What planet do you live on. Of course the budget isn't balanced. The current administration has run it up sever trillion dollars since 2008. Wasting billions of dollars and lying about the cost of obamacare to the economy. It is the liberal economic advisors on health care that missed the opportunity to actually reform heath care. Those that teach but don't actually treat patients. HHS mandate of coverage that caused higher premiums and did little to regulate the insurance companies, making them the big winners.
How does that show spending was not cut in the years as I proved? Inflation, GDP and population growth increase it of course. Raising taxes works too. We'll see what?
Who disputed that? Well maybe someday when we reverse "trickle down" policies middle class incomes will increase enough to make a difference. But raising taxes works too. See e.g. 1993; 2013. Meaning if you want to have an esoteric debate on whether taxes are constitutional, take it up with your con law professor. I'll pass as it is irrelevant. You're statement is demonstrably false. Poor and middle class incomes have increased dramatically since 1913, and especially for seniors. It was only around 1981 when middle class incomes began stagnating as a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth went to fewer and fewer. The dollar didn't start suddenly devaluating in 1981. Something else happened that year. "We had a weakening dollar for decades before 1981 and that didn't hurt the middle class. Something else happened that year." Why would you think I was referring to 1913 when I specified 1981?
Year - Outlays(spending) 2005 $2.470T 2006 $2.407T 2007 $2.568T 2008 $2.524T Year - Outlays(spending) 2009 3,517.7 2010 3,457.1 2011 3,603.1 2012 3,537.1 2013 3,454.6 2014 3,504.2 They do, so take them into account and recognize the effect, positive and negative, they impose upon the people and the government. What are those who are actually paying taxes getting for their money? Whatever "Sure." was meant to mean.
How does that show spending was not cut in the years as I proved? OK Government. Taxes aren't and investment, they are an obligation to be a member of the nation.
"Used to be. Now for conservatives it seems to mean cutting tax revenues." The tax revenue collected by government is the means government should budget within. Maybe you should elaborate on that. I would agree if taxes were imposed on 'everyone'. Who has claimed that taxes are not Constitutional? Then demonstrate the falsity. My statement was meant to apply to the effect a weakening dollar has upon the entire population, working, and non-working. My income grew the greatest during the 80's, finally achieving a middle class income. Yes, the dollar had remained relatively constant in value until 1913. Please tell us what that "Something else" you keep referring to is. Because my post you were referring to specified 1913 and you added 1981 without any details of what happened, which might have made it obvious which year you were referring to.
OK Waiting for the middle class to make more money means you continue to run deficits. Why is that a necessary criteria? OK, I misunderstood your post. The devaluation of the dollar over time can be adjusted for by adjusting actual numbers to be inflation adjusted, or "real" numbers in economists lingo. Hence when you hear the term "real" GDP they are talking about inflation adjusted GDP. Here is a table of real family income since 1953: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls Year - income 2012 62,241 1979 57,734 1953 31,929 In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%. That means that real family income grew much faster than inflation. In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%. That means that since 1979, real family income has barely kept up with inflation -- i.e. it has stagnated. But its not because of lack of economic growth. In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4% In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9% http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls The trillions of growth in income and wealth have not been shared with the middle classes since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. Your personal situation is irrelevant. Prove the dollar remained relatively constant in value until 1913. Wow, I have to admit I'm shocked by the number of people who don't know what happened in 1981. Reagan was elected president, and implemented the Reagan "trickle down" revolution that was designed to make the richest richer on the theory that the money would trickle down to the middle classes. The revolution worked fabulously well making the rich richer. The 1% saw their share of the nation's income double from under 10% to over 20%. But the money didn't trickle down. Instead it went into the offshore accounts and stock portfolios of the richest. The point is that income inequality has varied greatly since 1913. It didn't go up in 1913 and stay there. Inequality decreased significantly in the 1940s, and stayed lower until 1981. So it wasn't the creation of the Fed in 1913 that caused inequality to skyrocket starting in 1981.
Or government could cut/eliminate wasteful spending and balance the budget. It shouldn't require explaining. Do your figures represent only households with employment income? Household income can vary greatly depending on the number of workers providing income and the income producing skills possessed by each. Also, the numbers you presented would be much more meaningful if you examined ALL the underlying causes and effects which produced them. But are you implying we would be better off had the median family income continued to rise at the same rate as it had between 1953 and 1979? That would have resulted in a median family income of $122,444 in 2012. Actually I would be more interested in seeing the individual median income history than that of the household My personal situation, household income, is relevant as working for a large Corporation, not only did my income increase but that of my co-workers as well, so you might do better to stick with verifiable facts rather than trying to politicize everything by placing blame on one party. Our fiscal problems are a result of both parties, and career politicians who recognize that giving to voters results in more votes than does taking from them, hence deficit spending.
Just pointing out that spending remains about $1 trillion above what it previously was. That's quite an unconventional way of defining taxes. So essentially, those who pay no taxes should not be counted as members of the nation?
And/or raise taxes, getting back to the original issue. The fact you cannot explain your position tells me all I need to know. I believe it measures all income. OK Assuming your calculation is accurate, if that were the median income, the economy would be booming now because expeditures would be far greater. Anecdotal claims, even if true (anyone can say anything on the internet) are not evidence of statistical facts. Your actually claiming this graph proves the dollar was "relatively constant" until 1913? 1913 wasn't the year that we saw inequality skyrocket from the relatively stable levels of the late 40s thru 1980. People had jobs before and after 1981, when inequality began skyrocketing: No, something else happened that year.
Spending historically goes up with economic growth, inflation, and population growth. So what is your point? Who defines taxes as an investment? Aside from some conservatives who make that position implicitly.
Reducing wasteful spending is moving away from the original issue? I didn't say I cannot explain, simply that I should not need to explain, and your later response of "Government. Taxes aren't and[sic] investment, they are an obligation to be a member of the nation." appears to support my position. Then you're saying you don't really know how the numbers relate to the population as a whole? Do the figures include government assistance payments, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.? How about government provided assistance which reduces the cost of living such as housing and free medical care? My calculation is based upon the numbers YOU provided me, "In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%.". 1.81^(1/26) = 1.023082638% income growth per year between 1953 and 1979 proof = 1.023082638^26 = 1.81% If income growth had continued at that rate for the following 33 years, 1979 until 2012, household income would have increased 1.023082638^33 = 2.123506442% or using your figure from 1979 of $57,734, 2.123506442 x $57,734 = $122,598.52 (a little higher than what I posted as I had rounded). Any complaints about my calculations? Do you really think we would have a booming economy had that happened? The median hourly wage would be about $60 an hour. What would a Big Mac, order of fries and a large coke likely cost? Would inflation remain low? Would the minimum wage be raised to $18-$20 an hour? What would the poverty threshold be? Would we be producing anything within the U.S. that could be produced elsewhere in the world? Yet you expect "I believe it measures all income." to be accepted as indisputable facts? No, the graph, if you looked closely indicated "inflation/deflation" historically occurring as a result of free market activity. Alongside the graph was the inflation calculator. And don't forget money was once gold and silver, not the fiat paper currency brought about as the "legal tender for all debts public and private" we use today. So if you agree with that, what was the value of one troy ounce of gold or silver in 1791 and again in 1913? And I didn't say that inequality skyrocketed in 1913, I only said that 1913 set the basis for most all our monetary problems today. Yes, something else happens every year.
An increasing number of the population is being supported by government spending which is unsustainable in the long run, but being made to appear sustainable by perpetual inflation, increasing government debt and deficit spending rather than allow hyper-inflation to occur. Future generations, my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are being made responsible for the extravagance of government today. The federal debt per person was $225 when I was born, and today it is about $56,500 for someone born this year. While government can continue to exist perpetually paying only the interest on its debt, the interest rate has to exceed the inflation rate to find investors in the debt, and our debt interest is becoming a more dominant budget item which has to be serviced. Those on the Left seem to promote compassion, yet express no compassion at all for those yet unborn. You seem to be the only one implying such.
The problem is that the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation since 1970. This has depressed the entire wage curve for decades and is a direct cause of increased government spending in income support programs. Couple this with the steady decrease in tax rates on the incomes of the wealthy, who have garnered the greater share of income from economic growth because of the depressed wage curve, and it is difficult to imagine how government spending deficits would not increase. Regardless of wars or economic ups and downs the stage was set for permanent deficit spending and ever increasing debt. There is no way, in the current scheme for government revenues ti increase at the rate of economic growth. There is also no way to reduce government spending below the rate of economic growth. This is entirely the result of a long term right wing experiment that has come up against political reality. Suppress wages, check, cut taxes for the wealthy, check, increase defence spending, check, eliminate social spending to pay for all that, not so fast. The right has run the United States Of America into an economic ditch because they chickened out on the one hard choice that their entire plan totally depended on and they cannot pull the trigger and do it. They still cant, even after forty years of talking about it, crowing about it, and breaking their promises about it. The right is has devolved into nothing but an abject bunch of disingenuous pants wetting cry babies that will shut up rather than put up when unpopular parts of their ideology are put before the voting public.
First, you need to recognize the fact that the minimum wage is a starting wage, not a lifelong wage paid by employers. A Federal minimum wage of $0.25 per hour was first mandated in 1938. Using 1938 as the base the minimum wage has fluctuated above and below the inflation rate from a low of $0.35 below inflation in 1982 to a high of $0.54 above inflation in 2007 and 2008. The minimum wage is currently $0.11 below inflation, and if the government claims are true that inflation is currently nearly 0%, it need not be adjusted at all. Actually, the Republican party has devolved into nothing more or less than simply being a wing of the Democrat party, considering that a large number of voters such as yourself have become convinced they are entitled to a share of what the more productive members of our societies produce. Our primary problem is government, especially that of the Left wing.
I take to heart the ideal that the roots of the US are in egalitarianism, that all are equal and that the primary role of the government is to act in a manner that increases the general welfare of the people, every one of them, without favour. Unfortunately, over time the government has gone off the rails and legislated a large number of policies that have granted undue favour to certain groups of people to the detriment of many others. The government itself, though its misguided judgement, has created a great division in the increase of the national welfare, favouring some while deliberately disfavouring the plight of others. It no longer operates for the general welfare so much the welfare of the favoured. Most people who make a lot of money do nothing productive, they produce nothing, they control nothing that can produce anything, they have no say at all in anything that has anything at all to do with the manufacture of products or the provision of services. They are less productive to society than the person who hands them their coffee in the morning. The notion that individual productivity can be measured by personal income is completely absurd. Thinking that government is the problem is completely wrong for your perspective because it is only the government that stands between the psychopathic operations of businesses and the wrath of their victims.
The reality is that all 'humans' are NOT equal. The primary role of governments is to protect, not to provide, those who exist within their jurisdiction allowing them to freely exercise their rights in pursuit of their needs and wants. Laws should be applied equally to all, but when they begin to contain hundreds or thousands of pages many different interpretations become possible. We, as a people, no longer agree on the definition of the words that are contained in our Constitution. It would help if you were to explain your definition of the general welfare you attribute to being the responsibility of government, taking into account that we have Federal, State and local governments. I do agree that we have become greatly divided, and much like religions once divided people, politics has become the major divisive force today. Most people? Really? What gave you that notion to begin with? I'm astounded that you would say that after your initial diatribe of government.
