It is hard say you can eliminate $1T in federal spending if you are not willing to lie.

 

-----signature-----

There are personal income taxes and then there are a whole host of other taxes that go into the general category of 'federal revenue'. You seem to be willy nilly pick and choosing which parts to plug into various statements.

 

-----signature-----

congrats, you scrolled over to the correct column when discussing our government's ability to generate revenue. The total revenue as % of GDP is 20.6%. The highest 10 year period is just over 19%. The average is around 18%. Each % = $150,000,000,000.


As I've posted in the past, I like to use the 20.6% number instead of the income tax number (which I used in my previous post @10.2%) because tax rates or classifications are gamed over time. What start as social security premiums, evolve into social security taxes. Government revenue is always government revenue.


If you have a plan for how the government can increase their revenue between 25-50%... let us know, but that is what it would take just to balance the budget now. I contend regardless of the income tax rate you choose, you aren't going to move the revenue number as a % of GDP above 20%... which means you will at least need to eliminate $1T to balance the budgets.

 

-----signature-----

It seems that the liberals would rather have 25% of a small number than 15% of a much larger one. That is what I get from their logic.

In the 80's revenue doubled. Spending tripled. Simple math will tell you that the tax cuts did not cause the debt to grow.

As for cuts, if you increase something you did not cut it. If you keep it the same you don't cut it. If you reduce it you have cut it. Anything else is just weasel words.

 

-----signature-----

I dunno about no liberals - but I would rather you address the glaring discrepancies in your previous statements and reality.


But par for course, I'm not expecting you to acknowledge the discrepancy or discuss it.

 

-----signature-----