Feds set tax haul record: $472B in one month
 

The federal government set a record <a class="" href='http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/7/feds-set-tax-haul-record-472-billion-one-month/#'><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:100%;color:rgb(0,153,0);background-color:transparent;">tax</span></a> haul in April, taking in nearly a half-trillion dollars in one month alone, according to Congressional Budget Office statistics released Thursday.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...z3ZYDauW8Y

 

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Says every corporation ever.

---

Agreed 1000 times, we bring in enough money the problem is we spend it faster then we get.

---

Says every corporation ever.

Man you guys really hate corporations dontcha...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Man you guys really hate corporations dontcha...

 

Someone has to be the boogeyman for the left.  Of course, they only hate corporations that don't support progressive causes.  Those aren't evil corporations. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

It's both.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Someone has to be the boogeyman for the left.  Of course, they only hate corporations that don't support progressive causes.  Those aren't evil corporations. 

All conservatives hate progressive viewpoints because they don't think for themselves and just parrot whatever Rush and Hannity scream about. 

 

 

Generalization is fun isn't it?

---

It's both.

How can it be both? You could say we are getting revenue from the wrong people or disproportionally but I just don't see how anyone can argue we don't take in enough money?

---

How can it be both? You could say we are getting revenue from the wrong people or disproportionally but I just don't see how anyone can argue we don't take in enough money?

 

Why can't it be both?  We need to cut spending drastically.  But there are programs (at least IMO) that need better funding.  We need to take better care of our veterans for example.  Our deficit is ginormous.  Some spending needs to be shifted, and we need to cut.  And we owe China a trillion dollars.  A trillion!

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why can't it be both?  We need to cut spending drastically.  But there are programs (at least IMO) that need better funding.  We need to take better care of our veterans for example.  Our deficit is ginormous.  Some spending needs to be shifted, and we need to cut.  And we owe China a trillion dollars.  A trillion!

 

So that would be an allocation issue, if we agree spending in some area's has to be cut we could reallocate those to the underfunded programs. But I just don't think we need a single dollar more in "revenue" we just have to figure out what should be cut, what is necessary and how the hell we dig out of 17 trillion dollars.

---

So that would be an allocation issue, if we agree spending in some area's has to be cut we could reallocate those to the underfunded programs. But I just don't think we need a single dollar more in "revenue" we just have to figure out what should be cut, what is necessary and how the hell we dig out of 17 trillion dollars.

While I do think the overall tax burdens could be shifted more away from impacting lower incomes and middle class to upper classes, I tend to think we don't need to increase intake of funds as you have. Cutting for sure needs to be done. That's the big debate right now. Where do the cuts get made and what is worthy of funding. 

---

While I do think the overall tax burdens could be shifted more away from impacting lower incomes and middle class to upper classes, I tend to think we don't need to increase intake of funds as you have. Cutting for sure needs to be done. That's the big debate right now. Where do the cuts get made and what is worthy of funding. 

 

We should just start from scratch, make them all get in a room and start listing priorities one by one. Once the money's gone that's the stuff getting cut. It'll never happen but that's how the rest of us do our budget.

 

Gotta keep a roof over the head, food on the table, clothes on our back and transportation as Dad would say.

---

We should just start from scratch, make them all get in a room and start listing priorities one by one. Once the money's gone that's the stuff getting cut. It'll never happen but that's how the rest of us do our budget.

 

Gotta keep a roof over the head, food on the table, clothes on our back and transportation as Dad would say.

I like it, lets make them use the envelope system. 

---

Man you guys really hate corporations dontcha...

Lol, no, I don't hate corporations. But I do prefer to stand up for my class.


Of course the owning class is gonna throw out propaganda on their owned media outlets saying that they are taxed enough, or even that their taxes should be lower.


But that doesn't make it a fact, just a policy choice and an opinion...


We clearly have a revenue problem... that's why we have deficits!! We also have spending issues, particularly in regard to our military and corporate welfare programs....


Maybe when I'm in the owning class, I'll defend those policies. Until then, I'm a worker for those people, and I'll look out for my own class.

---

We should just start from scratch, make them all get in a room and start listing priorities one by one. Once the money's gone that's the stuff getting cut. It'll never happen but that's how the rest of us do our budget.


Gotta keep a roof over the head, food on the table, clothes on our back and transportation as Dad would say.

Macro economics and government spending is nothing like individual budgeting. No offense, but it's a pet peeve of mine when this analogy is made because it's not just simplistic, but flat out wrong...


There's so much that a government can do that a household can't. Increase the money supply, Lower interest rates, raise taxes, adjust treasury bonds, nationalize sectors of industries, etc... not only that, but governments are considered a going concern, they have no finite "retirement", or end, to their activities. That type of immortality, if you will, alone makes the comparison not accurate at all..

---

Macro economics and government spending is nothing like individual budgeting. No offense, but it's a pet peeve of mine when this analogy is made because it's not just simplistic, but flat out wrong...

There's so much that a government can do that a household can't. Increase the money supply, Lower interest rates, raise taxes, adjust treasury bonds, nationalize sectors of industries, etc... not only that, but governments are considered a going concern, they have no finite "retirement", or end, to their activities. That type of immortality, if you will, alone makes the comparison not accurate at all..

 

You see that's how Keynesian economics works, I'm not a Keynesian I'm an Austrian.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kukKpqd_B2c

---

Says every corporation ever.

 

 

Never saw  liberal complain about Starbucks have you????

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Why can't it be both?  We need to cut spending drastically.  But there are programs (at least IMO) that need better funding.  We need to take better care of our veterans for example.  Our deficit is ginormous.  Some spending needs to be shifted, and we need to cut.  And we owe China a trillion dollars.  A trillion!

Easiest fix of them all. Eliminate Tricare and VA health services and give all veterans and their families Medicare for life. There, I just cut hundreds of billions out of the budget with no change in services provided.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

When the revenue is taken by force from productive people we have a revenue problem.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You see that's how Keynesian economics works, I'm not a Keynesian I'm an Austrian.

Cute video... all opinion and no real facts on the actual theory... the theory is sound. The problem is how the politicians implement policy...


You don't have to be Keynesian, lol, it's existing just fine. You also don't have to believe in newtonian physics, but gravity is gonna keep your butt firmly planted on your couch! :-)


What's this Austrian thing you speak of? Please explain that

---