Debit Ceiling

sorry J but after a few Dewars I cannot read, too long and no paragraphs

A national debt ceiling is necessary to impose a measure of discipline on a nation.

The debt ceiling is neither artificial nor arbitrary.

The concept is similar to the credit limit a person has on a credit card and represents his credit worthiness. Not having a debt ceiling would be as irresponsible as MasterCard issuing credit cards without a credit limit. The situation is seriously bad enough already, but all hell would break loose without limits.

. . . We will have no option now, but to raise the limit to keep from defaulting, but just as important this country must reduce its spending and find ways to increase revenue.

Why do we even need to have a debt ceiling at all? Why not just do away with the concept of a debt ceiling and just spend what we need to to maintain all the programs, SS, and vetrans benefits and so forth. The debt ceiling is an artificial and arbitrary concept anyway. Originally Posted by Jdriller

. . . We will have no option now, but to raise the limit to keep from defaulting, but just as important this country must reduce its spending and find ways to increase revenue.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Unfortunately, the main way to increase revenue is increased taxes. And since Fox news wont let us call them rich, it looks like the "job creators," who aren't doing that job with the tax cuts, would be the starting point by rescinding the Bush tax cuts.

Unfortunately, the main way to increase revenue is increased taxes. And since Fox news wont let us call them rich, it looks like the "job creators," who aren't doing that job with the tax cuts, would be the starting point by rescinding the Bush tax cuts. Originally Posted by surcher

It's not a Fox News thing, it's an economics thing...

The President tells the American people that the "wealthy" are not paying their fair share, when the 1% of the highest-earning Americans are paying over 40% of the taxes. He refers to them as "millionaires and billionaires", while pushing the tax rate onto those making $250,000. Only in a progressive's mind can 250,000 = 1,000,000. Many of those in the $250,000 - $999,000 category are small business owners, and much of that "income" is business income, but under S Corp rules, is declared as personal income. So, if your President is going to raise my taxes, I have to find a way to pay for it. I will look out into the parking lot for the car with the Obama '08 sticker and you are unemployed. Maybe that was the real reason for Cash for Clunkers - to get the cars with Obama stickers off the street?

Taxes are NOT the main way to increase revenues, and there is another little White House lie. A 1% increase in the GDP will do more to relieve the debt than the President's tax. And how do we do that? By letting the "millionaires and billionaires" do what they do best: grow their businesses. But in poll after poll, business owners are sitting on their cash reserves, not growing and not hiring people, because this administration keeps putting new regulations and laws in their way. They will sit it out until the next administration takes over. Maybe Ayn Rand had it right.

No, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you totally on this issue.

Increasing taxes now is like taking blood from a sick patient.

The way to increase revenue is to increase productivity and kill off some of the sacred cows that are sucking up way too much money.

The Defense program for one is way too expensive as are the Bush tax cuts that you mentioned.

The elective and unfunded wars that the imbecile Bush got this country into have the drained the country billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the most idiotic wars since the Viet Nam fiasco,

. . . but don't get me started because it still makes my blood boil!

Unfortunately, the main way to increase revenue is increased taxes. And since Fox news wont let us call them rich, it looks like the "job creators," who aren't doing that job with the tax cuts, would be the starting point by rescinding the Bush tax cuts. Originally Posted by surcher

I was wondering....how much has government spending increased in the last 3 years?
How much have revenues collected either increased or decreased in the last 3 years?
What are the projections for spending by the government in the next 5 years vs. revenues? As to spending increases over the last 3 years....what are we spending those increases on (that are truely increases from the previous budgets prior to 3 years ago)? Are we spending more on the "wars" now than when Bush was in office even though we a "winding" down and getting out? Are we collecting less in tax revenues? How did the debt crisis come about?

The highest tax rate is 40%. But if anyone thinks anyone pays this then you are a fool. It starts at 40% then your accountant and your scheming, legal scheming, drops it lower. If your a profitable corporation with many many accountants on the payroll not only can you reduce the % to zero but you can even get billions in REFUNDS. Then there are other corporations that are so cheap they really dont want to pay for 100 accountants so they move corporate offices offshore so the profits dont even show up.

The only people that really pay the closest to the percentage that their income SUGGESTS they should pay according to the IRS, are the middle class that has between zero and 1 accountant.

My question relates to totals over the last 3 or 4 years in collection and spending and the trends in each. Has nothing to do with who pays what taxes.

Suits me!!! Originally Posted by TexTushHog

While we're at it, why not do away with a budget!?! Seemed to work for Pelosi.

/ostrich
//Dem new party symbol

My question relates to totals over the last 3 or 4 years in collection and spending and the trends in each. Has nothing to do with who pays what taxes. Originally Posted by Jdriller

Here's about the best site i could find.

One thing to notice - in constant dollars (the middle column), receipts typically increase about 50% per decade, give or take, with the exception of the 70's. From 2000 to 2010, revenues in constant dollars decreased by about 18% (by my calculations). Decreased. Every other decade they're going up by 50%, and in the Bush/Obama decade, they've gone down by 18%. Hell, we're back in '97/'98 territory.

First, the tax cuts didn't work. And i don't care how many so called rich people want to come here and tell me low taxes on the rich are paramount to creating jobs. Sorry. Scoreboard.

And second, the people who want to claim we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem - they can suck it too.

and there is another little White House lie. A 1% increase in the GDP will do more to relieve the debt than the President's tax. And how do we do that? By letting the "millionaires and billionaires" do what they do best: grow their businesses. But in poll after poll, business owners are sitting on their cash reserves, not growing and not hiring people, because this administration keeps putting new regulations and laws in their way. They will sit it out until the next administration takes over. Maybe Ayn Rand had it right. Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

and here is another lie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om4AgcRQJSs

Revenue in spending difference
2008 4.7 trillion 5.3 trillion .6 trillion
2009 3.7 trillion 5.9 trillion 2.2 trillion
2010 4.2 trillion 5.8 trillion 1.6 trillion
2011 4.5 trillion 6.2 trillion 1.7 trillion
2012 5.1 trillion 6.1 trillion 1 trillion
Source http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Obviously 2012 are estimates only, and data from 2011 is incomplete and therefore estimated
The numbers at least in regards to revenue for 2009 were probably due to the severe recession
But, revenues in 2008 were nearly the same as 2011 (4.7 vrs 4.5 trillion) while spending rose from 5.3 trillion to 6.2 trillion or about 15-16%. What this tells me is that revenue with the exception of 2009 has remained relatively constant while spending has soared. Seems to me that a cut in spending of about 1 trillion per year would take care of the debt problem. Sure, some tax loop holes, especially in regards to corporate taxes should be closed or limited to increase revenues. But, if spending is reduced by 1 trillion per year or 10 trillion over the next 10 years there will be no debt problem. So far the highest spending cuts being realistically tossed about are in the 4 trillion range over 10 years. The numbers say that won’t be enough. So, where do we cut spending?

What this tells me is that revenue with the exception of 2009 has remained relatively constant while spending has soared. Seems to me that a cut in spending blah blah blah Originally Posted by Jdriller

Revenues are not supposed to remain "relatively constant". What part of that didn't sink register?

I doubt that anyone really has a good sense of what a trillion dollars is.

However, to put that amount in perspective, consider this.

Suppose that on the day you were born you made one million dollars or to make it more likely, say your rich uncle gave you one million dollars and put it in the bank in your name.

Then say that every day from then on you made another million dollars or were given one million dollars.

So then assuming you are making $1,000,000.00 every day from the day of your birth until today:

How much money would you have today?

. . . Go ahead and do the math, but I can tell you now that the amount as huge as it would be would be at that rate of accumulation would still not even be close to a trillion dollars!

I heard it said that any compromise in this "dept ceiling" debate is akin to the little kid giving in to the playground bully when he demands your lunch money. He will keep coming back for more, untill you grow large enough to teach him the error of his ways.

In the last election, the kid finally grew big enough, and now the playground bully is crying foul.