Reply With Quote
You think he coined that term today?
I have to agree with the good doctor.
Ron Paul said Tuesday that Americans should be "outraged" over President Obama's budget proposal and echoed fellow Republicans in arguing that the plan fell short of the president's promises to reduce deficit spending.
“There are some like the President who believe we can simply tax ourselves out of this predicament, I totally disagree. Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. So, it doesn’t matter how much we raise taxes, if we do not cure our disease of overspending we will not end the vicious cycle of borrowing and printing well beyond our means," Paul said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...h-obama-budget
You think he coined that term today?
how is this relevant?
I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
We have both.
Do you?
We are collecting slightly less revenue because of the current economy, but spending way too much more.
We have a spending problem and a revenue problem. The Bush tax cuts were not needed. Scrap the tax cuts for the rich now and scrap the rest once the economy fully recovers. Defense is already being cut, Medicare has to be worked on next or it will swallow our budget in the future. I would also like to see a financial transactions tax implemented specifically to help pay down our long term debt.
Anything Ron Paul related is redundant.
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog...onomic-outlookWithin the decade – if current policies stay in place – revenues will return to their historical levels, but not beyond. Even if the 2001, 2003, and 2010 tax cuts are extended, as they are in the AFS, revenues are projected to rise from 16.1 percent of GDP in 2012 to 18.0 percent in 2017, and then remain roughly at that level for the remainder of the decade. This approximates the average U.S. revenue level in the modern era.
In times of better fiscal health, such receipts might have been sufficient, but the coming decades do not fit the bill. First, our public debt is already at 72 percent of GDP – higher than it has been in over half a century – and projected to increase further. Second, a wave of baby boomers are beginning to descend on the en lement programs, and supporting them in retirement will require additional spending even if significant reforms are made to control costs. Between these two trends, we will not be able to collect revenues at “normal” levels if we want to have a sustainable budget and a functioning economy.
The four balanced budgets in recent times have come at revenue levels between 19.5 and 20.6 percent of GDP. We will need to at least enter that range if we hope to stabilize the debt, particularly with the demographic tidal wave that inevitably will add a heavy burden to the federal budget.
Should be led "Wake Up Folks, it's the Old People".
Historical average is something like 18.3%. That cherry picked set of years was unusual growth for this nation.
So in other words, we ed.
Absolutely, if we believe the lies they tell us.
Here is the historical data graphed out. Please note it is rare that tax revenue exceeds 20% of GDP. It is so rare, that WH's cherry picked data were the only years it did, in more than five decades!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
