I rarely see abstract thinking quite like this.

[JTsyo]

Do you think Congress would agree to have the government run an industry to make profits off it to pay for the budget? For example how Gulf countries use oil to fund their national government. If so, then the question becomes what industry can the government run? It would be hard to overcome resistance to nationalize an existing industry and expensive to buy out current owners. That leaves new industries. Maybe currently illegal drugs or some new technology that government R&D develops.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I wonder what happened ~80 or so years ago that caused such a monumental change in the way we approach fiscal and monetary policy.. :hmm:

I find what the OP posted interesting from a historical perspective, but would be very cautious about drawing any direct comparisons of those times and now.

Federal Income Tax??

 

[Argo]

*cough*

That's the problem right there.

I was about to quote that too...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Few problems with this list (dont you love these moronic partisan summaries?).

"The U.S. government has stolen $15,876,457,645,132.66 from future generations of Americans". LOL, I love libertarians.


Ill highlight some of them (not going to address all of them):

#4 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the U.S. national debt has increased by an average of more than $64,000 per taxpayer.

#5 Barack Obama will become the first president to run deficits of more than a trillion dollars during each of his first four years in office.

Year 1 in an administration cannot be attributed to any President (Not usually anyway, wars would be an exception), nor can 2013's financial numbers be attributed to the next President unless its the same one. So these numbers are incorrect.

And wheres Congress in all of this?


#10 As Bill Whittle has shown, you could take every single penny that every American earns above $250,000 and it would only fund about 38 percent of the federal budget.

Ok I watched his video and had to giggle at his "data aka evidence is fatal to the liberal world view". So he goes on to paint this clever picture using a calendar of why taxing rich people won't solve our problems using an over-the-top revenue stream to make his point.

NOw there are many things I could point out about this absurd example (is anyone proposing this?) but Ill use just one.

He left out the existing revenue stream. Whoops.


-----

Remember, our government programs are set up based on a tax base at the time they were voted in. During recessionary periods evidence shows running deficits by increasing Gov spending (or lowering taxes at the low end in the short term)is a great way to help the economy recover. The problem is when adminitrations like Bush 2 not only increase government expenditures but decrease revenues during periods of growth.

List like this are pointless because its an attempt to frame a complex debate using simplistic examples funneled through a hyper-partisan lens.

Zero value.

 

[Raswan]

This is the opposite of abstract thinking...

 

[sm625]

What good has extreme public deficit spending done for the people?

Well if you follow the logic of the elite which asserts that people like being slaves, then it is quite obvious. A massive public debt ensures high inflation and constant currency devaluation, ie constant loss of purchasing power. In this way, the lower classes will never have any wealth, thus simplifying their lives. They are free to engage in whatever mindless consumption they can afford with their meager and vanishing wages, as long as it doesnt upset the powers that be.

tldr: Vote for Obomney so this can continue for 4 more years!

 

[Anarchist420]

I haven't verified the 38% claim, but if true why would eliminating tax cuts be an issue since any extra money would be insignificant? Further, why not cut the tax rate in half for sub 250 k families? Would help out a lot of people.

Actually, under Clinton a much smaller amount of income tax revenue came from the wealthy than after the Bush tax cuts. Obama is just doing this to score points with a liberal base or he's just so stupid that he thinks the $~3Bn a year from the Buffet rule would make any difference in the deficit.

This is my thought aswell. In order to "fix" just the deficit it would take MASSIVE tax increases and MASSIVE spending cuts. Both if which would be extremely painful. That is not even bothering to address the actual debt and unfunded liabilities.

Dr. Ron Paul's budget plan balances the budget in 3 years and reduces taxes. The wealthiest can't be income taxed anymore than they already are, so the working poor will have to pay higher income taxes or a VAT. The only way to tax the richest significantly more without taxing everyone else is to do something like a Federal real estate tax with a large exemption and a high rate. The Federal government would also have to assess those homes at a really high amount too.

Do you ever step back to evaluate and look at the real world results of the failed, disasterous policies you so feverently advocate?

Yes. FDR ran on cutting spending and Hoover ran on continuing deficit spending. The spending and regulations by Hoover fucked up what would've been a lot more minor. He also massively increased taxes.

As for the stock market crash, it wouldn't have happened if the government hadn't chartered a central institution that encourages speculation. Even if the government issued the money itself, it would still encourage speculation and eventually result in a bust.