[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] TheSovereign's Blog
Yes, there is a Spending and Revenue problem
Last comment by rozemist 4 years, 10 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

There is an interesting site that JackM has presented in his blog today, and it provides some very interesting facts. It first must be known that the credibility of the site that JackM provides, factcheck.org has been called into question on more than one occasion by more than one side of the political spectrum, partly due to the way they present the facts to make their point, as they did in this article. There is a practice when making a presentation to present numbers in a fashion that will make the greatest impact. If the numbers seem too low, or too high, then present them as percentages to achieve the desired impact. This article does that, and it does not always directly point out the aggregate number that it is showing a percentage of.

Due in part that this article is on spending and revenues, the facts are what they are, but the article does not differentiate between discretionary and non-discretionary spending, which should have been pointed out due to the fact that non-discretionary line items such as Social Security and Medicare are paid for by Payroll Taxes, and in theory are paid for in full by these separate line items on one's check stub. By doing this it deflates the actual impact of discretionary spending, such as the Military Budget has on our spending. One should consider the actual ramifications that it would have on the Military Budget if it was a part of the Payroll Tax, and would show you how much of your individual check is going for the government corporate welfare program. In fairness to the article, it is about spending and revenues, and it does present the revenues and outflows of the discretionary spending, but without distinguishing them from non-discretionary spending.

The article does present facts that are worth noting, such as:

The current situation is a marked change from the booming 1990s. In those years revenues increased, due to a 1993 tax increase, which fell most heavily on those making more than $200,000 a year. Meanwhile spending decreased relative to the rapidly growing economy, partly because of an absolute decline in military spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Deficits were erased, and the government posted surpluses in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Now, this flies in the face of those who continually tell us that in order to correct our fiscal house, we need to cut taxes on the wealthy. We have actually experienced a time when taxes were raised on the wealthy, and defense spending decreased and we saw deficits erased, along with four straight years of government surpluses. These are the very actions that some are calling for now in order to fix our fiscal house, yet we see nothing but push back from the Conservatives in the very unpopular house of representatives, the part of our government that controls the purse strings as laid out in the Constitution.

The article explains that this changed when it states, "But then a string of deficits began in the fiscal year 2002, and there is no end in sight." Just as a brief history lesson, the make up of our Government in 2002 consisted of a Conservative House, a Conservative Senate, and a Conservative President. Under this Conservative government, as this article by Factcheck.org points out,"a string of deficits began in the fiscal year 2002, and there is no end in sight." So, does this article go on to explain where and how this deficit spending occurred? It does, and it states:

"What has produced these huge budget gaps? Tax cuts and wars have been big factors, as have recessions and expanded spending for health care in both Republican and Democratic administrations."

So, instead of paying down the debt with the surpluses that were being generated, and continuing to decrease Military spending, the Conservatives in control of the government did the opposite, and caused the issues that were are now dealing with. These aren't theories of how things will work, they actually happened, there is proof. If we raise taxes on the wealthy and decrease Military spending, we did eliminate deficits, and generated surpluses, or if we cut taxes on the wealthy, and increase military spending, we will see massive deficit spending and we will watch our debt grow, as we have seen since 2002. That's how it happened, and it happened in the last 20 years or so, so its not distant history, like when President Jackson eliminated the debt back in the 1800s.

The article goes on to talk about the revenues received and where they come from, and the spending, as well as what percentages are spent on the various line items. Here is the part that I was speaking about earlier concerning discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Discretionary spending are items that Congress has discretion over (the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation), such as the Military budget. They have the power to increase or decrease the spending on this line item in regards to revenues if they so choose to do so. Non-discretionary spending, such as Social Security and Medicare spending is mandated by the laws that formed these programs, and since the revenue to support these two programs are mandated by law as well, they show up on one's pay stub as a "Payroll Tax", and if properly managed by Congress, they should be paying for themselves, much as an insurance policy does, which is what these two programs were called at one time.

Looking at the information provided by this article, one can see that of the total Federal spending, these two programs take up 33.5% of the spending. Since this article is not about the Federal Budget, but rather about spending and revenues, the percentages presented are not contrasted against the budget. As I am pointing out, these two programs are responsible for 33.5% of the Federal spending, yet, as far as revenues are concerned, they generate 40% of all Federal revenues. This can leave one with the impression that these two programs are more than paying for themselves considering that they generate 40% of all revenues, and yet are only responsible for 33.5% of the total spending.

This would not be true, since the 1980s, Congress has failed to address the revenue that comes in in regards to the changing dynamics of the expenditures. By this I mean that revenues for Social Security taxes are capped to every dollar of wages up to $106,800, and are not in line with in*flation. Making a simple adjustment to this cap by either eliminating the cap, or raising it up to the first $200,000 earned, which is where the current income tax rate changes, would more than fund this extremely popular program for the elderly and the disabled well into the future, and into our children's time.

Concerning Medicare, the article points out two factors that have challenged the long term viability of this program. The first one is attributed to when "President George W. Bush pushed through an expensive prescription drug benefit for seniors in 2003, the largest expansion of Medicare in its history." It is important to remember that this expansion was pushed through with no adjustments to revenues leaving an even greater short fall, and additional stress on the viability of the program. The second factor the article presented is "expanded spending for health care in both Republican and Democratic administrations." This is something that the ACA, or as it is also known as, Obamacare, addresses, by cutting out a projected $716 billion in expenditures to providers, while not cutting benefits to the tax payer. Prior to the ACA, it was projected that the 75 year shortfall in percentage of taxable payroll was an estimated 3.88% as per the trustees of this program, and after the ACA the shortfall is now estimated at 1.35%. Not perfect, but a small step in creating viability to a popular program. It addresses the excessive spending, and not the quality of services provided, and it doesn't eliminate the program, as some in Congress have proposed. Who suffers under this program, those in the healthcare industry who are not controlling costs, and not the elderly, or the long term viability of the program. This cuts out $716 billion in corporate welfare, which is why it is such an issue now in the Presidential campaign. The lobbyists are working hard at retaining that easy money from us tax payers.

The article goes on to say that the Military spending is 20.1% of the total spending, but in reality, once you remove the non-discretionary spending, this number is actually 30%, or nearly $700 billion in 2010, of all spending, and that is from a 40% smaller pie, since the Payroll Taxes are earmarked for non-discretionary spending. The other discretionary spending line items are:
Medicaid/CHIP 8.1%
Interest 5.7%
Low-Income Assistance 5.3%
Unemployment Compensation 4.6%
Education & Training 3.7%
Federal Employee Retirement 3.5%
Veterans 3.1%
Transportation 2.7%
Other health care 2.6%
Parks & natural resources 1.3%
Space/Science 0.9%
Foreign aid 0.9%
Agriculture 0.6%
Everything else 3.5%

These are nickels and pennies compared to the Military spending, yet these are the areas that the current unpopular Congress are looking to cut in lieu of Sequestration, that is scheduled to take effect next year by cutting 10% across the board.

There are two things that jump out at me by looking at these numbers. First, is: Interest 5.7%. This is the interest on the massive debt that we have incurred over the last 30 years, mostly since 2002. This number also grew when the current Congress caused the credit of the United States to be effected by their irresponsible actions that brought about the Sequestration in the first place, that those on the right in Congress are now trying to divert. The second thing that jumps out at me is the line item that states "Debt." There is a National debt in the neighborhood of $15 trillion dollars, and I don't see the line item that is addressing that issue. Maybe its the one labeled "Everything else 3.5%" but I doubt it.

The current budget being offered by, and has been approved by, the current very unpopular Congress, states that the deficit will be eliminated in 30 years. Why so long, when prior to 2002, we were on track to have our debt paid off by 2015? Why doesn't Congress use the roadmap from the 1990s that had us in the black with surpluses? It would be easy to blame our current President, but his policy's spending increases, including the stimulus is only 1.6%, the lowest by any President in 60 years. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognize that the deficits, as well as the ever growing interest on the debt are due to spending over a long period of time, for things like the two wars that we were/are in. Much like buying a new car on a 5 year loan, the car payments are far more reflective of the car's value when it was new, than it is in the 4th and 5th year, yet those car payments do not go down until it is paid off. Its easy to blame the car or the current situation, but the debt was incurred years ago, but the expense has not gone down.

Now concerning revenues, the article points out, that the "CBO figured in that year (2007) more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners. They paid 55 percent of all federal taxes in 2007, CBO said." This is in contrast to 2001 when "The top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes." This could be one of the "AH HA!" gotcha moments, but the article also points out:

However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income. Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.

It doesn't seem that all ships have risen since 2002.

Thanks JackM for providing us with this link to a very informative article on spending and revenue. As they state in the closing of the article:

There's plenty more where these figures came from. We could focus more closely on what was paid and earned by the top 1 percent, for example. Or we could zoom in to examine the role of rising medical and drug costs in pushing up spending for Medicare and Medicaid.

I suggest that anyone with even a slight interest should read it so as to better understand the facts when we see the two parties doing their best to distort them in order to look like the "Lesser-of-the-two-evils."

Latest Activity: Jun 10, 2013 at 6:16 AM

Blog has been viewed (1572) times.

rozemist commented on Thursday, Aug 16, 2012 at 19:44 PM

Excellent blog Sov,now here is something we should all be interested in,and looking at the numbers.There are many sites on the internet that can provide good information.Because if you want the truth then seek it.

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Here is an interesting article in regards to the cutting of waste as opposed to protecting provider money from Medicare.


TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 14:29 PM

Here is a article titled:

Wall Street Lobbying Efforts Reach $4.2 Billion Since 2006, Or $1,331 A Minute, Report States


Just another reason why spending is out of control by this and prior Congresses.

rozemist commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 15:52 PM

I'm certainly not surprised by this report ,it shows in detail what we have probably all known for ages.
And if someone didn't know ,they should.

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 18:58 PM

Here is an article where a Senator talks about wasteful spending:

Senator Releases Breathtaking Report On How The Government Showers The Rich With Free Money


TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 20:50 PM

Here is another article on congressional spending:

Analysis: Paul Ryan Voted to Add $6.8 Trillion to the Federal Debt


TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 20:53 PM

– Beginning with the Bush tax cuts, since 2001 Ryan has voted to add $2.5 trillion worth of tax cuts to the deficit.
– In the last 11 years, Paul Ryan voted for every bill that called for an increase in defense spending. In total, this has added $1.9 trillion to the deficit.
– Paul Ryan also voted to increase non-defense discretionary spending — the very thing he is pushing to cut now. He voted to spend $270 billion on Medicare Part D (all of which was unpaid for). He also added $80 billion to the deficit by voting for an agriculture bill in 2002, and he added another $20 billion in 2003 when he voted for changes to military retirement. Lastly, he voted for increased borrowing authority for flood insurance, adding yet another $17 billion to the deficit.

canative62 commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 21:05 PM

Do ypu REALLY want start a competition of bad votes..... OH unles you discount absent as a bad vote Obama's record wouldn't look so good either....

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 21:28 PM

Sure, start a competition, try and show how many congressmen voted to pass bills that increased spending and/or added to the debt since 2002.

Let's see who can present the most congressmen who have voted to increase spending, and/or increased the deficit in all. And the competition is open to all commenters, let's see who can list the most from all parties. Are you in Native?

List the bill and the congressman who voted on increasing spending without increasing revenues to match the spending.

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 21:33 PM

BTW, are you saying that these were bad votes on Ryan's behalf? Is this what we are to expect from him moving forward, bad votes? Can we trust a congressman who seems to have so many bad votes? These are missed votes, these are in your words "bad votes."

It doesn't sound to be such a wise idea to vote for someone who casts bad votes. Sounds kinda dumb!

canative62 commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 21:50 PM

Lets deal with sincerity...
Can we trust Obama based on his Campaign promises????
First lets start by votes that are backed by political promises...
Obama ran on needing to get Republicans to cross the asile>>>>
Obama's voting record is along party lines 95% in the Illionis Senate and 96% in congress 2 times outside thje party and 2 no votes out of 40 votes in his entire Congressional record
and he voted to PAY subsidies to Gas and oil companies ...He also voted to strengthen the bords...... BUT he wants the GOP to cross the aisle...

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 at 21:55 PM

I keep telling you, we have a real choice besides Obama, and that is Libertarian Gary Johnson. You don't have to make a deal with the devil to vote for someone other than Obama.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 01:37 AM

So how about it Native, you have any big spender congressmen and the bills that they voted for?

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 02:13 AM

I am sure you can point to at least one Lib congressman and the bill he voted for, can't you?


Friendo commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 03:59 AM

Such a calulating fuss is being made over Paul Ryan's voting record than was ever made about Barry's. So if a voting record wasn't important for a presidential candidate then, why is it important for a vice presidential candidate now? Sorry, you do make a deal with the devil when you vote for a SPOILER that will result in a loss of votes for Romney. Divide the vote, Divide the country. The most divisive president in US history. Obama The great Divider. Only thing that has changed this time around is that millions of voters have wised up. That's a good thing.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Broaden the subject as I have to the real issue, Congress. As anyone with even a high school education knows, the President has limited powers, and it is only party politics that cause any division in this country.

Since the Conservatives have done such a poor job of governing the Congress as the article in Factcheck.org points out, you see the mindless followers constantly trying to deflect and misdirect the people. It's not working anymore. This Conservativly led Congress is experiencing the lowest approval ratings (10%) of all time due to their poor governing abilities.

This really leaves them no option but to try and blame the president, but we can see that this tactic is starting to wain. They have already gone over the top, and now their credibility is gone.

So, again, here is a challenge that can be both fun, and enlightening, find Congressmen who have voted for deficit spending that has put our country in such a fiscal mess. They are on both sides of the spectrum, so it shouldn't be that hard.

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM

In what reality was Obama's voting record NOT criticized? There were MANY critical of the now President's voting record both in his short term in the Senate as well as State Government.

Amazing how selective some people's memories can be ...

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Something I noticed in the last post the the commentor from the right. I will paraphrase it as "get in line and do as we tell you, no thinking for yourself!" What else can be taken away from his comments? Spoiler? I guess it would be a spoiler if you lack the confidence in the candidate that you favor.

I have stated repeatedly, that I do not succumb to group think, and there for I choose to march to the beat of a different drummer. It's that American individualism that we keep hearing about. If you wish to mindlessly walk in lock step with your party, then do so, but I am not going to vote for one of the lesser of the two evils, as they have become known, just to insure my side wins, even though they don't really represent my views. It's a hollow victory if your side wins, but their actions don't represent you.

I have repeatedly stated that I am fiscally responsible, and socially I belive in the liberties that our Constituion provides, and that they were a cornerstone in the founding of this nation. I see these ideals represented in the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson. He has a record as Governor of fiscal responcibility and the ability to work with both parties. He does not exhibit the radicalism that one sees with Ron Paul, or those in the Tea Party.

There is such desperation coming from the right. They are distorting the truth, they are telling you to get in line and do as you are told, and they are trying to rig the process by limiting who can vote. Sure signs of desperation. Surely the last gasps of a dying elephant.

I have yet seen any of the cheerleaders on the right contrast their candidate's record as governor to that of Gary Johnson. Instead they attack me as if I have an ulterior motive of division. This is obviously projection on the part of the commenters and not fact or reality.

rozemist commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM

This Governor Johnson doesn't sound to bad,I've been doing some reading on him.
He has some ideas that make good sense

Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011)
Supports separation of religion and state. (Aug 2011)
Prostitution is safer when legal and regulated. (Jun 2011)
I support gay unions; government out of marriage business. (Apr 2011)
Support principles embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment. (Feb 2001)
Started a one-man handyman business; grew it to 1,000 people. (Sep 2011)
I support evolution; but no federal involvement. (May 2012)
We can no longer afford to shell out billions in foreign aid. (Feb 2012) (this is a favorite of mine)
No foreign aid spending unless it protects U.S. interests. (Nov 2011)
Government creates jobs by reducing its role, not expanding. (Jul 2011)
Term limits let politicians focus on issues, not re-election. (Jan 2001)


TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

There are more than one differences that I have with Gary Johnson, but one in particular is noted by Rozemist. I do not agree with his stance on term limits.

I am of the belief that the constituency should have the right to vote for whom they want and they should not have their choices limited by the prior experience of a candidate. By placing term limits, it says to the voters that they will make bad choices in who will represent them, so we will limit those choices. Madison spoke positively to the wisdom and consistency that comes with incumbency.

I know the reasoning behind wanting term limits, which is to limit corruption, but I believe that issue can be better dealt with by changing the financing of the electoral process, and placing limits of where and how the financing is done. The Supreme Court has stated that political donations are a form of free speech, but there are ways to regulate this financing and still allow this free speech. Just as you can not stand up in a theater and yell fire, smart and productive regulations can be developed for this financing. Its just unfortunately that this responsibility falls on Congress, and we can not expect them to limit the money that many believe have corrupted them.

rozemist commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 13:04 PM

I meant former governor,he is no longer governor of New Mexico ,in the future I will refer to him as Sov does Gary Johnson
Somehow I think we will be seeing more of this man in the future.At-least hopefully

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 13:16 PM

As I stated in another post, it would be interesting to see those who believe that Mr Johnson is just a "spoiler" meant to divide, contrast their favored candidate's gubernatorial record against Mr Johnson's.

If fiscal responsibility and the elimination of debt is a concern, one may be surprised at the different results of the two records. Mr Johnson does not have the benefit of the Corporate Media promoting a perception as the two dominate parties do. Visit YouTube to see him present his many stances.

Here is an interesting one:
Is a vote for Gary Johnson just a vote for Obama?

And this one:
Gary Johnson slams CNN over bias and gets cut off

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 14:28 PM

Here is another good video to watch:

GARY JOHNSON The Elephants and Donkeys deserve the BIRD

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 16:58 PM

As if the right doesn't have enough problems with dealing with their out of control spending, read this headline to an interesting article that I will provide the link to:

Romney, Ryan Slam President Obama For Spending Too Little


rozemist commented on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 at 17:29 PM

As in the YouTube video couldn't of put it better
President Obama & Mr Romney won't get my vote because I feel "they didn't earn it "
Thanks Sov for all this info
Sincerely, rozemist

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 15:24 PM


Romney is in favor of more government spending, is against spending cuts!

""President Obama’s devastating defense cuts are set to have a massive impact on Fayetteville and the rest of North Carolina," said Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul in the statement."

It seems that Romney is defending government sponsored jobs that are paid for with our tax dollars. He is supporting the wasted spending for defense contractors and the millions of dollars it brings them, yet he can not support the Constitutionally required Post Office. There seems to be no Post Office Lobbyist money in it for him.

Can this show that there is a crack in the alliance between Romney and Ryan? It was Ryan's supposed leadership in Congress in crafting the sequestration bill that he and Congress voted in favor of. Was Ryan wrong for voting to cut spending across the board, or is Romney wrong for wanting to keep tax payer sponsored jobs, and endless defense contractor handouts? Is the high spending Romney out of step with the Republican Party, since: "Ryan and 173 other Republicans voted for them."

Is the Republican's call for spending cuts just more smoke and mirrors from the party who never says what they mean, nor mean what they say? How many more tax payer dollars do they want to stuff in the pockets of the wealthy?


rozemist commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 17:26 PM

There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity!
Quote from the character Big Daddy
From the movie Cat On A Hot Tin Roof

Yep I sure smell a lot of mendacity here!!


canative62 commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 17:38 PM

we have a choice... 4 years of failure or a real plan by Romney/Ryan to prevent total bankruptcy while Obama fiddles his left winmg agenda into smoke..

by Tony Lee16 Aug 201225post a comment

Yesterday, The Hill reported President Barack Obama referred to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s tax reform plans as “trickle-down fairy dust.”

Wednesday in Iowa, Obama went a step further and referred to their plan as “trickle-down snake oil,” again proving that Obama’s talk of wanting a campaign that rises above bluster is just that -- talk.

“They have tried to sell this trickle-down snake oil before,” Obama said in Iowa. “It didn’t work then; it won’t work now.”

Obama, who cut over $700 billion from Medicare, audaciously told Iowans that he had “strengthened Medicare,” and Ryan’s and Romney’s plans would end “Medicare as we know it.” Truthfully, Republican plans put in reforms to make Medicare solvent, which actually would preserve the system.

"President Obama has a long history of launching shameful political attacks on Medicare — but he’s the only person in the race who has actually cut Medicare," Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a statement.

Senate Democrats have not passed a budget. Obama and Democrats are threatening to take the country over the fiscal cliff by letting the Bush tax cuts expire across the board. And even though Obama does not have concrete plans for his second term, let alone sound ones for reducing the debt and growing the country’s economy, he continues to rail against serious Republican plans that tackle the country’s fiscal problems.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 17:58 PM

"serious Republican plans that tackle the country’s fiscal problems" - LMAO, man, Stinky Hands, you crack me up, you have me rolling on the floor! Were you in a coma the last decade? Did you even read the article from Factcheck.com that this blog is based on?

Here is what it said, "What has produced these huge budget gaps? Tax cuts and wars have been big factors, as have recessions and expanded spending for health care in both Republican and Democratic administrations." So what is this "serious Republican plans that tackle the country’s fiscal problems"? More tax cuts for the wealthy, and more defense spending!!!! Here is a serious question, did you read the article, and are you able to comprehend it?

Also, this "serious Republican plans that tackle the country’s fiscal problems" also include $5 trillion more in debt, and when does the deficit go away?

You should be doing comedy! LOL!!!

canative62 commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 18:45 PM


As a result, with the Bush tax cuts expiring for Obama’s targeted taxpayers, on Jan. 1 the top two income tax rates will climb by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate will rocket up by over 60% for Obama’s disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax will rise from the grave with a 57% rate increase.

This is all on top of the U.S. corporate income tax rate, which counting state corporate rates is nearly 40%, the highest in the world now under President Obama, except for the socialist one party state of Cameroon. American businesses are uncompetitive in the global economy with this tax burden. Yet, under President Obama, there is no relief in sight.

Instead, he continually barnstorms the country calling for still more tax increases on investors, business, and job creators. He has been proposing his so-called Buffett Rule, which would increase the capital gains tax rate by 100%, making it the fourth highest in the industrialized world, to go with his world highest corporate rates. Obama has also proposed to double tax the overseas earnings of American companies, raising $129 billion, impose $120 billion in new taxes on American energy companies, add $33 billion in new taxes on banks, raise unemployment payroll taxes, adopt tax increases for health insurance and life insurance companies, and further restrict deductions for higher income earners.
Obama’s tax increases are unlikely to raise anywhere near the revenue projected by CBO. Over the last 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased. In 2003, when the tax rate on dividends was reduced to today’s rate, corporate dividends paid soared, and the revenues from the taxes on those dividends did as well. If that tax rate is now doubled, the result would be the opposite.

Moreover, if the combination of all of these tax rate increases throws the economy back into recession, as many argue is quite likely, then the overall result will be lower rather than higher federal revenues. Indeed, under President Obama’s tax, regulatory and monetary policies, the Coming Crash of 2013, as I have described it elsewhere, is effectively already legislated under current law.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 19:11 PM

So, what does this have to do with the Ryan budget adding $5 trillion to our debt, or not cutting spending but adding spending to things like the military budget and all of the government sponsored jobs that are maintained? Why isn't the spend spend spend Conservatives talking about a balanced budget now, like Gary Johnson is calling for when he says "Submit a Balanced Budget to Congress, not five or ten years down the road, but in 2013."

Why do you avoid talking about how the Conservatives are looking to overturn sequestration which really only amounts to a 10% cut to the national budget? 10% should be a walk in the park, but I guess it would cut into the profits of the Conservative donors.

Why do you defend deficit spending and debt creation of the Conservatives, and why can't you address these issues? Why do you try to muddy the waters with the failed tax solutions from the two dominate "evil" parties and avoid talking about the Fair Tax (fairfax.org) that Libertarian Gary Johnson is promoting?

How is it that you can never produce a reason to vote for the Conservatives that doesn't come from a conspiracy site, and immediately gets shot down? Just like this post here gives us no reason what so ever to vote for the Conservatives and their fiscal irresponsibility, just lays out an opinion as to not vote for the current president. If any of what you say is true, and we have a prime example of what the Conservatives will do, then there is no option but to vote for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson - www.garyjohnson2012.com

So why can't you say that the Conservatives just want to spend more, like $5 trillion more, and when will they eliminate the deficit? Someday...maybe?

canative62 commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 19:16 PM

Your rhetoric is much like CapitalistsNightmare...
You know how he is always saying that the "communists" who cal themselves communist are nt REALLY communist as he is.... Of course his form of "communism" does not exist in any country's government...
Johnsons plan is baseless if he doesn't win... AND a THEIRD PARTY CAN'T WIN

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Aug 23, 2012 at 19:30 PM

I still am not seeing where there is a reason to vote for the Conservatives. We just can't have this continual spending that Romney and Ryan are calling for.

And why do you think that voting for Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson will only pull votes from the Conservatives? Is it because they have lied and are not fiscally responsible? Is it because they have lied and do not support liberties for all?

What makes you think that he will pull votes primarily from the Conservatives?

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 at 01:23 AM

rozemist commented on Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 22:18 PM

rozemist commented on Monday, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:16 AM

Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by TheSovereign
My opinion on the gun control debate
November 15, 2017
Karen, I commend you for stepping into one of the muddiest debates possible. I have aways stated that my goal is to play with perceptions, and one of the greatest misperception is that we have an untethered right to own and carry "guns". Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being ...
Read More »
This is what represents YOU! And you picked them!
September 14, 2015
Those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are here, and it is time for congress to recess. And when they recess they do what? That's right, they hold townhall meetings with the constituents that live in the district that they represent. Oh joyous times, we as citizens now get to ...
Read More »
Its Just Political Theater
October 02, 2013
We are now hearing the drum beats of military intervention from our current President. He and his administration are building a case to intervene in the Syrian uprising. The Secretary of State, John Kerry is telling us that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people, and ...
Read More »
Say what you mean, or mean what you say!
August 31, 2013
Its now time for another look at "Say what you mean, or mean what you say." For this excerpt, we will be looking at government's ability to invade your privacy and your person. There has been fear mongering going on lately by the rapidly fading Conservative propaganda machine, in that ...
Read More »
4th of July Quiz Time
July 11, 2013
Time for all of us political junkies who are celebrating the Declaration of Independence, to test our knowledge of this nation. So, here is a civics test for all to take and challenge one self. Good luck, and post your scores. Share whether you thought the test was easy or ...
Read More »
[View More Blogs...]

Powered by
Morris Technology