<p>Just to throw in a few pieces of data. In 1980, Carters’ last year,the defense budget was 4.9 % of GDP, in 2008 it will be 4.2 %. The interest on the debt was 1.9 percent of GDP and this year will be 1.7 % ,and health and welfare spending was 11.5 % of GDP and this year will be 13%. The inflation adjusted budget deficit is about the same this year as back then.</p>
<p>Spending on defense has been up to 90% of GDP during WWII, in the teens during Korea, about 11 percent during Vietnam and the Johnson years but has gone up and down through the years. Health and welfare (SS, Medicare and medicaid etc) have risen constantly since the big programs began in the Johnson years. Although considered a big military spender SS went up during Reagans time because they changed the indexing from CPI of wages if I am remembering correctly.
No administration has really dealt well with this 2000 lb gorilla in the room. Any of the proposed health care intiatives by most of the candidates and the ss proposals by one in particular do not stop the outlay growth in these areas and in fact could stifle gorwth and just hurt revenues even more.</p>
<p>I think the underlying problem is pretty clear. We’re paying hundreds of billions of dollars of interest each year on the debt run up by Reagan, Bush and Bush - for no reason other than to exponentially benefit the wealthiest of us, as evidenced by the actual, documented redistribution of wealth and income upward during that time period - and as a result even trying to balance the current budget is sabotaged by the Republican policies of the past 30 years, in plain and irrefutable fact. Those three Republican administrations have more than doubled the national debt as a share of the GDP (and rising) and all we have to show for that is that the rich are further separated from the middle class each year.</p>
<p>And still the true believers trot out the shopworn cliches of the past, as if the bald facts can simply be drowned out through repetition of the catchphrases and buzzwords that have been drilled into their heads over and over throughout the years. (Well, obviously they can, for some.)</p>
<p>Oldolddad - when Carter left office in 1981 the national debt was 32.1% of the GDP. Reagan and BushI pushed it into the mid-60’s, Clinton reduced it to the high 50’s by the time he left office, and under BushII we’re now in the high 60’s and headed up, according to his most recent budget. Carter had no control over interest rates, which drove the interest payments of his Administration. But a President has a whole lot of control over the overall balancing of the budget - and the Republicans have done a great job of maxing out our national credit card.</p>
<p>You ignore the fact that tax reciepts as a percent of GDP are about average and that tax reciepts have gone up at a reasonable rate throughout the last 30 years. Tell me where any of the administation have addressed the growth in entitlements and the growing issue with it. Did Clinton? By the way he also had a congress under him that did have impact on controlling the budget .The way last I saw about half the population paid pays no federal income taxes. Upper income folks (and I am not one of them) pay more than their share of the taxes. If you want to propose cutting the growth of SS and Medicare and bringing down defense spending over time I will join you.</p>
<p>I don’t want to touch SS. We have overfunded it since its inception. If we have to get some money from the general fund to pay SS, why not? We can overfund it for over 60 years, we can underfund it too. Future costs under SS can be handled.</p>
<p>Medicare is a real problem.</p>
<p>I would cut defense spending by an incredible amount. Probably more than most would like.</p>
<p>I heard a similar report on the radio this morning–the national debt rising under Reagan and even more so under Bush.</p>
<p>It is a huge myth that Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. They just spend the money on different things. And I guess guns cost more than butter.</p>
Okay, let’s dissect just how Oldolddad has had the wool pulled over his eyes.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Tax receipts same percent of GDP? Nope - you have to go back to the 1950’s to find a presidential administration with overall tax receipts as small as portion of the GDP as during the current Administration.</p></li>
<li><p>Tax receipts gone up at a reasonable rate. Nope. See 1. The only reasonable measure of tax revenues from different periods is as a percentage of GDP. Tax revenues have fallen as a percentage of GDP. 19.6 in Carter’s last year; 19.4 average during the Clinton Administration, 17.7 average during the BushII era. </p></li>
<li><p>“Half the population pays no income taxes.” The top 50% of taxpayers receive 87% of the income. The bottom half of all taxpayers (including my three kids) pays 3% of all income taxes - but pay a much higher proportion of their income in taxes overall than do more affluent taxpayers. The average income tax rate of the top 1% of all earners (average income - $1 Million per year) is just 23%. So, no. Upper income folks don’t pay “more than their share” - they pay less of their income than anyone else. It’s just that they have so much more income relative to everyone else than the top earners did in the past.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You know, after a few months following these types of posts, all I can hope for is to get some credits for ECON 101 or some other Poly Sci class. Never too old to learn. :)</p>
<p>At this rate, I should be able to earn my second Bachelor’s by the time my third child gets ready to pick a school. Now we just need to get CC accredited! :)</p>
<p>Assuming you’re correct, isn’t that a very powerful incentive for everyone at the “bottom half of all taxpayers” to get into the top half of all taxpayers? </p>
<p>Put another way, and asked with all sincerity, what’s keeping the bottom half from doing what it takes to get into a ‘higher’ tax bracket? Is anyone/anything keeping the “bottom half of all taxpayers” from achieving this goal?</p>
<p>As you consider the provocative questions also consider this:</p>
<p>The average income tax rate of the top 1% of all earners (average income - $1 Million per year) is just 23%.</p>
<p>Sounds so easy until you figure that’s $230,000 in taxes from the money you earned probably working your butt off.
And the bulk of those “taxes” paid by the lower income are for SS and Medicare which they will get back with interest more or less. Even the poor black people Mini likes to cite for paying his mom’s SS. Hooey.</p>
<p>You know, barrons, there’s a reason that on the TV reality show “The Biggest Loser” that the competitors are competing each week based on the PERCENTAGE of weight they lose. If you take a guy who is 350 pounds and a guy who is 220 pounds, and they both lose 10 pounds one week, well it was a lot more difficult for the guy who weighed 220 pounds. It’s relative. If NBC can get it right, I think our government can. Maybe we can contract out with them to give us a plan for what’s right.</p>
<p>Yeah, it most definitely is hard to see $230,000 of your hard-earned money go to taxes, but all you have to do is look at the remaining $770,000 and the $770,000 that will probably be coming next year and the next… and well, count your blessings.</p>
<p>When I want to make money I do. These last few years I’m coasting to retirement but to make good money I had to work 60 hours/week with no goofing around. I vividly remember being so stressed I wanted to vomit many days. That;s why I had to take a year off. Our guys that are younger and making $500K and up are working all the time. To make that you have to bill $1,000,000. That’s about 4 deals a week and each one should take about 20 hours hard work to analyze and report. So by that I mean 6am-10pm plus weekends. My boss works all the time. Except Sunday for church. That’s why I don’t want to be the boss.</p>