This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Reality vs. Obama: Is It Really a Revenue Problem?
Since nobody seems to want to actually look into anything this President says or does, let's take a quick looksie into his handling of the Treasury's checkbook.
Last week President Obama accepted his nomination to run for a second term. In his speech, the comedian-in-chief had this fantastic line:
"All they had to offer was the same prescriptions they've had for the last thirty years. Have a surplus, try a tax cut. Deficit too high, try another. Feel a cold comin' on, take two tax cuts roll back some regulations and call us in the morning."
Hilarious. However, the line should have read:
"Bring in more individual income taxes per year than anyone over the past thirty years? Double down on government spending. Still creating record deficits? Make jokes about tax cuts and pretend you're not actually spending the country into bankruptcy"
Over the past thirty plus years (ironically since Nixon ended the gold standard), the U.S. has seen government spending explode, while revenue tried to keep pace. The key takeaway from the chart below (other than the fact that Keynesians have ruined the finances of the country):
- In 8 years, George W. Bush spent ~$2 Trillion more than he took in.
- In Obama's first 3 years, he has spent ~$4 Trillion more than he has taken in.
So in other words, it's taken 3 years for Obama to double GW's total deficit.
One other tidbit, this does not include any fiscal 2012 data...
By the way, over the last thirty years President Obama has taken in the most individual income tax revenue per year than any other president -- the spending, well you can see for yourself.
In summary, the problem the U.S. faces is not a revenue problem, it's simply a spending problem.
But hey, sometimes it's better to make jokes about completely ruining the country than to actually stop spending.
»
- advertisements -
Send that worthless cock sucker Soetoro to the glue factory...
- In 8 years, George W. Bush spent ~$2 Trillion more than he took in.
- In Obama's first 3 years, he has spent ~$4 Trillion more than he has taken in.
So in other words, it's taken 3 years for Obama to double GW's total deficit.
Nail meet hammer
Great post !
Do you know what a geometric progression is?
What percentage was GWB's deficit compared to his predecessor's?
Doesn't that have something to do with math? I think I was vaccinated.
Hey!!!
And yet, with all that spending I can't figure an angle to get in on any government teat...they just want me to give and give (actually they take and take from me).
its all so very very very depressing.......hey that might be the angle you are looking for
Agreed but the problem is so acute that revenues will surely have to increase also, which the Repugs won't do. They will also cancel Dodd-Franks so that Wall Street can go back to its old tricks completely unimpeded. Although the changes that would get implemented from D-F by Dems would only be marginal/incremental at best. Either way, it looks like the fiscal cliff is about to become a waterfall. Ron Paul as a write-in is the only sensible option.
Clueless escapee from the HuffPo, but hey, read the articles, maybe you will learn something here.
philipat I must disagree with you about increasing revenue. The criminals ruining our country need to live within their means. I can't just go out and spend as much money as I want and then when the bill comes due go into my bosses office and demand a raise. They bring in more than enough money to carry out their Constitutional responsibilities. The problem is the goverment is completely out of control and wasting money on things they have no business being involved in. The House holds the purse and Boehner and the boys are pussies and unwilling to stand up and say no. They could defund whole agencies if they wanted to, but they don't have the stones to do it. A start would be to defund the EPA, DHS, the Dept of Education, the Department of Energy, the FCC, all overseas military operations and eliminate ALL foreign aid. Cut them off, we don't need them and our lives would be better without them. And that's just a start. Keep cutting until the budget is balanced. If there were serious statesmen running things spending could be controlled. Instead we have criminals on both sides of the aisle putting the future of our nation in jeopardy. Backing our dollar with gold/silver would also limit their ability to rack up debt. Unfortunately none of these things will be done with the currrent crop of gutless assholes running things. And the American voter isn't innocent either. We keep voting for these criminals because of their promises of endless freebies. If we really wanted to get back to being a fiscally responsible country Ron Paul would have run away with the nomination and he would go on to a landslide victory over Barry.
Get rid of the EPA? That's working great for the Chinese.
This site is pure comedy. Keep up the good work!
pinkojonny it is you sir that is the joke, not this site. If you used your mind to formulate a thought rather than trying to come up with ways to insult the people that post here you would understand what we are saying when we advocate for the elimination of the EPA. Eliminating the EPA does not mean you let the environment go to hell in a handbasket. What it does mean is the Federal government has no business being involved in issuing environmental regulations. The role of the Federal government is spelled out very clearly in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. And don't bother replying with the general welfare nonsense because it only applies to the powers delagated to the Federal government in Article 1 Section 8. If it didn't the Constitution wouldn't be necessary, everything could just be placed under 'General Welfare.' Because regulating the environment is not covered in Article 1 Section 8 that responsibilty falls on the individual States. Many of the States already have their own agency in place. And the States can do a much better job because they can tailor their rules to their unique circumstances and geographical locations.
It's all about scale and our Federal government has grown to a scale that is unmanageable. The Constitution was meant to prevent the Federal government from growing to this size but because it has been bastardized, abused and ignored throughout the years it has been rendered ineffective in doing so.
John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Time to clean house.
I'm afraid instead of them doing the right thing they'll flush our country down the toilet.
Govt and companies always cut spending way after they should have and. never enough.
It seems that compassion is America's weak link.
Everyone forgets life is a business unless you live in PIGG countries
you'll know they're truly desperate when marijuana is legal and taxed and those jailed for possession are freed so as to fire the guards watching them; when the defense budget is reduced in real terms year over year; when israel's foreign aid is cut; when the banks are reorganized rather than bailed out; when banksters have fines levied and bonuses clawed back....
also writing in ron paul is not the only choice. there are gary johnson on the libertarian ticket and jill stein on the green ticket. each much better than obama or romney (although, sadly, only romney can beat obama).
Decriminalize NEVER legalize.
Pull our troops off European soil...they're big boy socialists now...lol...deal with Putin on your own terms.
Abolish the following federal agencies for lack of improvement on their mandates...DHS, Education, Energy and most notably the GSA.
Clawback all pensions, perks and salaries for any elected person who cannot balance the nations checkbook until election when they can be legally fired.
Big storm comin in Fla...seeya!!!
For the U.S. military, Europe is really nothing more than a large airbase to provide long-range air support to Israel. I don't think Putin is intimidated by the 2 reinforced divisions remaining in Germany.
I don't care if its 55,000 scattered across the continent or one guy guarding an outhouse with a BB gun.
I'm sick of having anything to do with their security, being insulted while paying for it and being told how much better it is there and if we would just become more like them...why...the world would love us again...lol.
Fuck em.
Gotta protect the oil. It's that simple.
I understand. But for who?
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Saudi Arabia is the only one in the top five we import from. The friggin Greens go into epileptic seizures at the mere mention of drilling anywhere around our hemisphere, yet we are as the list shows. They just don't want it in their back yard...maybe we could just plant some rose bushes around the oil rigs and they'd shut up ;-)
Also abolish the separate retirement and health care plans that Federal employees including the politicians enjoy.
Put them back into the same systems the peons have to deal with...SS, Medicare, etc..
Federal Retirement Plans Cost Almost as Much as Social SecurityAgreed, but it appears both are broke or getting there fast...lol.
Once upon a time, one went into the "civil service" realizing they would be compensated less than the private sector, but the main draw there was the job security. Now its become more of a license to steal from the private sector AND job security.
Another rule change...no more public sector unions.
The politicians have shown us they (being part of the government sector) cannot negotiate in good faith, on our behalf (the taxpayer), with another part of of government for compensation & benefits. We are not at the table negotiating. We are never consulted. We appear to be less than an after thought.
They watched with indifference as private corporations rolled off of pension plans and profit sharing and to the 401k model (as the public sector kept theirs) where, Jane & Joe Sixpack live in a world based on trust. The trust that the SEC and all the assorted government oversight agencies would look after our interests in "the market place"...afterall, thats what we pay them separately to do through our taxes. They didn't and still don't to this day.
Where is Jon Corzine, Bob Rubin, Phil Gramm etc. today?
Disclaimer: I never trusted them to do it ;-)
...and, sadly, that logic is what KEEPS it a two party system !
Catch 22.
The politics in the US are dominated by a two party system because the structure of the electoral votes favors that outcome. Third parties are crowded out of the issue space and must embrace marginally held opinions to find relevance.
If you recall, Bill Clinton's strategy was "triangulation." Candidates for general office (candidates in primaries behave differently) seek the center because that is where the votes are (think of the normal distribution). Because this issue space will be captured by a candidate on the left and right any additional candidates will occupy the tails.
The reason many European governments have a multi-party system is that such an outcome is favored by a proportional representation election process. One example would be city wide elections in that pinnacle of European socialism, Cambridge, MA.
I didn't down vote you, I just don't think that a third party is the most likely way to change our direction. Then again, I just model voting behavior I don't vote.
-From the People's Republic