Thanks Souix.

The question is, would government spending in the 30's have been as effective without WWII?

Deficits are caused by spending more money than you are collecting in taxes. I think another way to look at this is that by lowering tax rates there was a huge influx of cash to the treasury in the 80's and congress raised spending. Until we deal with spending and our baseline budgeting techniques, all of the taxes in the work won't make much difference.

Richard, it's my understanding that the US recovery had begun well before WWII.

Personally, I would like to know where the Y-intercept is on the Laffer Curve.

Ummmm...please quit revising history, Richard. Ronnie had to raise taxes 11 times after his 1981 tax cuts....he didn't like doing that, but he knew that the deficit caused by his tax cuts was spiralling out of control.

And, regarding your 1930s myth that the economy was saved by WWII.....WWII was paid for in the 1950s by progressive Republicans who resided over the largest tax rates ever imposed on the citizenry.

Taxes are good. We need to pay for the defense of our country and to help the less fortunate.

I stand corrected.

In Ron's defense, he wanted spending cuts to go with his tax cuts, but congress would not work with him on them. At least he wasn't quite as delusional as our current politicians who have made lowering taxes and increasing spending something that you do every couple years.

Both the President and the Republicans are proposing laughably small spending cuts because they're not looking at the real problems: Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. Until somebody gets the nerve to make the tough decisions on those (and probably raise income taxes and gas taxes) we're not getting out of the hole. Unfortunately, no politician is going to want to do something that unpopular until it's an absolute disaster, not to mention that it won't be good for the economy, which is still not doing well.

In Ron's defense, he wanted spending cuts to go with his tax cuts,

He wanted spending cuts in social programs. He was responsible for huge increases in military spending. Typical of most politicians, he was fiscally conservative when it came to the other party's priorities.

That's true, but they did have that cold war thing going on which was a real threat to the country world (as opposed to terrorism). Reagan did rack up a big deficit, but he's small potatoes compared to Bush II and Obama.

One of our biggest problems now is that we're acting like the cold war is still going on.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (2/17/2011)]

Yes, we do act like the Cold War is going on. You have to give credit to the military and the defense contractors...by spreading defense spending across the country instead of concentrated areas, it is virtually impossible for politicians to make any serious cuts. Which is why Republicans speak in generalities such as "We want to cut 20% from every agency's budget" instead of details, for example: "The Acme Widget Factory in Lalaland, California makes widgets for planes we haven't needed in 20 years. Lets eliminate funding for that factory and 10,000 jobs in the process."

Think John Boehner's extra unwanted engine.

I thought about hashing out the same old Reagan/Clinton/Bushonomics argument we've had at least a dozen times before. But it's all the same.

We really only need to look at the direction we're headed today.

In FY2007, the budget was 2.7T.

Obama's proposed FY2012 budget is 3.7T.

And revenue keeps declining. Someone needs to pull the fire alarm. We're coming to a point of no return. Who we want to blame for the past is pretty irrelevant at this point.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (2/17/2011)]

One place we can start cutting is foreign aid, and we can start with
MEXICO.

I don't think turning our next door neighbor into an even bigger armpit than it already is will pay off for the US. Foreign aid is not nothing, but it's another one of those skinny sections of the pie chart.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (2/18/2011)]

Rick,

Are you forgetting about Bush's 12 billion dollar a month war that was not included in his budget, but was funded by emergency spending measures?

Thanks souix, I was just going to post that exact point.

Yeah, good thing we're not doing that anymore.

And revenue keeps declining. Someone needs to pull the fire alarm.

Maybe we need to raise taxes.

Hear, hear.

Heh... now that we've raised spending 35% in 4 years, time for America to tighten the belt.

Except for me. Raise taxes on everyone but me. That's the solution.

I'm becoming convinced that something like the Deficit Commission proposal is going to have to be used, some tax increases, some cuts, all as a package.

Souix, I think your 12 Billion a month is probably a little high. But there was at least $130 million or so budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan that year. So I don't think your statement holds water.

But even if it did, go ahead and tack on an extra 140 billion to the 2.7 Trillion that year. Does it change my point?

We're spending like drunken sailors.

Rick,

http://costofwar.com/en/

Do you think that the lost tax revenue from the 6.3 million people who are out of work and the cost for extended unemployment benefits and other social safety net programs might figure into the equation?

Then add in the lost revenue from the tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and the lost revenue from corporations who set up sham headquarter in overseas countries to avoid paying taxes.

Oh and please include the $125 billion per year in corporate welfare that these companies receive and that includes big oil.

The Republicans are cutting the budget on the backs of the people who need the most help.

Do you think that the lost tax revenue from the 6.3 million people who are out of work

Irrelevant, we're talking spending, not revenue.

and the cost for extended unemployment benefits and other social safety net programs might figure into the equation?

Maybe a small contributor. Likely not that significant.

Then add in the lost revenue from the tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and the lost revenue from corporations who set up sham headquarter in overseas countries to avoid paying taxes.

Oh and please include the $125 billion per year in corporate welfare that these companies receive and that includes big oil.

The Republicans are cutting the budget on the backs of the people who need the most help.

Here you just threw out all the time-tested talking points you had in the tool box, completely unrelated to what we're talking about. I'm talking about the difference between spending in 2007 and today. You're just handing out tired memes. Big Oil! Corporations! Overseas! All have nothing to do with runaway federal spending, which needs to be controlled.

I'll pay more taxes. How about a national property tax? $5 a property...no matter how big or small. How much revenue would that generate per year? Developed or undeveloped. Inhabited or not...I wonder how many deeds are in the US? $5 a pop???? If you owned a lot of different properties, you could end up paying more. But if this tax cost you 1,000's of dollars, well then your rich enough to pay it.

Rick,

And revenue keeps declining. Someone needs to pull the fire alarm. We're coming to a point of no return.

But Souix, you keep pointing to things that are essentially unchanged since 2007, other than possibly unemployment.

My point was about how we're spending alot more than we were just 4 years ago, with no end in site.

Is the solution to chant the same chants we were chanting 4 years ago? The point is we're heading the wrong direction.

Muley, no offense but $5 per property wouldn't net you a drop in the ocean. Even if you figure a property for every man, woman, and child (likely impossible) in the US, you'd see maybe 1.5 billion out of the deal. Not counting all the regulatory overhead that would bring. Or about 3% of what Obama just recently proposed spending on new high speed rail.

Is the solution to chant the same chants we were chanting 4 years ago? The point is we're heading the wrong direction.

I keep bringing them up, because they are still valid points. Why should we be giving business money when they cheat American out of taxes? And the rich should not be getting a huge tax break. They should want to pay back some of their good fortune that they made using the infrastructure in the US.

Cut the Dept of Defense budget.

Bolshevism!!! Heresy!!! Where's my fainting couch - Rick's already purloined all the pearls, so I have nary a one to clutch in the face of such an uncivilized refudiation of the Holy Saint Ronnie and all that He gave his life for.

Start up the mines again.

Can anyone tell me what the corporate tax rate is in Canada?

Not sure, but I hear they have excellent medical coverage for their citizens.

The just lowered it to 16.5% (from 18)

But you're telling me our corporations are robbing us blind when they pay 35%.

I'm not saying there aren't loopholes, but if we didn't have loopholes for them to work through, they'd all leave the country. If you want to close those loopholes, you have to lower the rate. Competitiveness is everything.

If the corporations were taxed less...they would make more profit. Plain and simple...doesn't mean they'd start sharing their profits with their employees or go out and build new factories...No, old Slick Willy took care of that when he signed NAFTA. It's a global village now...or did you forget?

4 stages of Captialism:

1. Produce at home, consume abroad
2. Produce at home, consume at home
3. Produce abroad, consume at home****our current stage
4. Produce abroad, consume abroad

We are heading to towards stage 4 fast. After all the good production jobs are gone in this country (and they almost all are), why (if you're rich) would you want to stay here? When unemployment starts pushing 20%, and your armed guards are costing you an arm and a leg to protect your mansion on the hill...better to go somewhere where the social strife ain't so bad...Montenegro?