is arithmetic. And Paul Ryan's arithmetic doesn't add up at all.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

50% of the people in this country-basically lower middle class and poor-pay NOTHING in Federal Income Tax and a great many of them receive tax credits over and above so they get a "refund" bigger than any tax they actually had deducted during the year.

So....how "fair" is it that a small percentage of the population pays the overwhelming majority of taxes collected while the rest pay little or nothing at all?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Because taxes on the wealthy comes at the expense of luxuries. Higher taxes on the working poor comes at the expense of basic neccessities. Although I think we might agree, that it would be great if the poor and working poor had the economic means to pay Federal taxes. Sadly the wealthy are really put-upon because of these economic circumstances.

But when the so-called wealthy job creators outsource more jobs to China, taking advantage of slave wages, at the expense of paying a living wage to US workers, and keep most of those gains, I guess that's what happens. Maybe the wealthy should take a look at their own role in these circumstances if they don't like paying what they may see as an unfair proportion in taxes.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

The "rich" and those others who DO pay Federal Taxes provide ALL of the Federal Income that is then redistributed to pay for all the things the government DOES give to the poor along with everything else. That makes perfect sense.

What does NOT make perfect sense is that OUR GOVERNMENT-no matter which party is in charge- does NOT spend ALL of that money improving life for American citizens across the board, and especially on behalf of our poor-. They ALSO spend BILLIONS of it on-

luxury travel, vacations, conventions, meetings and conferences for themselves.salaries and bonuses for themselves projects and deals that really don't benefit anyone but were promised to those who voted for themparties and entertaining visiting other rich people security while they golf, shop, vacation, and go to lunch.limousines and drivers *other people to write and coordinate their paperwork and legislation for them etc

MAYBE...just MAYBE what the "rich" and the people who see things differently from you are FURIOUS that the TRILLIONS of dollars being funneled into the government are being used for "stuff" that should absolutely ONLY be paid for AFTER the "basic necessities" of each person AND community are seen to AND if there is a SURPLUS left over.

You wanting to increase tax revenues without putting limits in place on what the government can and cannot do with it FIRST, is like wanting to give more money to a crack addict because he spent all his rent and grocery money on drugs and partying. It's THAT stupid to those of us who are NOT rich and want to see CONTROL put in place before one more dime moves to Washington.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I appreciate your frustration. But the only problem with the starve the beast strategy is that it will fall heaviest and hardest on the most underprivleged and most vulnerable in society. Those in the most need of help and government assistance, will be hurt the most. Those people that have little voice in government. Not the corporate tax dodgers, not the wealthy that take advantage of tax loopholes, offshore their money, skirting the intent of tax laws, not other wealthy interest groups that have money and power in government and get lots of economic favors through that wealth and power. That's the real crack addiction. The corruption that is built into the political system. It's not poor people or the working poor who are corrupting the system. But your starve the beast mentality will fall most heavily upon them. And if you think that is the right thing to do, I feel sorry for you.

And there certainly are limits to what the government spends where. It's called Appropriations Bills.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

I'm not talking about starving a beast. I'm talking about making the beast feed the starving FIRST. If the government has limits-why are we in debt?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Why are we in debt. Mostly because of right wing fuckshitup-onomics. Cutting taxes and increasing military spending with no way to pay for it. Voila. Debt explodes. Reagan tripled it. Cut taxes and spent some trillion dollars on missile defense stuff with no way to pay for it. Debt explodes. Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics and raised taxes. His own party destroyed him for it. Clinton raised taxes, ran some surpluses and lowered the debt a bit. Bush Jr. cut taxes again and waged two unnecessary wars with no way to pay for it. Debt explosion by right wing fuckshitup-onomics.

Not much will change in the way government does business until private money is out of politics. By Amendment or another Supreme Court case to challenge money and speech as it relates to the political process. It's a nice thought, to feed the starving first. But it just won't happen. The wealthy get fed first.

Oh and another thing, I don't recall the right wing being all bitchy and moany about the debt when Bush Jr. was in office. In fact they did stuff like raise the debt limit all the time. And how about that Medicare Part D Bill they all voted for. That cost hundreds of billions. There was no rabid dissension about that bill. I don't recall the right wing having a problem with that. And they certainly didn't have a problem with military spending.

Why the sudden all consuming focus on the debt. Like rabid dogs. Where was this right wing debt focus before Pres. Obama took office? The debt has been steadily increasing since Reagan. Nothing has changed. Except the right wing focus on it. Did the right wing just wake up and realize the debt? They didn't notice over the past 35 years?? Now they decide to take note of it? Suddenly attack it like a bunch of rabid animals. I'm just sayin'.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

There were plenty of us "bitching" about the debt when Bush was in office. The fact that YOU didn't know or notice that isnt my fault.

And if the debt that Bush racked up in 8 years pisses you off-then what Obama has racked up in 4 should have you pulling your hair out. But it doesn't for some reason. Why is that?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Because it's bullshit that's why. To start, Federal spending is lower under Pres. Obama than Bush. Even as he saved the auto industry, passed the stimulus plan, and extended unemployment benefits. The debt we're accumulating now is the result of the low growth due to the recession. The lowest tax rates in history, since the Gilded Age 100 years ago. And the cost of two unneccessary, unfunded, wars costing trillions of dollars. We'll be paying for the debt servicing alone on this right wing fiscal clusterfuck for decades.

Guess you should have bitched a little louder. Sorry I missed it. And clearly Bush Jr. didn't hear you either. Because according to the CBO, Clinton left him with projected surpluses. Sadly, he squandered those surpluses. Plus spent more. And cut taxes more. To run up trillions more in debt. So that's called double-triple right wing fuckshitup-onomics.

And now, the right wing wants to reduce the debt on the backs of the poor and working poor. The Tea Party Knuckle-draggers will help them. Because one, they're owned by wealthy donors and corporate interests. Two, they are mostly idiots as evidenced by number one, among other things. Three, they have no idea how to govern. Because they're idiots. The only thing they are capable of is saying 'no' to everything. Like a bunch of petulant 3 year olds. And four, they have the ridiculous simplistic notion that the debt is the only problem with the economy. Because they're knuckle-dragging idiots.

The vast majority of economists say you do not implement harsh austerity measures during a weak jobless recovery. Period. Not to mention how it would negatively impact the other structural problems in the economy. The knuckle-draggers in Congress don't have the brain capacity to comprehend even the most simple of economic principles. Let alone any of the deeper structural problems.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

"Projected surpluses" are a nice term for what ended up not really existing after all:


The necessity of war I'll leave to be determined by those who are experts in such things...are you? Either way, Obama voted FOR all of Bush's war funding requests. So you bitch about his support for it right?

Federal Spending lower under Obama than Bush? How about a little fact checking? : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/politics/fact-checking-obama-and-romney.html?pagewanted=all

"For years up to and through most of George W. Bush’s presidency, federal spending generally totaled about 20 percent or less of the nation’s overall economic output. In Mr. Bush’s final full fiscal year in office, ending Sept. 30, 2008, it rose to 20.8 percent.

The next fiscal year, in which Mr. Bush was president for four months and Mr. Obama for eight, it shot up to 25.2 percent, then dipped to 24.1 percent for each of the next two years, the highest levels since World War II. Of course one reason spending is a larger share of the economy is because the overall economy shrunk during the recession. But even if spending rose starkly during the economic crisis under the presidencies of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, it has remained at the higher level since then under Mr. Obama."

I don't hear you bitching about this...maybe you should do it a little louder.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

The necessity of war I'll leave to be determined by those who are experts in such things...are you? Either way, Obama voted FOR all of Bush's war funding requests. So you bitch about his support for it right?

we would have to have war in order to have experts decide ?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

No. Not what I said or meant.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

You just sent me an article that says the exact same thing that I just said.

'An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office last year showed that of $5.6 trillion in surpluses projected over 10 years when Mr. Bush took office, $1.6 trillion went to the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, or 29 percent. The rest of the anticipated surpluses vanished because of increased spending'.


Every Republican in office adds to spending and keeps cuts taxes. Except Pres. Bush Sr. who rightly called it voodoo economics. That's why the debt.

Government spending - 'it has remained at the higher level since then under Mr. Obama'. This is as a % of GDP. Of course spending is a higher % of GDP when GDP has slowed more quickly than spending can be slowed. That's simple math. There is no sudden massive spending causing this, that isn't related to the recession. The recession persists because of the Party of No. Republican obstructionism since the Pres. day one in office is well documented. The Pres. Jobs Bill last fall, which had lots of right wing programs, programs that Republicans have supported in the past, that many many economists supported and said would lower the unemployment rate to 7%, the Party of No said no. The Republicans in Congress are not governing. They're obstructing for the sake of obstructing. It's complete bullshit. And if you think that is even at all appropriate or productive, you really need help.

Let's leave aside whether the Bush wars were legit or not. Let's pretend they were, for the sake of argument. You don't go to war, spending trillions of dollars and not have a way to pay for it. Nobody does that! It's assinine. If you plan to spend more money, then you have to raise more money.

Remember PAYGO. It was left to expire under Pres. Bush so he could pass the Medicare D program. Because it couldn't pass with the PAYGO rules. It was not paid for. It was additional cost to the government. Net deficit increase. Do I need to point out the obvious here. That unlike the ACA, paid for, net deficit decrease, the Med D program was never paid for. Same thing for the wars. Legit or no. Not paid for. That's the problem.

My point is, PAYGO or no PAYGO, spending needs to be paid for. And it's absurdly naive to think that simply starving the beast comes even close to being a valid solution. It is nothing more than absurd naivete. Other government revenues are already encumbered. Do you have any idea how government spending works? I'm thinking not. Since you already asked the question, 'why are we in debt'. And you are unaware what Appropriations Bills even are. There is very little discretionary spend. New spend needs to be paid for with new revenues or cuts to something else. And you don't pay for things like the military, all the military buildup under Reagan, and then the wars by Bush, we're talking trillions and trillions of dollars, on the backs of the poor and working poor!

Even if you have the very best of intentions, it's absurdly naive to believe that the wealthy will be starved. The wealthy will be fed. Those truly in need - of food! literally! - will be starved.

The starve the beast mentality/Tea Party, however well intended it may have started out, was absurdly naive from the get-go. The Koch Bros. know this. That's why they own the Tea Party now. The Tea Party is just another tool for them.

'Obama voted FOR all of Bush's war funding requests'. If you can't see the difference between being against the Iraq invasion v. funding requests after the invasion of that country, really, I doubt there is anything I can say to explain it to you it's so painfully obvious.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

To do good arithmetic you need honest numbers. The census bureau and bls are a good place to start. The Levy institute will show that the net worth [equity and property free and clear] of all Americans is over 50 Trillion. It was 48T in 2004 and 1% of the people owned more than a third on it. The next 9% had more than 17T. $10.94 trillion was in excess of the first $5M each owned by top 0.999% of American Households. So if we had taxed all Americans (“rich and poor alike, every single penny”) for 100% of their property and everyone got the same $5 Million deduction, we'd have raised $10.94 T when the debt was quite a bit lower than the $15T it is today. And the rich assholes would still have $5M each. Ask Paul Ryan to back up his numbers. “Working Paper No. 502” Edward N. Wolff, 2004 www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

my arithmetic is shown here:


Read more facts: “How Does That Work?” https://www.createspace.com/3852916

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

You made my point, thank you, most appreciated!!!!!!!!

So your math, you are a progressive, your math, says if we took the 11 trillion in wealth of the top dogs, wevstill would not cover the debt.




[-] 2 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

I can't make the willfully ignorant understand that there's much more than $11T to be had from the greedy parasites. But if it was true, it would be a good start. Read what I wrote, not what you want to see.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

And I just told you there isnt more than the $11 trillion. No wonder you are frustrated. You dont know facts, you poor, foolish soul. I pity you.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

Interesting statement. Can you provide a link to the arithmetic?

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

It was in a magazine article, I will try to see if there is a link.

But it isnt hard to conceptualize. Personal income was $9 trillion. The debt is $15 trillion and accelerating. Pay all $9 trillion to debt retirement. (Remember now all personal income is confiscated so on Jan 1,2013 any and all businesses are bankrupt because all PI is gone.) Now there is still $6 trillion in debt remaining but due to the present deficit spending, by year end the debt will be $8 trillion. And all businesses will be bankrupt, no one wil have a cent, because all money went to debt paydown.

Now in more refined terms, debt acceleration is far higher than income growth, FAR higher. If you took all the income of the top 3%, every red cent, Its not enough to dhrink the debt.

The only chance we have is to cut spending and that means entitlements.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

So rate of growth of debt is greater than rate of growth of income. Sounds typical of our play, now pay later attitude toward economics. But let's look at a real solution.

US debt, $15 trillion, US government revenue, $3.8 trillion. It's like a person making $38,000 a year with a credit card debt of $150,000 and growing.

He has three choices. Reduce debt, increase income, or do both. And then how fast to pay it off. Cutting entitlements is not the only option, there are many. The logical place to start is with the fat, not the bone and muscle.

What do you consider the fat, and what do you consider the muscle and bone in the economy? Food stamps? Pork? Welfare? Defense?

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

The acceleration is in entitlements, with 10 people retiring for every one entering the workforce. However specifically addressing your question, ( so rare around here), here is the budget:

Social Security is 22%. Defense is 24% Medicare/Medicaid is 22% Welfare 12% Interest 6% All the rest 12%

Defense can be trimmed. So can welfare.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

There is fat in every sector. The problem is what one group considers fat, another considers muscle and bone.

Cutting defense is like cutting welfare in some ways. The recipients of both have their basic living expenses tied to those spending programs. Deep cuts in both would put both out in the street. Once that happens, spending slows, tax revenue slows, recession deepens. The cure can make the economic health even worse than before. Kind of like chemo or radiation treatment. Not an easy decision.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 10 years ago

If we just cut the "offense" part of the so called defense budget, we would save a lot.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Plesse put a real monetary number on the "offense" part of our D budget.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 10 years ago

I don't know what the amount would be. Stands to reason that stopping wars of aggression, as opposed to only defending ourselves, would save a bundle. Not to mention saving lives.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Thats simply a guess. I will help. The War in Iraq cost $806 billion. It was less than 1% of our GDP.

WW2 was 42% of GDP. Does that help?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 10 years ago

We shouldn't be spending any money on wars where the US is the aggressor. Not to mention lives.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Of course, and you have got us $80 billion per year closer to balancing the budget. Now find another trillion dollars.


[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Wrong forum

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago


I should get some rest

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Welfare could be cut if workers did not need it to subsidize their pay check. Maybe if you add minimum wage increases to all the cuts, you'd be on to something.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 10 years ago

Here is the paper in its entirety


Read the 2nd paragraph page 3. "Raising the top 2 or 3 tax rates CANNOT achieve debt reduction in ANY target years."

Edit: This is a liberal think tank reporting this.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

End the wealthy and corpoRAT entitlements - POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

Can Ya Dig IT?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

You boy Ryan doest come close to reducing the deficit either, so go fuck yourself.

I'm glad that clown show is out of our town. Hurt all downtown businesses, clogged up the cops usual duties, and made everyone late for work. All for a fuckin TV commercial.

Not suprised you are dumb enough to fall for it.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

Well what if we also confiscated all assets above say, 250K? And shut down all branches of Federal government, except for say, the Dept of Defense?