Hmm. When people talk about "entitlement" spending going up don't they realize that part of that is because the population overall is simply increasing (also people are living longer) as well so more and more people end up being covered under the various programs? It's not like it exist in a bubble and can have the same amount spent each year. It has to scale. I don't think I ever hear people even touching on this part of it and it seems very important to me to put the discussion into proper context. Instead of republicans just jumping to cut, cut, cut as if it's simply a money only issue.
Context is neglected by the masses which is why it's never mentioned in political speeches. Unfortunately it's also being neglected in policy discussion and debate, particularly on the right.
If you compare the GDP growth under obama vs government expenses, you'll find that spending increases have actually trailed GDP increases. In other words, the US government has become a smaller aspect of the overall economy during obama's presidency.
The REAL issue lies in tax revenues, which have actually decreased by a larger amount than expenses have increased (in other words, the changes in the deficit are more attributable to taxes going down than expenses going up).
Household/personal income and wealth has stagnated for all but the top tiers of society, and corporate profits are at an all time high. The growth in economic output and the wealth it creates is all concentrated in the ranks of the upper tiers of society and non-personal legal entities and institutions. Our tax code is structured in such a way that the only way for the government to grow in proportion with the economy is when growth is from the bottom-up, in personal income taxes.
Business taxes are set up in such a way that the larger a corporation is, and the more it grows, the lower it can reduce its tax burden. (Not to mention the larger a business is, the more it can lobby for tax exemptions from local communities..). Too many loopholes for corporations that scale regressively.
Capital gains can get measured discretely, but are actually taxed less aggressively than wages earned from continuous labor. I'm not saying investment is bad, but generally
, it is more demanding on an individual to earn $1 million through labor than through investment, which is just your share of the fruits of another's labor. Low capital gains taxes compared to income taxes mean that the most demanding types of wealth generation get taxed the most, and the least demanding methods get taxed the least. This would be fine in a society where personal growth and enlightenment is done at one's leisure without the need to sacrifice or risk access to basic necessities, but our society is not modelled in such a way yet. Furthermore, because we are structured to provide conditional acquisition of basic necessities to individuals, and it is through labor we allow access, it means that we are naturally creating an aristocracy.
Man I've really gone off on a tangent....
