It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lets not forget the tax rate is the lowest its been since 1958
Check this out...this is where our income tax dollars go..(social security is not here because social security is a seperate entity, which is removed also specifically for SS...this is FICA)
Social Security - $761 billion
Medicare - $468 billion
Medicaid - $269 billion
TARP - $13 billion
All other mandatory programs - $598 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans.
(Source: OMB, Table S-3)
Mandatory spending is 57% of total Federal spending. It almost three times as much as the military budget, and 1 1/2 times all discretionary spending. The mandatory budget is, as its name implies, mandated by Congress to be spent outside of the annual budgetary process. It cannot be changed without a change in the laws that set up the programs.(Source: OMB, Table S-4)
For FY 2012, the President requested $553 billion for the Department of Defense Base Budget. This was only $4 billion more than the $548.9 billion requested in FY 2011, and $20 billion more than the $533.7 billion requested in FY 2010.
However, total defense spending requested for FY 2012 was $881, less than the $895 billion requested in the FY 2011 budget. This was more than the $855 billion requested for FY 2010, and the Security and the War on Terror request of $782 billion in FY 2009. It includes Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear Administration and some State Department programs. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are are also funded outside the Department of Defense base budget, to the tune of $118 billion.(Source: OMB,FY 2012 Budget, Table S-3)
But consider what that snippit said...
over 2 trillion dollars...about 25% of what it spends....so, how much exactly are we spending on military today (this was september 10th...a day before any emergency funding and raising...and before Bush increased over and over the spending limits...)
No, the entitlement programs is the tiny scraps tossed off the tables of kings so the starving dog can nip at it...the feast will not somehow be saved if we decide to remove the scraps, it will only make the dogs become ravenous and the kings just a little bit fatter.
Your totally sold on propaganda that is given to the plebs in society to keep the focus off of the machine we are in. Same ole same ole...royalty blaming all the loss of wealth on witches, meanwhile they eat off of golden platters.
Entitlement spending accounts for the single greatest expenditure in the U.S. budget system - without including Social Security.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Aim64C
Entitlement spending accounts for the single greatest expenditure in the U.S. budget system - without including Social Security.
If you look at the Bush tax cuts as "entitlement spending"...sure
They are the largest single-policy contributor to the national debt...
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by David9176
And above all.....you were the one Supporting tea party Republicans who were threatening default just DAYS AGO...which would have lowered our credit rating as well. Remember..."It's all about values and principles?" That's what you you stated to me a few days ago or something to that effect.
A default would not have happened. The U.S. budget priorities require that revenues go toward paying back public debts before any other mandatory or discretionary spending.
All it would have done is make us have to *gasp* spend no more than we take in. What a friggin' novel concept! I know... I'm crazy - we're all crazy for suggesting we spend within our means!
That means -huge- spending overhauls to medicare, cuts and overhauls to the military budget, and kicking the "income security" bull-crap out. It means really figuring out what we want our federal government to do rather than simply saying "Eh, just increase the debt ceiling - then everyone can have what they want."
He wanted tax increases...he caved...and compromised. It doesn't take a GD Obama supporter to see what happened.
You're obviously not very well informed. The -entire- U.S. budget (including social security - which is a completely separate institution from the Congressional Budget, even though it is included for some odd reason or another) was something like 4.2 billion dollars. The entire projected revenues for the year were in the range of 2.8 billion dollars. That's about 1.4 billion dollars in deficit spending - a 50% increase to the necessary revenue to handle the added spending.
You want to raise tax revenue to cover our deficit spending? You and WHAT army? We in the military pay federal income tax, as well - and have families that we'd rather not see taxed into oblivion. You're not getting a 50% increase in tax revenue out of the American population. Simply not going to happen. You'll have states filling for secession by the end of the week and ratifying it by the close of business that day.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SaturnFX
To adopt a european model just won't work. (square peg/round hole) A fair tax, say 10% across the board would. No exceptions, no loopholes. If you make 10,000 or 10 million, you pay.
Then, and only then, would I even consider talking entitlements, funded or otherwise.
10%
you lost your mind...we could barely pave roads for that amount....much less support a standing military.
Now, a straight across the board I am not opposed to, but ya, kick it up to 30%.
However, if that was instituted, you know who would suffer the most? businesses...not because the rich are taxed though, hell, they can afford it...its because the middle and poor are also robbed of their spending power...which means they don't buy random crap, which means companys manufacture less and therefore sell less, firing people, etc.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Hmmm... how can a tax cut be a debt? Nobody ever has managed to answer that simple question. Are you suggesting that money belongs to the Federal government rather than to the men & women who earned it? At what point do you embrace the concept of a man owning the fruit of his own labors? Why not just start taxing everyone at 100% of their earnings, then cutting down to whatever level sustains the government's assinine redistribution of wealth habit and then the only debt on their books will be whatever percentage the government graciously allows the citizenry to keep?
ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMN MONEY!
The G.D. income tax isn't even Constitutionally legal to begin with.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMN MONEY!
The G.D. income tax isn't even Constitutionally legal to begin with.
Originally posted by brigand
reply to post by ren1999
This should be Front Page News... but isn't.
Ask yourself why..
May be spending priorities are to be decided by the Congress as per the US Constitution, but Obama was in no mood to oblige that part of the Constitution if it exists.
Perhaps he was bluffing, but no one wanted to take that risk.
It is a novel concept that a President who just a year before expanded the entitlements by creating the universal healthcare would reverse his stand and agree to cutting entitlements when his constituents believe he could continue with the entitlements by increasing taxes on the rich.
I don't think anyone there is foolish enough to believe this borrow and spend can continue indefinitely and most of them probably realise the game is very near the end. However, no one has the guts to come out and say they are not going to cut spending because they chose not to borrow and not raise taxes on the rich. So it will go on until it is proven that no one would lend the US government money, which is perhaps likely very soon.
mpact of any voluntary spending cuts would not be any less significant than those you envisage with a 50% hike in taxes. Precisely why everyone agreed to borrow.
I think You will find that if We did 10% the amount contributed by the wealthy would surprise You. As it stands now, many of Us peons contribute 25%, 30% or more, while the elite/corporations pay nothing.
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?
They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.
7. Are lower tax rates responsible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?
There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.