Poll: American Still Want Lots of Stuff for Free, and Not to Have It Taken Away
A new Wall Street Journal poll finds that a majority of the public does not want steep entitlement cuts.
Well, of course not! That’s why they aren’t happening.
Look: our system is fundamentally flawed. It’s time we realized it. The flaw is structural. We have voters voting for what they want, coupled with endless borrowing so that there is no mechanism to make them pay for it — either through spending cuts, taxes, or whatever it takes.
It’s as if you put the children in charge of what happens in a household, by declaring that the children get to vote for which parent they like best — with the understanding that no goodies or leniency ever carries any cost. So the parents compete to see who can give the kids the most candy, let them stay up the latest, etc.
It’s no way to run a household and no way to run a country.
If we don’t pass something structural to address the issue, like a strong balanced budget amendment, we’re doomed.
As Ross Perot used to say: it’s that simple, folks.
doomedy doomedy doomed doomed! And so fast.
It’s like on the tv when they want to show the passage of time they show a clock with the hands whirring around in a blurry blurry blur.
Please to hold on tight and keep your hands inside the vehicle!
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:47 pmeveryone says – ok mostly Team R everyones just at the moment – they all say the #1 best tip is to stock up on the canned goods and the ammunitions.
This is probably ok advice but it’s definitely not the #1 best tip. But that’s ok. Because of you are my friends I will share with you the #1 best tip so you will be forewarned and also forearmed: Don’t be conspicuous.
You’re welcome.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:51 pmIMO, the entitlement state is so entrenched, that we’ll never be able to go back to a limited form of government without an all-out war of American Civil War proportions.
The Tea Party idea won’t ever get anywhere unless it turns violent…and, even then, I believe that all it would do would, or could do is to slow down the ever-enroaching socialistic state, not get rid of it.
IOW…we’re screwed, no matter what.
Dave Surls (3fc11b) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:55 pmThe polls are stupid unless they are conditioned on the assumption that something absolutely positively has to be cut to pare the deficits – here are the choices – and even then, most people don’t think you are serious.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:05 pmJust take a look at California, Illinois and other troubled states. Nobody got serious about cutting anything. Illinois just raised taxes by 67% instead of cutting spending! Go Team D!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:08 pmThey worked with the laziest sample, adults not registered or likely voters, and then they kneeded
narciso (bf58f6) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:12 pmit into a pie. of their choosing.
There’s a simple solution, but I don’t expect much support for it on this blog. It’s one I’ve maintained for 25 years or more: anyone who takes more from the public treasury than they put in should not have the right to vote. That includes welfare recipients, public servants, government contractors, and, yes, servicemen, policemen, firemen, and Assistant District Attorneys. Anyone whose personal interest is in higher government expenditures, and therefore in higher taxes.
It used to be that such people were so small a percentage of the public that it didn’t matter if they were allowed to vote; their private interest couldn’t outweigh the interests of the vast majority. But now they constitute majorities in many seats, and that’s the root of all our problems.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:20 pm#7
I totally support that.
Welfare recipents and government employees shouldn’t be allowed to vote, while they’re recieving welfare and/or working for the government.
Too much of a temptation to vote for what gets you more money (or power, or whatever), instead of voting for what is good overall.
I don’t know if that would really work for the best or not, but I think it’s worth trying.
Dave Surls (3fc11b) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:56 pmWe’re scroomed.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:39 pmIt used to be that such people were so small a percentage of the public that it didn’t matter if they were allowed to vote; their private interest couldn’t outweigh the interests of the vast majority. But now they constitute majorities in many seats, and that’s the root of all our problems.
Comment by Milhouse
That was/is the intent of Cloward/Piven, Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Barach Obama and the Dempcratic Party, yes?
MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:43 pm________________________________________
The flaw is structural.
The following quote is attributed to a European historian and professor from over 200 years ago. Whoever really did say it, and if his observation really is from several generations in the past, he was quite on target about the pitfalls of human nature:
I continue to have a suspicion that the United States “jumped the shark” and forever lost if not its innocence, then something intrinsically reassuring or reliable about it back in November 2008—ie, when sort of a symbol of “Goddamn America” entered the scene.
Mark (411533) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:48 pmMark at 11 – I believe the first part (at least) of what yu wrote is from Toqueville (sp?).
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:05 pmOf course the toil of the people is the only thing that creates capital. All we’re arguing about is who reaps the rewards, the people who work or the government that doesn’t.
One thing that always amuses me is leftys never recognize corporations are collectives. I have no idea why they are so entranced by the dictatorship, but it seems to make them happy despite the consequences of their desire.
Ag80 (efea1d) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:16 pm1) The term you are searching for is “bread and circuses”. The Founding Fathers knew of it, and designed the system to deal with it. We’ve allowed the players to game the system, and it does need to be “fixed”, I grant. Mainly by returning to principles.
2) I don’t trust polls. Especially ones put forth by media conglomerates of ANY persuasion.
3) More on your BBA suggestion in a moment.
No, they aren’t happening because we don’t have enough power to ram them past the idiot opposition yet… combined with the fact that we’re still figuring out which of the assholes we just elected are RINOs.
This problem wasn’t made overnight — it’s not going to be solved overnight, either — and no, it’s not going to be fixed in a single election cycle.
It’s going to take action and intent by both the legislature AND the executive branch, followed by open support from the judicial branch.
===============
As far as the futility of any BBA — look, as long as the governments — state, local, federal — are not held to the same degree of accounting standards that private organizations are held, any BBA is not only a waste of time, it’s utterly useless in every regard.
I mean, come on — just Google “New York State” and “Attica Prison”, for crying out loud.
————————————————————————————————
New York State has a balanced budget amendment.
————————————————————————————————
It didn’t stop them one whit from spending money they *didn’t* have.
Got that?
Not a single dollar.
Governments need to be held to nearly the exact same GAAP requirements that any business is held to. Nothing less will do.
There are probably some “sealed envelope” entries required for national security purposes, but for the most part, the government’s books should be just as open and available as any corporation’s, and required to follow the same rules.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:07 pm“Poll: American Still Want Lots of Stuff for Free, and Not to Have It Taken Away”
Not free. People have social security and medicare taxes deducted from they pay check through out their lives and expect to get something for their money when they get older.
dnbf6752rth (074a09) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:24 pmIs anyone calling for those people to not get what they had taken from them, dnbfb827355? Or, did you just feel like slaughtering a straw person?
JD (855f87) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:34 pm“It didn’t stop them one whit from spending money they *didn’t* have.”
Igot – Just like Granny McRictusBotoxFace’s famous PayGo policy which got continuously waived!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:37 pm“Popcorn Lickerish Candy Pops all freee today”
The Tea Party will save us, rest assured…
But Seriously, go back to Bush – the private sector is where its at, the GWB plans were the best fit for the country, more or less inflation proof and keeps somewhat down the vote buying schemes for entitlements that has gotten us to the precipice we find ourselves at
EricPWJohnson (569da1) — 3/3/2011 @ 1:02 amSo, tax increases, right? Maybe on the 1% of folks who earned 9% on income in 1970 and now make 24%? Like Willie Dixon said about banks….
Or, maybe a defense department whose budget was not more than the rest of the world combined?
Or, [sigh], let me guess, tax cuts for the rich and old people not having Social Security and the poor not having medical care. Good to know the answer to the “structural problem” has changed since it was tax cuts to get rid of the surplus
timb (8f04c0) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:23 amSo good to have you back. For a time, the level of disingenuous arguments, reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem attacks, and general dickishness had dropped to manageable levels….
Because the guy with the funny name is crazy to think when Patterico is lamenting a lack of will to gut entitlements by claiming there’s a structural weakness in the system he means cutting entitlements. That’s just a CRAZY assumption.
What the hell else could it mean?
I don’t stick around much for the jeers of Patterico’s choir, but, man, it was a much better place when you were pouting in your corner.
timb (8f04c0) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:29 amtimb
What the heck are you talking about and last time you tried to “out” JD talking about his persona life – his business
No one wants to hear it, ever, JD calls names, but doesnt mean his life or his work has any less meaning than anyone elses. Your descriptive comments last time should have gotten you banned
EricPWJohnson (569da1) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:42 amentitlements are for loser morons what look at the farcical incompetence of our cowardly and inept government and say yup I’ll stake my health and future on these guys sounds good to me
Good luck with that.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:44 am5.Just take a look at California, Illinois and other troubled states..
Uh, you left Texas with its $27 billion deficit off your list. Just an oversight, I guess.
Why don’t the Republicans rush out there and campaign on cutting Medicare and Social Security? That’s a sure winner. Last November, old folks voted heavily Republican. Was that because they are demanding “entitlement reform”, or was it because maybe the Republicans demagogued the $500 billion in spending reductions in Medicare in the health care act? You know, “kill Granny” and all that stuff.
You got yourselves into this fix, now let’s see what you do to get out of it. The GOP promised balanced budgets and huge spending cuts. Problem is, most people think you can take care of it all by doing away with foreign aid and earmarks. They also think all that “out of control spending” goes to a bunch of welfare queens. They think that because that’s what the GOP has told them for over 30 years now.
Good luck.
DB (394615) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:47 amTexas has no deficit – it’s not allowed to – no matter what the Princess Vanderbilt network says
voila! No deficit. And with 10 billion left in the bank!
Good job, guys.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/3/2011 @ 5:51 amOn your way to work, happy, try to count the poor kids without health insurance, while Bob Perry goes without a tax increase.
Oh, and enjoy that graduation rate which ranks less than 45th in the country. Nice third world country you ‘re making down there.
timb (449046) — 3/3/2011 @ 6:34 amNo, that’s empirically proven not to work. Over the past 60 years, tax revenues have only rarely exceeded 18% of GDP, irrespective of the tax rates.
Therefore, you can raise taxes on any sector of the public you want, and you still won’t bring in any more than about 18% of the GDP.
We’re really left with only two options: cut spending or increase the GDP. A plan involving both would likely be most successful. Tax revenues will rise with a rising GDP.
Some chump (e84e27) — 3/3/2011 @ 6:39 amJohnson, I have no idea what you are talking about. He tends to be rather sensitive about….well, everything and I have no idea what actual work he does (except for what he told me on a different blog. In fact, everything I know about JD comes from him and his posting on PW, here, and at a tiny blog he and I used to frequent).
As for “outing” people, one of his friends, a nasty cuss named serr8d attempted to post the server information from where I visited his website and JD had no trouble immediately running over here and accusing me of working for a “bus bench firm.”
Still, it’s nice to see you are trying to weasel your way back into the good graces of the commertariat. Good luck with that plan.
timb (449046) — 3/3/2011 @ 6:41 amSome guy
wrong
peep the chart
http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF
Revenues are in the 20%+ range and have approached 30% in the very recent past. That’s what happens, when some one listens to Paul Ryan and thinks he’s being honest.
timb (449046) — 3/3/2011 @ 6:48 amI got numbers that disagree with you
Go argue with the guy who collected them.
Some chump (e84e27) — 3/3/2011 @ 6:57 amI want personal observations about other commenters’ personal lives to end, now. That includes timb, Kman, and anyone else — and no responding in kind. I will start summarily deleting comments from this point forward.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/3/2011 @ 7:02 amFederal tax revenue by year
GDP by year
Year Revenue GDP
1950 39.4 293.7 13.4%
1951 51.6 339.3 15.2%
1952 66.2 358.3 18.5%
1953 69.6 379.3 18.3%
1954 69.7 380.4 18.3%
1955 65.5 414.7 15.8%
1956 74.6 437.4 17.1%
1957 80 461.1 17.3%
1958 79.6 467.2 17.0%
1959 79.2 506.6 15.6%
1960 92.5 526.4 17.6%
1961 94.4 544.8 17.3%
1962 99.7 585.7 17.0%
1963 106.6 617.8 17.3%
1964 112.6 663.6 17.0%
1965 116.8 719.1 16.2%
1966 130.8 787.7 16.6%
1967 148.8 832.4 17.9%
1968 154 909.8 16.9%
1969 186.9 984.4 19.0%
1970 192.8 1038.3 18.6%
1971 187.1 1126.8 16.6%
1972 207.3 1237.9 16.7%
1973 230.8 1382.3 16.7%
1974 263.4 1499.5 17.6%
1975 279.1 1637.7 17.0%
1976 298.1 1824.6 16.3%
1977 355.6 2030.1 17.5%
1978 399.6 2293.8 17.4%
1979 463.3 2562.2 18.1%
1980 517.1 2788.1 18.5%
1981 599.3 3126.8 19.2%
1982 617.8 3253.2 19.0%
1983 600.6 3534.6 17.0%
1984 666.4 3930.9 17.0%
1985 734 4217.5 17.4%
1986 769.2 4460.1 17.2%
1987 854.3 4736.4 18.0%
1988 909.2 5100.4 17.8%
1989 991.1 5482.1 18.1%
1990 1032 5800.5 17.8%
1991 1055 5992.1 17.6%
1992 1091.2 6342.3 17.2%
1993 1154.3 6667.4 17.3%
1994 1258.6 7085.2 17.8%
1995 1351.8 7414.7 18.2%
1996 1453.1 7838.5 18.5%
1997 1579.2 8332.4 19.0%
1998 1721.7 8793.5 19.6%
1999 1827.5 9353.5 19.5%
2000 2025.2 9951.5 20.4%
2001 1991.1 10286.2 19.4%
2002 1853.1 10642.3 17.4%
2003 1782.3 11421.1 15.6%
2004 1880.1 11867.8 15.8%
2005 2153.6 12638.4 17.0%
2006 2406.9 13398.9 18.0%
2007 2568 14061.8 18.3%
2008 2524 14369.1 17.6%
2009 2105 14119 14.9%
Timb, care to admit I was right?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 7:41 amRats, the formatting on the figures came out wrong
Year Revenue GDP Percentage of GDP
1950 39.4 293.7 13.4%
1951 51.6 339.3 15.2%
1952 66.2 358.3 18.5%
1953 69.6 379.3 18.3%
1954 69.7 380.4 18.3%
1955 65.5 414.7 15.8%
1956 74.6 437.4 17.1%
1957 80.0 461.1 17.3%
1958 79.6 467.2 17.0%
1959 79.2 506.6 15.6%
1960 92.5 526.4 17.6%
1961 94.4 544.8 17.3%
1962 99.7 585.7 17.0%
1963 106.6 617.8 17.3%
1964 112.6 663.6 17.0%
1965 116.8 719.1 16.2%
1966 130.8 787.7 16.6%
1967 148.8 832.4 17.9%
1968 154.0 909.8 16.9%
1969 186.9 984.4 19.0%
1970 192.8 1038.3 18.6%
1971 187.1 1126.8 16.6%
1972 207.3 1237.9 16.7%
1973 230.8 1382.3 16.7%
1974 263.4 1499.5 17.6%
1975 279.1 1637.7 17.0%
1976 298.1 1824.6 16.3%
1977 355.6 2030.1 17.5%
1978 399.6 2293.8 17.4%
1979 463.3 2562.2 18.1%
1980 517.1 2788.1 18.5%
1981 599.3 3126.8 19.2%
1982 617.8 3253.2 19.0%
1983 600.6 3534.6 17.0%
1984 666.4 3930.9 17.0%
1985 734.0 4217.5 17.4%
1986 769.2 4460.1 17.2%
1987 854.3 4736.4 18.0%
1988 909.2 5100.4 17.8%
1989 991.1 5482.1 18.1%
1990 1032.0 5800.5 17.8%
1991 1055.0 5992.1 17.6%
1992 1091.2 6342.3 17.2%
1993 1154.3 6667.4 17.3%
1994 1258.6 7085.2 17.8%
1995 1351.8 7414.7 18.2%
1996 1453.1 7838.5 18.5%
1997 1579.2 8332.4 19.0%
1998 1721.7 8793.5 19.6%
1999 1827.5 9353.5 19.5%
2000 2025.2 9951.5 20.4%
2001 1991.1 10286.2 19.4%
2002 1853.1 10642.3 17.4%
2003 1782.3 11421.1 15.6%
2004 1880.1 11867.8 15.8%
2005 2153.6 12638.4 17.0%
2006 2406.9 13398.9 18.0%
2007 2568.0 14061.8 18.3%
2008 2524.0 14369.1 17.6%
2009 2105.0 14119.0 14.9%
Timb, you’ll note that I didn’t get the numbers from Paul Ryan.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 7:51 amOh, bloody hell. Formatting looks bad no matter what. Pat or Aaron, please feel free to delete my second post of numbers, and I apologize for wasting so much space.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 7:52 amTimb, you didn’t read your own chart. The blue line is what I was talking about: federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Even on the chart you linked, it rarely exceeds 18%.
QED
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:22 amWell, if you actually look at the chart you linked to, Some Chump is correct. He is talking about Federal government taxes and spending versus GDP. You shifted to taxes and spending from all levels of government – clearly not the topic at hand.
in_awe (44fed5) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:22 amSadly, there is no such thing as a “strong” balanced budget amendment – it has to involve projections, which can be gamed, and whatever can be passed can be unpassed or evaded. The only way to cut spending is to cut spending, not to hold a gun to your own head and claim you’ve solved the problem.
Mahon (42e313) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:40 am“So, tax increases, right?”
No, eliminating government programs, right!
Government spending now accounts for over 40% of GDP. A hundred years ago it was less than 10%…and even then it was too much.
If we keep going the way we’re going, we’e going to wind up like the old Roman Empire or the Soviet Union, with an all powerful government that controls everything and screws everyone.
There’s only one road to freedom and prosperity, and that’s the road of limited government.
Socialism, no matter what guise it takes (the Roman Welfare state, German National Socialism, Soviet style communism) always results in the same things: Poverty, tyranny and oppression.
There are no exceptions. It ALWAYS works that way in the long run.
Dave Surls (6a2c64) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:57 am“So, tax increases, right? Maybe on the 1% of folks who earned 9% on income in 1970 and now make 24%?”
timb – Do you want to make success illegal?
Equal Misery For All!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/3/2011 @ 10:16 amDaley
I wonder how many of the other 99% percent owe their jobs to the top 1%
30% 40%?
EricPWJohnson (967261) — 3/3/2011 @ 10:25 amtimb – Here is a nice piece from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 which really illustrates the idiocy of your class warfare rants. The wealthy in the U.S. already pay a higher share of tax receipts than other developed nations, but you want to squeeze more. Why, because an even more skewed distribution looks somehow fair to you. Sooper thinking there sport.
“Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already “progressive” with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He’d also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won’t come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/3/2011 @ 10:31 amIOW – It’s the spending stoopid!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/3/2011 @ 10:32 amSeriously, Patterico, you just now realized that people enjoy benefits, but hate paying taxes for them?
Did this just happen, or hasn’t this been the human reality since, oh, forever?
What we need is leadership, but what we have are politicians.
The Democrats have been playing the part of the Santa Claus Party- i.e. “spending pays for itself- it increases consumption, which increases employment, which increases tax revenue.”
Magic! Infinite spending, therefore, will yield infinite revenue!
The Republicans since 1980 have been playing the part of the Double Santa Claus Party- i.e., “tax cuts plus massive (military) spending will pay for themselves- they increase investment, which increases employment, which increases revenue.”
Magic! Cutting tax rates to zero will therefore yield infinite revenue!
Trouble with these arguments of course is that they both work, but only in limited and sometimes inconsistent ways-
certain spending programs actually can produce greater revenue- think of harbors or highways that create more productive shipping and trucking industries;
And certain tax cuts can actually stimulate investment, and yield greater revenue.
But what is called for is cautious and pragmatic, and mostof all FLEXIBLE policies, sometimes raising this tax, sometimes cutting; sometimes raising spending, other times cutting.
What we get is religious dogma, where taxes are always bad, spending is always good, or vice versa.
Liberty60 (bd6581) — 3/3/2011 @ 1:23 pmIt was nice of the resident leftists to show how fundamentally unserious they are about the financial situation we are facing, and how they will demagogue any attempts to fix it. Apparently they went to the Michael Moore school of economics and class envy/warfare.
JD (0d2ffc) — 3/3/2011 @ 1:40 pmTimb sure got quiet today.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:00 pmFact free trolls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:07 pmTimb wasn’t quite fact-free. He had facts…just not the right ones. I can’t tell whether he was being deliberately dishonest about what his chart said, or was just too stupid to know what the lines represented. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there really isn’t much of a middle ground there.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:17 pmNo reason to give timb the benefit of any doubt, he’s that dishonest and that dumb.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:50 pmSPQR and Some Chump – The problem is that timb and his ilk just don’t understand economics or taxes.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:57 pm__________________________________________
I believe the first part (at least) of what yu wrote is from Toqueville (sp?).
It’s actually attributed to someone from Scotland named Alexander Tytler, although I recall one website listed the quote as coming from Thomas Jefferson.
try to count the poor kids without health insurance, while Bob Perry goes without a tax increase.
Oh, and enjoy that graduation rate which ranks less than 45th in the country. Nice third world country you ‘re making down there.
Oh, brother. I always laugh when a liberal, certainly one who is living at a time decades following the notorious mindset of the “war on poverty,” is crying about poor people. Shedding tears after this society has witnessed endless years of unfettered illegal immigration, massive funding to the public-education establishment, and the ongoing dysfunction of urban/inner-city America.
It’s easy to be so naive and idealistic — and foolish — when one can get in a car, load up the moving van, and drive away (ie, be the epitome of a limousine liberal—and a person doesn’t have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of two-faced, disingenuous behavior).
Mark (411533) — 3/3/2011 @ 4:08 pmI think it had to do with the whole “Deja Moo” (“Hey, I’ve heard this BS before!”) aspect of the idea that ObamaCare, unlike all the other government programs which preceded it, would bring down the price of Jack, or his Excremental Friend… Which failure is really odd, considering the vast expansion of governmentally-produced bovine excrement that occurred. Usually a supply expansion of that vast a magnitude would have prices for excrement plummeting…
Leave it to the Dems to manage to keep the price of BS rising completely unchecked.
Uh, tim, hate to tell you, but that explosion of feathers just over your shoulder was your parrot getting shot by a 12-gauge:
iowahawk Destroys Krugman and The Economist … No Joke
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:49 pmDoesn’t really qualify as a “School” except under the New Obama Edumacation Guidelines. By most historic standards this qualifies only as an “extended bullsh** session”… one lasting, oh, seven or eight years so far.
Liberty, what you claim is pretty seriously disingenuous. The Laffer curve is the result of not one single curve but TWO curves, producing a trough.
There is an optimal level of tax cuts which maximize tax revenues. To increase OR decrease them from this optimal point is to lower revenues.
The GOP generally appears to have no “lower limit” because for pretty much the entire time since well before Reagan took office, the US Federal Tax curve has been entirely on the PLUS side of that trough.
And this HAS been borne out by the simple fact that EACH time that taxes have been cut, tax revenues have gone UP.
…Which drives the tax-more-spend-more crowd just absolutely apesh** bonkers.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:57 pmThis is more like the Peter Venkman school, ‘pretend I don’t know anything about physics, metallurgy, et al’
narciso (bcb6cc) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:08 pm“Over the past 60 years, tax revenues have only rarely exceeded 18% of GDP, irrespective of the tax rates.”
That’s just the feds though. Total revenues at all levels of government is about 35%.
And, of course, they’re spending more than they take in, and they’re borrowing hand over fist to make up the difference.
Actual government spending at all levels was 36% of GDP when Bush II left office, and it’s projected to go to 42%, thanks to the antics of Obambi and friends.
We’re headed for full blown socialism in this country…and, we’re heading there quick. 100 years ago government spending accounted for less than 10% of GDP (8.3% in 1911), now it’s over 40%.
Government basically owns out asses at this point. They take about half the money we make…and, it’s going to get a lot worse in the years to come.
We needed to put a stop to this crap decades ago. If we don’t drive the socialists out of power RIGHT NOW…we’re totally screwed.
Dave Surls (b3b17e) — 3/4/2011 @ 3:57 pmleaving aside the fact you are empirically incorrect re the need for entitlement cuts, I am amused by your characterization of American voters as “children”.
cm (71fac9) — 3/5/2011 @ 5:59 pmYou right wingers are constantly attacking liberals as “elitists” who contemptously think they know better than “regular” Americans. But is there anything more elitist and contemptuous of your “regular” Americans then scolding them as “children”?