CmndrFish: Hauser's Law is not a law. You can look at pretty much any other country in the Western world, because they all manage to collect over 20% GDP of taxes.

I'll agree it is not a law in the hard sense of the word., but it does look to be a very real barrier. If you think that getting revenue over 20% is easy, I'll disagree with you there. We have done it twice in the last 75 years, even when top rates were in the 90% range. Also, US is not like most other contries in the west.

An effective tax rate as percentage of GDP around 20%.

Historical average is closer to 18.5%. Again, we have only crossed the 20% threshold twice in the last 75 years. Both during economic booms.

If our healthcare system wasn't straight up terrible, we could expand the safety net and save money with ease.

No doubt that we could save money and expand the level of care. Getting rid of that estimated $60 billion in fraud would be a great place to start. That is kind of my point here.


If our healthcare system was as efficient as the Netherlands.

I am not sure why you stay with the pie in the sky dream that we can be like someone else where the circumstances are completely different. The Netherlands is a very homogenous population that has a land area about 1/2 the size of South Carolina with a population of 16 million (about the same population density as Rhode Island.

GranoblasticMan: 2080? You honestly think nothing will change in 60 years?

Did you read the title to the graph?

X-boxershorts: Austerity ALWAYS ends up being taken out on the poor.

Except for when it isn't.

You're not going to get the fiscal house in order unless you raise the top marginal rates. Who's divisive? YOU are, by refusing to raise revenue while insisting on ONLY cutting the budget in a recession. Show me the empirical evidence where this approach has actually....you know...worked.

You must be mistaking me for someone else. I have no qualms about raising taxes to get our fiscal house in order. This argument is a strawman.


The real flaw in your argument comes from the fact that SS outlays DON'T EVEN COUNT IN THE BUDGET....except for the interest paid on those 2.8 trillion dollars in treasuries the SS fund is holding...PAY THEM BACK!

Sure they do. Some of you folks have a hard time with the concept of 'off budget'. Here read through this.. Since we use the unified budget as the standard of budgetary measures, SS, USPS and other off-budget agencies are most certailnly included in the budget and accounting of the deficit/debt.

Also, if you pay back the treasuries that currently makes up the SS trust fund, you are going to do nothing but pay off intragovernmental debt with public debt. I agree that we need to look at shoring up the fiscal health of SS but having the trust fund (a large chunk of the total U.S. debt) is kind of dumb. It is pretty much a shell game that gives the illusion that we have this pot of money just waiting to be used. However, to change the nature of this system, you need to first change the laws of how this money is spent and accounted for.

America borrowed a shiat ton of money in the last 40 years,

About 1/3 of that total debt was accumulated in the last 4 years. Some debt is not a bad thing. In fact healthy amounts of debt are a really good tool for how government conducts buisness. However, we are not accumulating healthy amounts of debt right now. With the spending obligations we have (which is mostly ited up in saftey net programs) we need to look really hard at how we move forward. Yes we need to increase taxes in order to help with these deficits, but that - alone - is not going to solve our problems. We also need to look at making these saftey net programs as efficient as we can while perserving the nature of these programs.

It all went to corporate America and was extracted OUT of the economy in the form of income, capital gains and stock dividends for the wealthiest who've seen their tax rates drop like a rock over the same time frame.

Again, no it did not. Most of the government spending is for Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Income Security. These 3 items alone amounts to about 2 Trillion per year. DoD spending (including the wars) is, by comparison, about $680 Billion per year. The entire discretionary buget is about $1.35 Trillion (includes DoD and some of the Income Security items so there is some overlap here).

And you have the balls to lecture me about fiscal responsibility.

When you are as wrong on most of your arguments as above, get used to it. Above all else, I am trying to beat back your curtain of ignorance so maybe you can actually see where us fiscal conservatives are coming from. You need to listen to your own advice sometime and listen to the facts of the matter. Once you have a clear understanding of how things really work, maybe we can learn to work together to get this mess fixed.

One thing is for certain, those that blissfuly wrap themselves in ignorance and partisan talking points are those that are keeping the solutions to these problems from being realized. Yes, that goes for both sides.

GranoblasticMan: Yes, I did. And if nothing changes in 60 years, I'm not sure how you can blame it on Obama.

This isn't about blaming Obama. It is about recognizing that we are in a big farking mess and trying to do someting to change course. Everyone has blame in this mess we are in.

CmndrFish: The size of our government scales up with the size of our population.

That is where I disagree. The socieo-economic factors that are in play can often be a huge barrier to this simple economy-of-scale issue. That is not saying that we can't (or shouldn't try) implement real reforms to attempt to fix the problems that we have. Or that we should not look to other countries to see how they solve thier problems.

And don't forget that the tax revenue cited by Houser's law is only for the federal portion. To keep apples to apple comparisons to other nations' numbers, you need to add in state and local taxes as well. That will likely add in 8 or 10 more percentage points to the total.

X-boxershorts: Cite where I am wrong.

1) "YOU are, by refusing to raise revenue". My response - I have never refused to raise revenue. Citation: HeadLever 2012-09-11 03:45:32 PM "Not that I am aginst some targeted tax increases as we definaly need the revenue,. . "

2)"The real flaw in your argument comes from the fact that SS outlays DON'T EVEN COUNT IN THE BUDGET" Citation: already provided did you miss it the first time?

3) "It all went to corporate America and was extracted OUT of the economy" Ciatation: I gave you numbers disputing this fact that were from a variety of souces best one-stop shoping for these number would likely be here

4)"A paid partisan sniper." Citation: LOL, I wish I was paid. However, I consider beating back your ignorance to be a noble cause of education. I'm a non-profit in that way. Also not exactly sure how well I fit into the 'partisan' mold as I have major disagreements with the standard GOP stance of no tax increases.

Never mind. I don't need your shiat. Rot your brain at your own expense fool.

And there it is. The classic 'LALALALALA! I can't hear you!' dribble that keep the narrow minded safley cloaked in ignorance. Folks like you make good sheep.

that1guy77: He lost a long time go, which is why he tried to flip the tables around via spewing that last little insult, claimed you're essentially clueless and then gave up on the hopeless 're-educationing' of you. I'm sure he won't be coming back soon... and that you saw it, too..

Yep. I am always amused at the 'dish it out but can't take it crowd'. Fark is typically a pretty safe place for the liberal hive, but it is amazing how fast many of them fold when challenged. This guy knew he was caught spewing BS and instead of being a man about it, he left with some juvenile insults. I have to feel pity at those that can't admit that the other side has a point and they must be portrayed as teh Debil at all costs.

This pretty much exemplifies what is wrong with politics and the reason why it has become so divisive.