Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

By The Numbers – Federal Revenue and Spending

by Da King on October 8, 2007

in federal spending,Uncategorized

money tree

The Heritage Foundation publishes a book of federal spending and revenue charts. There is some pretty good information in there. For instance, did you know that even with the war on terror, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war, that military spending is quite a bit less than the historical average for the last 45 years? You never hear that from our mainstream media, do you ?

How about those 'tax cuts for the rich' that the Democrats talk about incessantly ? What's the truth there ? Well, the truth is, the higher income folks pay almost all the income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners only paid 3% of income taxes. Plus, raising marginal income tax rates on the wealthy doesn't affect tax revenues very much. As the highest tax rate went from 91% in 1960 to 35% today, tax revenues as a percent of GDP remained relatively flat.

And those evil corporate sob's who are plundering the american countryside by providing us all those goods and services we want ? The top corporate tax rate in the USA is the highest in the developed world. Shouldn't we be trying to keep our businesses competitive in the world economy, instead of strapping them down with high taxes and other burdens ? Don't our businesses create the jobs that support our families ? I'm just asking. Certain politicians act like business is the enemy. Insane. I think our politicians are much more the enemy than our businesses.

What about federal spending ? After adjusting for inflation, federal spending has nearly doubled since 1960. During the same time period, Mandatory federal spending has risen over 600%. Mandatory spending is not subject to annual review or the appropriations process. Total federal spending is now over $23,000 yearly per household. I don't kinow about you, but that scares the heck out of me. That is the REAL tax burden, and that's only the federal share. Add it all up and we are probably paying over $30,000 per household. Please think about this when you hear politicians propose these endless new spending programs to try to buy your vote. If you REALLY care about your children, it has to stop, because we are passing our irresponsibility, selfishness, and greed onto those future generations.

So, how do things look for the future ? Regarding spending, not so good. Federal spending has been in the neighborhood of 20% of GDP since the 1960's, but with the looming retirements of the baby boomers, the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, along with interest on the federal debt, will cause future spending to rise to an estimated 38% of GDP by 2050. This doesn't include all the new spending programs being proposed by certain politicians who are trying to win a certain presidential election in 2008. The old civil rights phrase was Power To The People !. Now, it's Pander To The People !. And boy, do they ever.

And speaking of the federal debt and deficits, our so-called retirement program, Social Security, along with Medicare, is generating 35% of current federal revenue. Imagine what the real deficit would be if the Social Security monies were separate from the general fund and locked away as they should be. Enron never came close to perpetrating a scam as big as Social Security.

In summary, government has grown enormously since the 60's, and we have two parties not doing the job. The Democrats are the tax and spend socialist freaks who will destroy the country by design, and the Republicans are the tax cut but still spend failures who will also destroy the country by selling it off piece by piece. It's pretty apparent that what neither party has the ability to do is CONTROL SPENDING, which, after the war should be our number one priority as a nation, but sadly isn't. Politicians don't win elections by telling america the truth, or at least they haven't so far. The blame for that falls on a lot of shoulders: the dishonest media, corrupt politicians in pursuit of power, special interests looking for handouts…

But mostly, it falls right on the shoulders of the american voting public, who are disengaged.

  • roysoldboy

    It is the disengaged voters who we have to blame for all this. If they did their duty they would have "unelected" people like John Murtha who uses pork to maintain his position in Congress. They would have demanded through their votes that Congress start doing the business of the people instead of the business of special interests who manage to pay them more than we the people seem to do.

    I must comment on your words about pandering to the voters that the Democrat candidates for Predident are doing. It seems that the "top tier" candidates, whatever in hell that is, are trying to "outbid" each other for the nomination. The more social programs each one promise the more the others have to promise in order to get their points. The stupidity of the electorate is so obvious from them doing what they are doing to snow the electorate. Are there any voters trying to make them tell the truth anymore? Not enough, I fear.

    Speaking of this election coming up, I must relate a little thing I did just this morning. Newsmax is running a survey to see who among all the Republicans people would vote for on election day. My choice is the one that decided not to run but his name is still listed. I will be disenfranchised when the primary ballots are printed up and may well not take part.

  • Da King

    Some of those pandering Democrats aren't too far away from just coming out and saying 'vote for me and I'll give you $10,000'. Why don't they just cut to the chase and do it ? At least that way they'd be honest for a change.

    I watched part of the Republican debate about the economy last night, and I taped it so I can watch the rest today. I don't think Fred Thompson can keep up with Romney and Rudi. I like Huckabee a little more every time I see him. I can't wait till they cut the field down, so the candidates can speak more in depth. Every one of those Republicans said at least something I liked. I love it when they talk about fiscal conservatism. Now if we could only get them to GOVERN like fiscal conservatives. They haven't done enough of that lately. It makes me so angry that they dropped the ball on that. A lot of people actually think the Democrats are the fiscal responsible ones now, as laughable as that is. The Republicans have only themselves to blame for that. They had a golden opportunity and trashed it.

    I was sorry to see Newt drop his presidential bid. Hey, you can always vote for your Kansas guy, Brownback (just kidding).

  • http://ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/ The Reverend

    "Shouldn't we be trying to keep our businesses competitive in the world economy, instead of strapping them down with high taxes and other burdens ? Don't our businesses create the jobs that support our families ?"

    Basically….no and no. When workers or consumers or voters decide to help businesses stay competititve all they get is a kick to the groin. Yeah, we can all buy cheap Chinese stuff. In exchange we hollow out the middle class.

    Business, primarily big bisiness, is moving as many middle class paying jobs offshore as fast as they can. I guess $8 hr plus some high duductible, high co-pay health coverage is what you mean by "support our families". Yeah, hell….$16k per year is enough. Quit whining, right?

    Greed is decaying America.

  • Da King

    So your tactic would be to tax and regulate the hell out of business, which would only lead those big companies to move even more jobs offshore, depress wages even further, and further erode the middle class. That's not much of a winning strategy.

    And did you actually say that businesses DON'T create the jobs that support our families ? DUH.

    And the average worker makes a heck of a lot more than 16K Rev, but of course, you already know that.

  • roysoldboy

    King, I am as likely to vote for Brownback as you are to vote for Kucinich. Wouldn't they make a good pair for the election? I wonder which would be which for the two jobs. I don't think they could get 500,000 votes and those would be from idiots.

  • Da King

    "King, I am as likely to vote for Brownback as you are to vote for Kucinich".

    LOL. That's not very likely then, is it ? I would only vote for Kucinich under the following conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………um, nope, can't think of any :)

  • roysoldboy

    I wonder if he could get 500,000 votes in a national general election. Surely there are that many out and out idiots who would vote for either of these idiots.

  • Da King

    I think Brownback could get more votes than Dennis the Menace. At least I hope so. Your Kansas guy might not be very smart, but our Ohio guy is an absolute leftwing nutjob with a Napoleon complex. The only way I want to see Kucinich in the White House is on one of those sightseeing tours.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).