Free Markets, Free People

If tax revenue is up 19% since 2009, tell me again why taxes need to go up?

Rob Port throws up a couple of graphs that show that, as most of us have been saying for quite some time, it’s not a revenue issue causing the Federal Government’s deficit problem – it’s a spending issue.

Per Port, since 2009, tax revenues are up 19%.

So how does one get the message across to government that it must live within it’s means if it gets a tax increase without spending cuts?

You don’t.   You just encourage it to push for more.  Already “millionaires” are defined as those making $250,000 a year.

But let’s make excuses for the GOP’s capitulation, shall we (the hapless GOP, which will get blamed if we go over the fiscal cliff or if we avoid it and everything crashes anyway)?

Apparently the new conventional wisdom, “spend till your wallet bleeds and then break out the credit cards” has repealed the laws of economics once again.  Ask Paul Krugman if you don’t believe it.

~McQ

73 Responses to If tax revenue is up 19% since 2009, tell me again why taxes need to go up?

  • McQ

    You’re making the mistake many of us made during this election season:  you’re thinking logically.

    Logic went out the window in early November.

    We’re through the looking glass:  up is down and black is white.

    • Exactly right, McQ.  You can’t keep dealing with objective reality.  You have to reckon with the “narrative”.  You know, like Romney was a Wall Street fat cat who could not relate to “common people”, when the OBJECTIVE truth was he was no part of Wall Street, and worked all his life with “common people”…and everyone else he came into contact with…and was universally admired by people who knew him.  Common or not.
      Truth does not matter in the Collective.

  • Because previous debts have to be paid some how…. war spending does that.

    • So, you’re saying our deficits are LOWER…!?!?  Show support.
      Also, find us a graph showing total Federal spending with our entire defense budget as a component (MUCH more that “wars”).
      Let’s see your support, shall we…?

      • Don’t hold your breath waiting for that, Rags. You should have learned your lesson on this from that bullsh&*$##ter…um, pathological liar, The Anointed One.

      • Did I say anything about deficits being lower or did I say our entire budget was defense? No…. I very clearly said, we have debts to pay.

        • And they get higher all the time, but it ain’t JUST war that’s sending them up, so let’s stop playing around like 10 year olds with the word games.
           
          “War spending does that” is pretty clear on where you’ve decided to let the casual reader think the primary blames falls.
           
          So, I call bullshit on your statement, and on your defense of making it.

          • Not sure what happened to my reply to you….
            Yes, on-going war spending, which is all borrowed money and also creates interest payments to be paid… cut war spending, which lowers defense, military, and other related spending costs, which means less money being spent/borrowed, which lowers-balances out the gdp, allowing us not be adding to the deficit, thus the increase tax revenue can go to pay off debts.
            This is all basic logic for anyone that actually understands what is going on.

          • War spending, one of the few necessary jobs of government, isn’t borrowed.  But entitlements are the ones that are being spent on borrowed money.
             
            See I can make declaration about which spending is driving the debt too.

        • And the best way to do that is to hold spending increases below GDP increases.  That way, revenues will increase faster than spending, and eventually the debt will be paid.

        • @jpm100
          The difference is, we actually do borrow money for our wars… and most entitlements are publicly funded, and not borrowed money. But hey, you keep trying.

          • And you keep chanting that lie.  P-O-N-Z-I Scheme, fool.  Next, you’ll be telling us that European welfare-statism is “sustainable”.
            Peddled that to them that’s stupid enough to buy it.  Try a AARP site.

        • And tax subsidization of rich people driving their toy electric cars is one of those acceptable debts, right?
          “The Spark EV will also be cheaper than most of its electric rivals, GM says. Exact pricing hasn’t been revealed, but the car will start for less than $25,000 in the U.S. when a $7,500 federal tax credit is factored in. The electric Nissan Leaf starts at $27,700 with the tax credit. Like all electrics, though, the Spark is much pricier than its gasoline-powered equivalent. The gas-operated Spark starts at $12,245.”
           
          http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AUTO_SHOW_HOT_WHEELS_CHEVY_SPARK_EV?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-27-07-06-15

        • Yes we have debts to pay, mcuh of it foolishly spent. So eliminate the Dept of Ed. DOE, HUD, HHS, DHS, most of Commerce, Ag, and EPA. Take the money that would have been spent and use it to repurchase oustanding debt but only below par. Then look at how much money came in during the last fiscal year, find a fed budget (can’t look to the last four years because Harry never got around to actually fulfilling that responsibility) that comes close to matching it, and use that fed budget for the next year.

    • Yeah, so does Social Security and Medicare, oh, and Free Obama Phones to the tune of 2 billion yankee dollah.

      • S.S. and Medicare are public funded programs… they pay for themselves, unless the Govt dips into them to pay for other programs.

        • Unless?   more word games.

          • Yes, unless…. like when Reagan raised the ss tax creating a surplus, and then moved the surplus money into the general revenue fund and spent ‘our’ money. Then when George H.W. Bush did the same thing, instead of using the money to pay for the baby boomers that created the surplus.
            Again, they’re publicly funded… they pay for themselves, unless the Govt dips into them to pay for other programs, which robs us of our money.

          • Yes, unless…. like when Reagan raised the ss tax creating a surplus, and then moved the surplus money into the general revenue fund and spent ‘our’ money. Then when George H.W. Bush did the same thing, instead of using the money to pay for the baby boomers that created the surplus.
            Again, they’re publicly funded… they pay for themselves, unless the Govt dips into them to pay for other programs, which robs us of our money.

          • Actually the debt spending spree under Reagan can be laid at the feet of the Democrats in Congress.  The only thing Reagan wanted that increased spending was military spending and his tax cuts stimulated the economy so that revenues went up more than enough to pay for that portion of it.

          • It isn’t our money. The payroll tax was a trick to cement the programs. To make fools think it was “their money”.

          • @jpm100 Actually, it’s the Presidents budget proposal they draft the budget off of… and clearly when we wen’t into debt due to the extra spending, the revenues didn’t cover it.
            Your replies are a bit sad, but you’re more than welcome to keep trying.

          • Wow, we’re in the way-back machine kids, we’re talking about what the government did 25-30 years ago and pretending there hasn’t been a Democratic regime or two in between the EVIL Reagan and the EVIL Bush and TODAY to undo any of the EVIL.
             
            but they didn’t undo any of it, did they Sherman?   No, Mr. Peabody, they stuck with it all and continued to spend.  And when anyone called em on it….they blamed Reagan, and then they blamed Bush.   and GUESS who they’re going to blame NOW when they hand out free steak and Chevy Volts to illegal aliens, why….it’ll be blamed on the Republicans ….again…..
             
            So, Madder, actually, I’m with you, you spend as much as you like, cut defense to the bone and shift all that shiny new “rich” based revenue over to (beaaahahahahahahahah) “paying the bills”.
             
            The sooner we let you jackweeds wreck the place, the sooner we can get on with whatever comes next.

          • They didn’t undo what? It’s one thing to move a surplus to the government ledger to make budgets look balanced, it’s another thing to spend the money. I don’t see how we’re going to blame anyone for spending a s.s. surplus we don’t have. I’m not aware of illegal aliens getting free steaks and cars.
            If we cut war spending, defense, etc… we wouldn’t be spending as much as we like. We’ve done exactly what is being talked about before, and it didn’t wreck the place.

          • The 80s deficits were due to Democrat budgets. Whenever the Dems have full control, it becomes an absolute mess.

          • @MadMadder IIRC it was LBJ who folded SS into the general fund because he did not want to leave office with large fed deficit.

        • SS and medicare will make us broke. They are the biggest piece of the pie and getting bigger, and the fact they have a payroll tax doesn’t change the fact we can’t afford them.

        • @Don No matter how it’s twisted, it’s all our money.. every tax dollar taken for any reason, is our money.

          • But you didn’t even take enough of your money to pay yourself those benefits.
            Instead you BORROWED money, which you expect someone else to pay off.
             

          • @Harun Most entitlements are publicly funded, self standing systems…. it’s not borrowed from China, it’s borrowed from American citizens.

          • And just keep repeating they’re self standing…..it doesn’t matter man, I’m willing to let you have all you want.   Pretend to cut spending where you like, whatever century your plan calls for cutting it in, meanwhile, bring on Obamacare, bring on the entitlements and tax the snot out of the rich and the middle class to pay for whatever entitlements you want to keep.
             
            You already have my approval, why are you arguing, I’m not trying to stop you, in fact, I encourage you to go forth and spend.   Fix the problems those damn Republicans created, you had control of the house and senate and Presidency from 2008 to 2010, why didn’t you fix things?

          • If it was my money I’d get to spend it as I see fit.

            SS was never more then a welfare program. The payroll tax was a trick to make peopel think the government was somehow investing their money. We would all be better off it the system was like a 401k instead.

        • Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
          Dude, you do know that the money “you paid in” actually went to your parents and not to yourself.
          And then we had a baby boom, and then a baby bust, and then people living to 94.
          The demographics that could have been excused for FDR’s mistake, are long gone.
          Its the young people who are “paying in” for the oldsters retirement.
           
          And of course the government never kept these funds in separate accounts, despite sending people “statements” a while back.

          • Part of it is a pay it forward system, part of it is your pay paying for you in the future. The baby boom actually had enough money paid in to cover them, it was easily building a surplus. Reagan raised the ss tax creating a surplus, and then moved the surplus money into the general revenue fund and spent the money. Then when George H.W. Bush did the same thing, instead of using the money to pay for the baby boomers from the surplus.
            It’s not this way today though… s.s. tax has been reduced, once it goes back to the level it was and time passes, it will create a surplus again…. this time we just need the Republicans to keep their fingers out of it, another words, keep them from hiding an increase in spending with surplus money.

          • Gee. wasn’t there a Democratic administration in there for 5 minutes between Reagan and Bush?   Wasn’t there another one between Bush Part Duex and Obama Part Deux current?   Gee, guess not.   It’s Republicans, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the way down.

          • It was LBJ who made SS revenue go into the general fund, not Reagan.

          • Are you going to argue facts?   Were we worried about facts when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Did that stop us from declaring war on Finland!  Nooooooooooo!!!!!!

          • Actually, it was the 83 amendments – and the promises that went with the amendments were NEVER kept.  They’ve  taken (I was going to say borrowed, but that’s bullshit) and spent every damn dime.   And it wasn’t just on wars, or the military.
            “The surplus Social Security revenue from the tax hike was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable Treasury bonds to build up a reserve with which to finance the retirement of the baby boomers. But that didn’t happen.  From the time the first surplus revenue arrived in 1985, until the surpluses ended in 2009, all of the Social Security surplus revenue was deposited into the general fund where it became indistinguishable from other federal tax revenue. ”
            http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/09/21/government-should-level-public-about-social/
            And the Democrats controlled the HOUSE and SENATE from 83 until 95 and the Senate from 87 until 95 and the Presidency from 93 till 95….so…Madder, WHY DIDN’T THEY FIX IT?   What war were we fighting THEN?

          • Whups….not HOUSE AND Senate -
            House from 83 – 95
            Senate from 87 – 95
            Presidency from 93 – 95
             
            Whole government 92-95…. AFTER evil Reagan, BEFORE evil Bush part Deux.
            Why.  Didn’t.  They.   Fix.   It.

          • Just to pick a nit, another sentence from Looker’s cite;

            ” The actual money was replaced with non-marketable government IOUs, called “special obligations of the Treasury.” ”

            The money still, of course, has been borrowed by the government and thus comprises part of the national debt. And, since money is fungible, it can be said that part of the annual deficit is due to this borrowing from SS. And other “trust” funds.

    • Our problem isn’t war spending, it is entitlements. The first decade of the Iraq War ran at about $1T, about the same as the Obama stimulus, except at least we know we got something out of the war.

      • Most entitlements are publicly funded… they don’t create debts/deficits. On-going war spending on the other hand does, not only does the war cost us directly, it includes a larger military, new govt programs, a larger defense department, more veteran costs, more govt contacts, more foreign aid, and so on all of which is being done on borrowed money, which has interest payments on it, thus more deficits/debts.

        • So, according to the tune you keep banging on your tin drum, if we just stopped funding the military, we could hand out cash, and still have money in the bank.
           
          Why is anyone even talking to you?

          • I didn’t say stop funding the military… I send end on-going war spending, which would logically lets us cut back military spending, some govt programs, defense spending, etc… and our govt isn’t handing out cash, they’re giving back our tax dollars. And yes, we could have money in the bank, like we have before.
            Are you not aware how things actually work?

          • “Are you not aware how things actually work?”
             
            Now THAT is hilarious coming from someone so ignorant about SS, the US budget, etc.

          • “And yes, we could have money in the bank, like we have before.”
            What year was that?   When was it we HAD money in the bank that exceeded our indebtedness?

        • http://cnsnews.com/news/article/black-friday-treasury-borrowed-21169-us-household-day-after-thanksgiving
           
          Blame Reagan, Blame Bush, Blame the Republicans, don’t blame 12 million illegals, don’t blame “free obama phones”, don’t blame food stamps, gubmint mortgages, bailouts, investments in ‘green technology’, etc, etc, etc.

          • Democrats can get blamed for plenty of things…. however the issue at hand is due to two Republicans, sorry if history makes you butt hurt.
            No, we shouldn’t blame free obama phones, because obama doesn’t give out phones. That reference is about basic telephone services, which is discounted and not free. At that, it wasn’t started by Obama, it was started by Clinton. Increased food stamps on low wage jobs and jobless people? Wow, okay. A service we pay for, yet is an issue to get back, amazing. And yeah, banks are ran by the Fed, and they give out mortgages, good job! Yes, Bush did have record bank bailouts and started the auto industry bailouts, sad I know. I greatly support investment “loans” in technology…. if anything I support that “gubmint” spending more than just about any other, as it has worked out very well for us over the long haul of our Country.
            Any other stupid twists you wish to have addressed?

          • History don’t hurt my butt much….it’s the liars version of history that kinda chaps me.

          • Go argue with Time magazine, will you?
            http://business.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/
            ore: http://business.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/#ixzz2DQyZffyp
            “The Universal Service Fund provides discounts on phone services, or in some cases, entirely free services to low-income Americans. The fund helps pay for landlines or cell phones, whichever the recipient prefers. There’s also a one-time discount of up to $30 to cover an installation fee or a cell phone. Considering how cheap some cell phones are nowadays, the money more than covers the costs of a basic phone. Then, the fund covers phone bills to the tune of $10 a month, which typically translates as 250 minutes for wireless plans of the types of phones we’re talking about.”

          • “And yeah, banks are ran by the Fed”
             
            To quote you;
            “Are you not aware how things actually work?”
             
            To quote me:
            “Now THAT is hilarious coming from someone so ignorant about SS, the US budget, etc.”
             
             
             

          • “….it’s the liars version of history that kinda chaps me.”
             
            Now, now. You know that old saying, “Don’t blame dishonesty for what can be explained by simple incompetence/stupidity”. It’s true. And yes, there are people that stupid. Admittedly, they are usually institutionalized and don’t have access to computers and the internet, but obviously there are exceptions.

          • Along those lines…..and the “Fed” is run by?

          • Our current problems are due to the various welfare state programs started by Democrats.

            The 2008 crash was the result of Clinton’s housing policies, leveraged off of Carter era legislation and programs dating back to FDR.

            The economy remains weak due to Obama policies, including Obamacare and massive Obama deficit spending.

            And we face a massive wave of spending built into our system by long dead Democrats: the coming crash due to social security, medicare, and medicaid. And at  the state level, union pensions and medicaid.

            The Democrat party is destroying this country, finishing a process started in the 30s.

        • Of course entitlements create deficits. The exploding national debt is in large part due to entitlements. That is actually the point of social security vs 401ks; 401ks are self funding, but carries risk. Social Security pays out as long as you live. The whole Democrat argument for SS is the lack of risk, but if it was actually self funded it would carry that risk.

        • The Iraq War cost about $1T for a decade or war, Obama’s deficits for his first 4 years was $5T, he could have funded the equivilent of the Iraq War for 50 years with that spending. The war isn’t the problem, and no one with a clue thinks it is.

          The feds can tax at a rate that maxes out at 19% of GDP. Entitlement spending or defense, it doesn’t matter, it if is above 19% of GDP, we are deficit spending.

          The difference is that defense spending is the key reason for the government, not a mommy state to wipe your butt and blow your nose. The military is constitutional, entitlements are not.

        • “Most entitlements are publicly funded..”

          Actually, all government spending is publicly funded. Unless you know of some benefactors who are buying roads or tanks with their own after tax money.

    • You don’t pay off debt by spending billions of dollars on a new HQ building for homeland security, researching cow farts, or any of the rest of the boondoggles funded by Congress.

  • Krugman says the deficit is a fiscal phantom and points out that US Treasuries are selling.  What he doesn’t point out is that the Federal Reserve is buying up 61% of that debt.
     

  • Taxes HAVE to go up because people want their FREE Obama Fos, and birth control and whatever other goodies they can grab with two hands that someone else has to pay for.
    Next question

  • Anyone concerned about politicians using “our money” should endorse 401k systems over
    SS. You know, systems where it really is our money (and only our money).

  • Why are you even trying to engage with them anymore? It’s a lost cause. Give the baby his bottle and let em wreck it all so the adults can come back and clean it up. They’re not worth your time, energy or breath. Eff em.

  • Why more taxes?  Because it’s a different world.  Baby-boomers are coming of age—and someone has to pay the bill—or renege on the agreement by paying less, or not paying at all.  The population has increased, increasing the proportion of disabilities; our current economic system has failed it population by shipping a large percentage of jobs overseas—creating a huge un- or under-employed workforce requiring welfare (food stamps, medicaid, etc.) just to exist; a breakdown in the medical insurance industry resulted in 45 million people lacking insurance—necessitating federal insurance; three fruitless wars (including Vietnam) have resulted in hundreds of thousands of veterans with disabilities that require assistance.  All this (plus that which I missed) has to be paid for.

    • Lies.  Nothing new.

      • Lies, as you know, require intent to deceive. Are you sure he is capable of the necessary mens rea? It could be just stupidity. On the other hand, he could have the intent to deceive AND be too stupid to tell a convincing lie.

        • Not to get tooo technical, but you can republish a lie, and you are still a liar.  IMNHO.

          • Well, you know what they say about stupidity; there is no cure. So, theoretically, it is possible to republish stupid, too. Personally, I lean towards the combination theory. Compromise, I am told, is a goood thing.

          • Or “the balanced approach”…???

    • Our current economic system – this should be entertaining – what are you proposing to replace the system where owners decide where and by whom their products are made at a cost the owners consider acceptable?  What system are you going to replace that one with Tad?
       
       

    • It would be easy to get jobs back in the US. How? Reduce regulations and red tape, allow drilling and fracking as much as possible. Offshore, ANWAR, the Gulf, etc. Move states to right to work, and kill of the damn unions.

      The problems Tad describe are the result of a welfare state, massive regulation, unions, and uncontrolled immigration.

      • Want a model?  Look to states run by conservatives.  Compare and contrast to Kulhifornia and Ill-a-noise.  Houston to Detroit.