rickyp wrote:ray

I guess the total governmen tax will go from 15.5% to 17%, or something like that

Based on what? I think it is more like 16% but we're both guessing.... so if you have a source for your guess, i'll go with it.

$617 billion is not an insubstantial amount, but given the enormous tax hole we’ve been in for the past decade, as well as our aging population and the projected increases in health care costs, it is far less than we will need for fiscal stability. Under the fiscal cliff deal, revenue will average about 18.8 percent of gross domestic product—the broadest measure of the country’s economic activity—over the next 10 years. That projection, however, assumes that the tax provisions that were only temporarily extended—such as the long list of business tax “extenders”—actually expire as the law says they will. If we instead assume that those tax breaks will continue to be extended each year, as they have been in recent history and were again in this deal, then revenue will average only 18.5 percent of GDP over the next 10 years.

freeman2 wrote:Where are you getting your figure of the budget as being 25 percent of GDP, RJ? For fiscal year 2012 it was 22.8 percent.http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43697
That is not all that much higher than the 40 year average of 21 percent of GDP

freeman2 wrote:Where are you getting your figure of the budget as being 25 percent of GDP, RJ? For fiscal year 2012 it was 22.8 percent.http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43697
That is not all that much higher than the 40 year average of 21 percent of GDP

As this 2012 edition of Federal Spending by the Numbers shows, total federal spending for fiscal year 2012[1] reached $3.6 trillion, or 22.9 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy. In the past 20 years, federal outlays have grown 71 percent faster than inflation. The average American household’s share of this spending is $29,691, roughly two-thirds of median household income. This relentless growth is projected to continue, pushing total government outlays to $5.5 trillion a decade from now, and to about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 25 years.

Federal entitlements are driving this spending growth, having increased from less than half of total federal outlays just 20 years ago to nearly 62 percent in 2012. Three major programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—dominate in size and growth, soaking up about 44 percent of the budget. All three programs are growing faster than inflation, and—when joined with $1.7 trillion in new Obamacare spending—will drain about 18.5 percent of the nation’s total economic output by mid-century. Because that is about the historical annual average of total federal tax revenue, it means all other government programs—national defense, veterans health care, transportation, federal law enforcement, and others—would effectively have to be financed on borrowed money.

Other entitlements continue growing as well. Anti-poverty programs have surged by 49 percent in just the past decade, even after adjusting for inflation. Spending for food stamps alone has more than tripled since 2002. Health programs, including Medicaid, have increased by 38 percent, and housing assistance by 48 percent.

Tax rates on those below $400,00 are still lower than Clintons years ...New Rules on capital gains and carried interest shield plenty of wealthy peoples incomes from taxation over 15% .... I don't think we're really at the same level yet. Especially regarding taxes on financial institutions or trading houses...

Other entitlements continue growing as well. Anti-poverty programs have surged by 49 percent in just the past decade, even after adjusting for inflation. Spending for food stamps alone has more than tripled since 2002. Health programs, including Medicaid, have increased by 38 percent, and housing assistance by 48 percent.

The future: either massive cuts or massive borrowing.

rickyp wrote:

Other entitlements continue growing as well. Anti-poverty programs have surged by 49 percent in just the past decade, even after adjusting for inflation. Spending for food stamps alone has more than tripled since 2002. Health programs, including Medicaid, have increased by 38 percent, and housing assistance by 48 percent.

fate

The future: either massive cuts or massive borrowing.

Or maybe there are tons of efficiencies within the programs that could produce savings? For instance if medicaid paid the same prices that foreign countries pay for pharmeceuticals?

What happens to people on food stamps and support programs if you cut all their benfits Fate>?
Are they going to stop being poor and destitute?

Free-market policies expand opportunity, produce prosperity and improve lives, especially for those working to climb the economic ladder.

I know this is not a theory. My dad fled torture and oppression in Cuba to come, penniless, to Texas. He washed dishes for 50 cents an hour to pay his way through college and then started a small business.

GMTom wrote:My own nephew for example...
Has two kids, the first a supposed oops but the second simply because he gets more money from the government. Not married because he gets more money, girlfriend quit her job because that way they got more money. Yeah, he's dumb as a box of rocks and lazy (my wife's side mind you) but he's not alone, far from it! Make him and the girlfriend work and they would! But why work when you can sneak by doing nothing?

So, this would have no ill effects? The government can dictate prices and companies will blindly keep researching and developing for little or no profit?

rickyp wrote:fate

So, this would have no ill effects? The government can dictate prices and companies will blindly keep researching and developing for little or no profit?

What we know is that the drugs are sold elsewhere for much less. And yet Big Pharma abides by this state of affairs.
Either the US consumer, and the US government through Medicare and Medicaid are comfortable subsidizing the rest of the worlds pharmeceutical needs OR Big Pharma is ripping off American consumers and tax payers....
Either way, the status quo should be unacceptable to American taxpayers and consumers...

Ray Jay wrote:What so discouraging to me is that we cannot even cut the simple stuff. Who needs mail on Sat.?