Honestly, defense spending is far larger than it has been historically, even through the Cold War. It does need trimming. We need to follow through on our Asian pivot and remove bases from other regions. Less research and more ships to project strength in the Pacific. But that won't get rid of the deficit alone. Other spending cuts need to be done.
I worked that job while getting my degree as a 3d artist, along with a bunch of my classmates. I couldn't do it forever, though. I needed higher pay to survive. Now I'm working a worthless desk job (customs clearance) and I fucking hate it with a passion. I would go back to throwing around boxes (or any equivalent) in a heartbeat if I could support my family on it.
Not meaning to pick you out of a crowd of millions, but most of the young college graduates aren't like you. They expect more. They were told college was a sure thing, then loaded up with debt and got out expecting the economy could endlessly make room for more general white-collar workers. It's an overinvestment in too many generalist white-collar workers, and society at large is to blame for signalling to young people that trades are "low-class" work. Welders and pipe-fitters can make a lot of money.
Anyway, I've worked as a landscaper and in a warehouse, so I know what you mean. Moving around all day has its good points compared to desk jobs.
Last debt ceiling Republicans insisted on spending cuts or they would destroy the world economy. This is nihilistic asshole behavior. Democrats did not demand tax hikes at the threat of being nihilistic assholes.
Inaction is not virtuous behavior, either. Spending money that you don't have, that will plunge this and future generations into chaos, is a form of nihilism heedless of future consequences far worse than a fiscal cliff. Expecting bond-holders to cover the government's bills forever, as they soar past 20 trillion dollars, is perfectly asshole behavior. Are there free lunches in life?
US Treasuries will continue to sell. Then, one day, they won't sell at all. The market will have no confidence in repayment. The end for all debtors, both big and small, comes slowly at first, and then all at once. Zimbabwe ensues.
Your side is assholes, get over it or stop supporting them.
I don't particularly support them. I have no visions of politicians ushering in a grand utopia. I know both sides are assholes. What I'm saying to you, as you discuss Obama's strategy to give them the blame, is that Obama isn't acting the way any normally concerned person would in a hostage situation.
I've already granted you the premise that Republicans are the
villains. Now show me the
hero. There is none. If I pointed a gun at your mother, you wouldn't act the way Obama is acting toward the evil villainous Republicans threatening his beloved America. "Go ahead and shoot my mother! The police will know that I didn't do it!"
View enclosed chart. 85 years. Approximately 20% of GDP in tax revenues over multiple top-rate tax policies.
So? That's because our politics has decided on those tax levels. You might as well say that it's a law of the universe that the speed limit is 65 miles per hour.
No, politics didn't decide the tax level. It can't ever. I think you misread the chart. The nominal tax rates
have changed many times. They failed to change actual revenue collection. Higher tax rates don't net more tax dollars in actual revenue. We get 20% of what America produces whether we soak the rich for 90% of their marginal income, or for 30% of their marginal income. That is 85 years worth of data.
You can't count on raising tax rates on the rich, or the middle-class, or even the poor to get you out of this deficit. The taxes are what the taxes are. Past a certain point, you simply can't get more revenue by increasing rates. The top rates have been as low as 30%, and tax revenue was
still 20% of GDP.
Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.
Absolutely. As I admitted earlier, this 20% GDP cap on tax revenues exists only in America's data. In other countries, the cap is higher for many reasons cultural, demographic, geographic, or whatever. But the caps do exist. In a perfectly utopian society do you think people would give 100% in tax revenue without reducing output at all?