House GOP revolts against Boehner plan

[SMOKE 1,426]

Not really.

you're not as much fun as you use to be. you use to be much more reactive. i'm gonna go throw red herring at someone else.

[dalegg 143]

They have throughout history. Revenues, on average, have been 18.5% of GDP. Expenditures, on average, have been 20.5% of GDP. Now, revenues have dropped 3.5% below that average while expenditures have risen 3.5% above. That's the 7% gap from the deficit average we're looking at right now and any claim that this is a spending only problem is dishonest and ignores reality. It's really just that simple.

Look, I get it. Republican policy since the 1980's have been to "starve the beast". Rid the country of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The policy goal has been to turn this country into a Banana Republic - a country with the richest elite in the world and their servants. Excuse me for not signing up for that vision for America. It's not the vision that this country was built on (quite the opposite actually), it's not the vision that made this country great and it certainly is not the vision that will regain the global leadership role this country once had. I think America is better than that.

Just because they have doesn't mean they have to. What you are saying is that if the country becomes more prosperous, then automatically the size of government should increase. I don't think that was the vision this country was built on either.

[Karee 4,191]

Old people. Social Security and health care costs.

Don;t forget about the wars. They seem quite expensive.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Just because they have doesn't mean they have to. What you are saying is that if the country becomes more prosperous, then automatically the size of government should increase. I don't think that was the vision this country was built on either.

Perhaps if governments took the goal of industry, to seek efficiencies to maximize profits by increasing production while reducing costs, then we would find a solution to this mess. However, when government constantly insists on taking more when doing more, then we have the problem right here.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Karee 4,191]

Tax revenues are under 15% of GDP today as opposed to 18%-19% on average. That's a 3%-4% gap on the revenue side. Expenditures are 24% today as opposed to 20%-21% on average. There's a 3%-4% on the expenditure side. Together, that's a 7% gap. 7% on $15 trillion is just over a trillion dollars worth of a deficit. Take that off the balance and you'll have a deficit in the range of $400 billion or less than 3% of GDP which, by most standards, is considered sustainable. Now, consider that the top tier of income earners have paid taxes at an effective rate of roughly 29% back in the 1990's. Today, their effective tax rate is just above 18%. Something's out of whack and it's not ONLY the spending. That's. Just. Not. True.

Watching Hardball doesn't make you right. Change channels for once. Everyone here has all kinds of graphs, but that point above was straight out of a partisan democrat channel. Maybe you got it from the NYT reporter, not sure. But man that is the exact numbers reported by the one guy. To the tee.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Don;t forget about the wars. They seem quite expensive.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/321531-us-trucking-funds-end-up-in-taliban-hands/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I question the underlying assumption that Government should grow at the same rate as GDP.

At the same rate as population, perhaps, but GDP?

Look, I will happily sign up for a GDP based approach on both sides of the ledger. I will sign up for a true pay-as-you-go system where every new dollar spent needs to either be cut someplace else or raised. I do not believe that government expenditures should rise indefinitely. We've done well with a federal government at about 18% revenues and 20% expenditures. Put these benchmarks out there and live on them. In good times, you build a reserve, in bad times you draw from it. No problem with that at all on this end.

I am open to entitlement program adjustments. Medicare is a problem. But the health care system as a whole is a much bigger problem. It now accounts for one out of every five dollars of GDP - twice the rate of our competitors. So, scrap fee-for-service. Come up with results oriented compensation. ** big pharma and see to it that we don't get taken to the cleaners while our competitors control pricing. Set a reasonable and universally accepted standard for what constitutes medically necessary and effective care. That's what Medicare and Medicaid and regular health insurance coverage should have in scope. Everything beyond that, you're either on your own or you buy supplemental coverage. Look at the eligibility age for Social Security. We live longer and should hence have full benefits later. It's been done before and it will be done again. I'm up for all of that.

What I am not up for is a dishonest debate on what causes the deficit.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Watching Hardball doesn't make you right. Change channels for once. Everyone here has all kinds of graphs, but that point above was straight out of a partisan democrat channel. Maybe you got it from the NYT reporter, not sure. But man that is the exact numbers reported by the one guy. To the tee.

These are the numbers. I don't have cable and I don't watch Hardball. If someone there presented the same numbers, that's probably because these are the numbers. One is entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own facts. What I presented are the facts. Look them up.

[Karee 4,191]

These are the numbers. I don't have cable and I don't watch Hardball. If someone there presented the same numbers, that's probably because these are the numbers. One is entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own facts. What I presented are the facts. Look them up.

Once again a post that says "look it up." I'd be willing to buy it. Point me there.

Is the same sh$t with you. Look it up and all that. Surely your browser supports HTML and posting links. I know VJ does. I'm not saying you're wrong, but for fuks sake reference something instead of saying it's not your job. I'm not disagreeing with you, but how about some evidence?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Once again a post that says "look it up." I'd be willing to buy it. Point me there.

http://www.google.com

I take it you can type a simple search query to find out what the current revenue to GDP ratio, expense to GDP ratio and their historical averages are. If you can't manage the basic stuff, then I'd be wasting my time engaging in a discussion with you.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually I do. Do you realize what voting against the wishes of the ones that put you in office will do?

The angry mob doesn't hold a populist position on the subject, so not compromising just shows what a bunch intolerant toads they are. They might be good at organizing their ilk to get to the polls as well as set up roadblocks to prevent others from voting, but that doesn't give them the majority voice. They are the quintessential form of political extremism - unwilling to compromise and unwilling to consider other solutions. If they're determined to drive our economy into a sh!t hole rather than work with others, then our economy is already fvcked.

[Karee 4,191]

http://www.google.com

I take it you can type a simple search query to find out what the current revenue to GDP ratio, expense to GDP ratio and their historical averages are. If you can't manage the basic stuff, then I'd be wasting my time engaging in a discussion with you.

LOL.

My IT skills are failing me. Sorry I bothered.

http://tinyurl.com/3e2t9ok

http://tinyurl.com/3bctat7

You probably are wasting your time engaging me because I'll never agree that a tax increase will solve an issue like this.

[웃 910]

I do. Defense should be brought back to levels that at least resemble some sense of sanity. The GOP created and never funded federal homeland security bureaucracy should be scaled back significantly. We've got to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the spending through the tax code should be cut in half. That's easily $10 trillion worth of fat trimmed over the next decade. Sign me up.

How about we spend the same as all of Europe:

[^_^ 5,021]

We should spend as much as all of Europe plus China plus Russia. If those numbers are right that still gets us down from $711 billion to $481 billion, a 32% reduction.

[^_^ 5,021]

And countries we protect should pay us protection money.

If you don't pay us this year, Canada, I may let al qaeda know you have no air defenses on so-and-so day... you'll pay if you know what's good for ya.