*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, March 11th, 2011 12:07pm PST - promote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Terrific idea. Not going to happen.

Hear hear!


OR

is it here here ?

I never really under stood that reference other than when to say it.

The conundrum: either raise taxes to pay for an unsustainable amount of government spending or cut spending and not raise taxes?

When the US government stops spending more than the rest of the world's governments, I'll consider this guy's notion to raise taxes to fund our unsustainable budgets. Until then, why not focus your efforts on ending the war and shrinking the US empire. Think of all the money we'd save!

after a 5 minute research blast through google:

European Union - 2009, 50.8% (Total General Government Expenditure as % of GDP)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00023&plugin=1

Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.

We spend proportionally less that everyone on newluke's table except Estonia and Switzerland. The problem is that the "only cut revenues, never raise them ever" philosophy of the last 30 years means that the government only takes in about 15-20% of GDP while it spends 25-30. We definitely need to bend the cost curve on health care and wrap up these wars. I'm sure there are also plenty of opportunities to defund minor federal programs that aren't doing much good. However, even if we do all this it won't balance the budget. Unless we want to stop having an army, or stop providing health care of any kind to the poor or elderly, or stop paying social security (while still collecting the taxes for it), we'll need a lot more revenue to get defects to a sustainable level.

>> ^newluke:

Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.


Raising taxes on a "certain population". The rich is what you meant. No need for euphemisms. I understand Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich. It's even in the title.

My point is this is a distraction. What we need to do is shrink the US defense spending. I'm tired of the Democrats positioning themselves as the party of peace, but do nothing to actually promote peace. Why not stop raising taxes and start cutting the spending?

It's great that people are finally having serious discussions about what we should be giving up as a nation. However, check out the numbers from last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Note the deficit of 1.42 trillion dollars. Add up your least favorite programs until you get to 1.42 trillion and ask yourself if that's still a country you want to live in. We've been lead to believe that current tax levels are sustainable or even too high, but try balancing the budget yourself with current revenue levels. You can cut the entire defense department, stop both wars, end medicare (but still tax for it), end medicaid, and you're still not there.

Now you have no military, the old and poor dying of preventable illness, and you're still adding 100 billion dollars to the deficit each year. Anyone who seriously wants to argue that current revenue levels are sustainable needs to make a realistic case for what services our government is going to stop providing. Pretending that we can just wait out these wars or cut out our 1-2 least favorite programs is the kind of nonsense that allows the irresponsible pricks who are running our country into the ground to keep getting re-elected.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^newluke:
Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.

Raising taxes on a "certain population". The rich is what you meant. No need for euphemisms. I understand Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich. It's even in the title.
My point is this is a distraction. What we need to do is shrink the US defense spending. I'm tired of the Democrats positioning themselves as the party of peace, but do nothing to actually promote peace. Why not stop raising taxes and start cutting the spending?

@blankfist to put a fine point on what Mikus is saying, the deficit in 2009 was $1.42 trillion, the entire military budget is $0.663 trillion.

Defense cuts are something I agree with, but it's a "distraction" to insist that it's the only thing needed to fix the budget.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist to put a fine point on what Mikus is saying, the deficit in 2009 was $1.42 trillion, the entire military budget is $0.663 trillion.
Defense cuts are something I agree with, but it's a "distraction" to insist that it's the only thing needed to fix the budget.


It's almost half the budget.

>> ^blankfist:
It's almost half the budget.

And the Bush tax cuts are more than half the deficit. Let's get rid of them.

In fact, just use this debt calculator, and post a link to your choices.

Here's mine: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dmt216qm

I'm a little annoyed there isn't a bullet for "eliminate gas & oil subsidies", but otherwise that's a pretty good calculator.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Hear hear!

OR
is it here here ?
I never really under stood that reference other than when to say it.


I was curious, so I looked it up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear