Since 2010 total government spending per household has exceeded what each household earns per year. 2010 government spending at all levels — $50,074 per household based on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers — exceeded the median household income of $49,445.
If the federal, state, and local governments confiscated 100 percent of household income in taxes, they still wouldn’t get enough money to pay their expenses.

Government spending has continued to rise out of control since 2010 ,and we've had a stagnant economy, this situation is getting worse . Last year the we voted in favor of accelerating this situation by voting for more Emperor 0and even more Dems in the Senate.So don't expect the situation to get better any time soon .
Mathematical: Government Spending Exceeded Household Income in 2010 | Independent Journal Review (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/46205-mathematical-government-spending-exceeded-household-income-in-2010/)

Yes that is certainly a concern; in this nation spending per capita is less than half average income but there are many who spend much more than you do

What do you expect in a jobless recovery after a meltdown in a consumer driven economy, and pushing for austerity Europe style under guise of DEFICITS? Blue collar wages have been stagnant for over a decade while corporate profits are up, so which economy are YOU talking about since there are obviously more than one.

How do you even ignore the fact that the middle class and manufacturing have been destroyed? Obama didn't do that, BANKS did, and they are still RICH! Main Street didn't blow things up, BANKS and their false derivatives did, and they are growing as we speak.

Stop defending the guys who stole the money so we can get it back, by the best means necessary.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/KIM-JONG-UN-OBAMA-I-WILL-DESTROY-AMERICA-TOO-LATE1-165x300.jpg

Your are right Tom you did it yourselves more effectively than any axis of evil state could dream of, and even more effectively than al qaeda but there is a solution. Stop masquarading as a socialist state and focus on providing real benefits to your masses and you might lift them out of poverty as some of your rivals are doing

Hello tom:

Government spending IS too high. Let's cut. I can balance things. You probably wouldn't like what I'd cut. What's your point? You're complaining about Obama when your man, the dufus, BROUGHT this on?? He spent like a drunken sailor. Sorry. Your complaints are falling on deaf ears..

Here's what you don't, or won't admit.. Your side TALKS a good story, but when they get in, they SPEND, and SPEND, and then they SPEND some more.. They just spend it on crap like the jobs program called the F-35. You can relate, can't you?

excon

I will not and have not defended Republic over spending.. So what's your point ? I've mentioned the F-35 many times and none favorably . You just admitted that spending is too high and won't address it because it is a bi-partisan problem ? Doesn't make much sense to me . But since you want to compare Bush to the Emperor... Bush was a piker compared to Zero .

Hello again, tom:


Bush was a piker compared to Zero .Nahhh. You're doing that thing with statistics just so you can make your point.. It's called manipulation. Nothing good comes out of that..

The fact is, when you have a rip roaring economy, tax collection is up, and expenditures are down. You're proud to say, are you not, that during W's presidency, things were good? Therefore, as a percentage of GDP, those numbers were COOL..

Then something happened... I think you forgot. The economy went into the dumper. I'm NOT going to blame anybody for it here. I'm just mentioning it for historical reference.. As a result of the CRASH, tax collection went DOWN, and expenditures went up. Consequently, as a percentage of GDP, those numbers aren't as good as W's - which proves NOTHING..

Over to you, winger.

Excon

No ,no accounting tricks.. just the facts . Bush's prolific spending counted for 20% of the economy ;Zero's started at 24% and is growing (and he wants to spend even more ) . That percentage holds true even if you blame Bush for the record spending in 2009 after he left office;and for the 2 years of Democrat control of both houses of Congress the Dems enjoyed in his last 2 years; and the ill advised TARP.
What you don't admit is that TARP ,an emergency spending program that I opposed ;should've been a one off exception. Instead ;Zero made that the baseline of every other spending increase . Their heads still explode when all you suggest slowing down the rate of spending increases.

When Zero took office he signed a huge $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office.There are other spending bills that he signed in the first months of his presidency that the Dem Congress passed and Bush would not have touched .But still Bush gets blamed for the 2009 spending levels when people compare the 2 . AND ;if he had his way ;the spending would even be more massive . Thankfully Boneheads House has put a bit of a break on the runaway train.

Just to clarify.. the figures in the OP represent spending at ALL levels of government in the country . They are taking in more than 100 % of household incomes in the country . I don't know why that would not be a major concern that is dismissed with a flippant Repubics spend too.The sad truth is that spending is not sustainable at these levels... levels that ever increasing taxes can't fix. There is nothing bigger than 100% .

What happens if spending exceeds 100% of average household income Tom, absolutely nothing because it is an average and household income is just a component of GDP. I think you need to remember what a median average actually represents. However undesirable it might be that spending continues at this level, in this case there can be more than 100%. What is needed is to get your economy going again and that can only happen by reversing certain policies and providing incentives for industries to reestablish. I know it sounds like third world economics but parts of your nation might resemble the third world. You probably need some special economic zones along the Mexican border where you are allowed to set up sweat shops and pay pittance wages or you can adopt the policy out lined in my op the ultimate solution
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/ultimate-solution-744597.html

You know and I know that the only way to maintain that type of spending is an inflated level of borrowing . It cannot continue without the whole house of cards coming down.

Hello again, tom:


It cannot continue without the whole house of cards coming down.So say worker bees. Businessmen, however, know that proper investment will GROW the economy out of it's doldrums...

Look.. You talk about how miserable owing 100% of your income is.. But, if you take that number, and spread it out over, say 30 years, kind of like your mortgage, the debt becomes manageable, and rising home prices GROW you out of your economic doldrums.

I'll bet when you borrowed for your house it put you in debt MORE than your annual income. It probably worked pretty well for you. No?

Excon

Yes once again you have identified the problem; the solution lies in penalising capital for the problems they have created. As I said elsewhere those industries that take their operations off shore should be penalised. Multinationalism might have grown your industries but it has, as we say here, ultimately bitten you on the bum.

Yes you need to turn off the taps and the sequester will point in the right direction but you need leadership with great courage to actually reform how your government and bureaucracy operates. Your debt problem is one where you need to halve your annual spend for ten years at least. That means no space programs, no military adventures or new hardware, no boondoggles, dismantling the duplicated government agencies. How many security agencies do you need anyway

Or we can tax the richest who make use of infrastructure to make profit, to create some jobs and grow the economy from the bottom up which strengthens the middle class, and gives them money to circulate back into the economy, spurring growth and hiring through demand.

Its not like there isn't enough work to do to rebuild and expand but conservatives rather wait until banks and businesses and rich guys feel like it, and that won't be until interest rates go up high enough for more profit. More than they already make.

That's the weakness of supply side economics is in who controls the flow. So far its been Greedy B@stards.

Yes there should be tax on the rich but a carrot also such as deductions for new investment. The problem is those deduction will be scooped up by corporations not the stock holders who really hold the money and so the incentive for the individual is lost. There needs to be a super tax on corporations and individuals who are sitting on large cash balances and not investing and the FED needs to put a real interest rate in place

All your leftist solutions that have worked so well so far.

Tell me when have you tried them

Anything other than MO' MONEY for greedy rich guys is a nanny state for lazy bums according to the right.

Problem with the right is if they can't shoot it they don't understand it

tell me when have you tried them

Lol in 1964 the US began sending massively on anti-poverty programs($12 trillion + to date... almost the equivalent of the total GDP of the US ) . The results is that the poverty rate has declined from apx 19 % to apx 16 % . Great investment ! What they did instead was create a multi-generational dependency class.
The best answer to 'wage war on poverty' is a healthy, growing economy that is allowed to flourish with as little government intervention as necessary... and the eventual elimination of programs that destroy the incentives to work and produce. I'm not the one calling them lazy . I blame the government ;not them .

lol in 1964 the US began sending massively on anti-poverty programs($12 trillion + to date ...almost the equivalent of the total GDP of the US ) . The results is that the poverty rate has declined from apx 19 % to apx 16 % . Great investment ! What they did instead was create a multi-generational dependency class.
The best answer to 'wage war on poverty' is a healthy, growing economy that is allowed to flourish with as little government intervention as necessary ....and the eventual elimination of programs that destroy the incentives to work and produce. I'm not the one calling them lazy . I blame the government ;not them .

My previous comment is valid. Tom the program has some success you have acknowledged this. Waging war on poverty is no one size fits all thing, we do, we learn, we adapt, this is all it can be. In that time you have had some disasters that have added displacement and you have had a massive economic depression, it is easy to forget that, that you are still ahead is to be applauded, not denegrated. We would all like to see your economy flourish because other economies will flourish also, but, and I know this is true of my own economy, the problems are endemic and I agree throwing money at them doesn't get results, not the desired result. Job creation is key and your rich must be given incentive to invest their money on local industry.

I also think that long term unemployed and welfare reciprants must be forced into appropriate retraining with assistance to find employment

my previous comment is valid. Tom the program has some success you have acknowledged this. 4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

Tom you and I both know you must give them incentive to drive Chevi's or even as a last resort Fords, NO, don't give up

So the profiteers are the ones who should run the country? Then what's the point of elections? We seem to disagree who the nanny should be here Tom, the elected, or rich guys.

The way I see it is a weak central government makes for a powerful elite class that makes too many poor and dependent people subject to their profits over people approach. That's the nanny state that's ruining us, dependence on the rich.

4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

Tom, you are very big on quotes.Who said that the measure of a society is judged by the way it treats it weakest members? I don't know, but someone said it.

Absolutely no doubt that the weakest members of society would have long since squandered their Mercedes. And you point is?

Tom, you are very big on quotes.Who said that the measure of a society is judged by the way it treats it weakest members? I don't know, but someone said it.

Absolutely no doubt that the weakest members of society would have long since squandered their Mercedes. And you point is?

My point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed . By the way your distortion of Matthew 25:41-46 doesn't cut it . Jesus never once told us to create governments that follow the scriptures. They are for individual salvation. I've said it before and I'll say it again; there is no virtue in picking someone's pocket ;or compelling someone to contribute to charity .

my point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed . btw your distortion of Matthew 25:41-46 doesn't cut it . Jesus never once told us to create governments that follow the scriptures. They are for individual salvation. I've said it before and I'll say it again; there is no virtue in picking someone's pocket ;or compelling someone to contribute to charity .

As I said in the beginning I don't know where the quote came from. I am sure many people have used the quote down through the ages. There was no attempt at distortion on my part.

What does moral virtue have to do with modern politics? You still have the opportunity to be a socialist and virtuous.In exactly the same way you can be a capitalist and be virtuous.

my point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed

Maybe the elites can sell us bootstraps for a profit of course to pull ourselves up from poverty. The most failed social engineering program I have seen is the rights profits over people concept. They control the flow of money and the writing of laws to make whatever they do legal. They write regulations to make MO' MONEY and corrupt the whole government process.

Poor people are the results of the broken supply side economic model that only works for a few.

As I said in the beginning I don't know where the quote came from yes it has been used falsely to justify taking from Peter to pay Paul


You still have the opportunity to be a socialist and virtuous .Yes ,you can voluntarily shell out money to help the poor . That's virtuous. Taking money from others to force them to involuntarily contribute is neither virtuous for the person forcing the action ,nor the one forced to contribute. But more importantly ;that is NOT the role of government . Taxes should fund necessary government functions .Anything else is abuse of power.

So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .

So the profiteers are the ones who should run the country? Then what's the point of elections? We seem to disagree who the nanny should be here Tom, the elected, or rich guys.

The way I see it is a weak central government makes for a powerful elite class that makes too many poor and dependent people subject to their profits over people approach. That's the nanny state that's ruining us, dependence on the rich.

Yep tal you got it in one, the benevolent dictatorship except they aren't very benevolent

yes it has been used falsely to justify taking from Peter to pay Paul

.Yes ,you can voluntarily shell out money to help the poor . That's virtuous. Taking money from others to force them to involuntarily contribute is neither virtuous for the person forcing the action ,nor the one forced to contribute. But more importantly ;that is NOT the role of government . Taxes should fund necessary government functions .Anything else is abuse of power.



Yes, but my point was that it is not the role of government to be virtuous. This would be impossible.




So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .


Thanks I'll take it on board along with my other quotes.

Tut

The situation we face now is one where people who want to work cannot, because the "job creators" have taken to trickling down those jobs. Whole cities have been devastated by the for profit business model that benefits the few, at the expense of the many.

To ignore such cause, and effect realities for good intentioned religious dogma is part of the problem.

Maybe you think they owe you a living ? You cannot ignore the impact of government actions in the calculus of where and if they create jobs. Why don't YOU create those jobs instead of insulting them .

QUOTE by tomder
Maybe you think they owe you a living?

So job creators don't have to create jobs and living wages? Just make profits and exploit the cheapest labor they can get? They owe me nothing but fair pay for an honest days work. Their (and yours) ideas of what's fair is the area of conflict.


You cannot ignore the impact of government actions in the calculus of where and if they create jobs.

I cannot ignore the impact of profiteers in the elite private sector that have MORE impact on both government, and citizens.


Why don't YOU create those jobs instead of insulting them.

I never said I was a job creator, they did. You say they have a right to profit and no obligation to the workers, I say they have a right to profits and an obligation to be fair, and equitable.

So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .

So Tom you see the solution in telling the poor to get a job not very helpful. Did you pause to consider the circumstances of the person you quoted from Scripture? Here was an international traveller, a person of means and of some skill as a sailmaker. What you are saying is a cop out, you don't want government to address the problem through taxes and you don't want to address the problem yourself. I expect you are like the person who the other day said we should eliminate the bottom 20% of the population because they are a drain on society. The days of nazism are not dead

and you don't want to address the problem yourself. I expect you are like the person who the other day said we should eliminate the bottom 20% of the population because they are a drain on society. The days of nazism are not dead

Very hurtful ! You know better than that . I've made my position very clear .Charity is not the proper role of government . That doesn't mean I don't contribute to charity . It means I contribute above what the government grabs out of my pocket ,and would willingly give more if the heavy hand of the government wasn't so deep in my pocket.

I say a lot of negative things about Bill Clinton . But one thing he got right was workfare.. or as you like to call it in Aussie... mutual obligation.
1.1.M.160 Mutual obligation (http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-1/ssguide-1.1/ssguide-1.1.m/ssguide-1.1.m.160.html)

it is fair and reasonable to expect unemployed people receiving income support to do their best to find work, undertake activities that will improve their skills and increase their employment prospects and, in some circumstances, contribute something to their community in return for receiving income support.

I guess you got your Nazi's too .

Oh yes we have seen a few Pauline Hanson just won't quit

Now that we have the first estimate of Q1 GDP growth in both rate of change and absolute current dollar terms ($16,010 billion), we can finally assign the appropriate debt number, which we know on a daily basis and which was $16,771.4 billion as of March 31, to the growth number. The end result: as of March 31, 2013, the US debt/GDP was 104.8%, up from 103% as of December 31, 2012 or a debt growth rate that would make the most insolvent Eurozone nation blush. There was a time when people were concerned about this unsustainable trajectory, but then there was an infamous excel error, and now nobody cares anymore.
Total US Debt To GDP: 105% | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-26/total-us-debt-gdp-105)
Has all this pump priming made a difference ? Nah

Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace.

Part of the acceleration in activity reflected farmers' filling up silos after a drought last summer decimated crop output. Removing inventories, the growth rate was a tepid 1.5 percent.

Oops! Economic Growth Wasn't So Great After All (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290)
I suppose the Dems will begin talking about a sluggish insignificant growth as the 'new normal'.

Hello again, tom:

I suppose the Dems will begin talking about a sluggish insignificant growth as the 'new normal'.You don't expect growth when you enter an age of austerity, do you??

That's downright bonkers...

Excon

The supply siders control the growth of the economy so why blame anyone but them for a sluggish recovery? That's like blaming your little brother for cookies YOU stole.

Ex are you serious... how much more % of the GDP should we " pump " into the economy before you realize that this Keynesian model is an abject failure ? At the current rate all our taxes will be used for debt service . Your problem is that you think that government is the solution . The austerity is to reduced government taking of the money that should be going into the private economy .

Hello again, tom:

Am I serious about saying that we're not going to grow while austerity measures are in place?? Uhhhh, yes..

Do I STILL believe that we should put people back to work instead of laying them off? Uhhhh, yes.

excon

with what ? Government jobs? Maybe our debt should be 2x the GDP... yeah ;prime that pump some more ! What money will be left for job creation ?

Hello again, tom:


with what ? Government jobs ?We own some bridges and airports. We'll ALWAYS own them. If we fix them now, or if we fix them later, it'll be government employees who do it. Right now interest rates are very low. It would financial, and possibly REAL suicide NOT to fix them.

If we did that, the fallout would be MILLIONS of private sector jobs. I know you don't understand this. But, THIS is what businessmen do. They INVEST in the future. You wanted a businessman to run things, didn't you?

I'm NOT sure that we don't need a few more security personnel at the State Department, too... I can think of a few embassy's that could use some beefing up. I don't think you understand that either.. You cut funding for security, and then you b!tch when people are killed.. I don't know how come you can't connect those dots...

Excon

Actually more government jobs would offset the private sector and all the previous presidents have used this tactic before during high layoffs. The government has shed a half million jobs since Obama, at least HIGH paying ones, which are counted in the unemployment statistics.

But the private sector is not growing fast enough, and that's because business make MONEY in a tight labor market, and can sit on trillions of dollars that could be circulated in the economy.

But if your only goal is a small weak government that services the rich with tax breaks and self written regulations then you guys are doing great, but the rest of us, NOT so well. When that changes and we fix the broken business model then circulation will be returned and we all prosper. But that's not what conservatives want is it? They want more second class citizens to service the first class ones.

Don't worry Tom, your loyalty to rich guys may make you a boss with a few perks someday.

Is one of them jobs programs building more Abrams tanks that the Army doesn't want ?
News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TOO_MANY_TANKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-28-08-58-08)

Don't worry Tom we'll buy the old ones from you

Hello again, tom:

No. I didn't stutter.. I said bridges and airports. Oh, I'm sure you'll bring up welfare as a reason WHY we should let our bridges ROT...

Why do you want to make us a 3rd world country? Obama said just this morning, and of course you don't believe him, but there's a poll of the worlds best airports, and we didn't have ANY in the top 25. What about that makes you happy?

excon

[Has all this pump priming made a difference ? Nah

I suppose the Dems will begin talking about a sluggish insignificant growth as the 'new normal'.

Yes the pump priming has made a difference it has kept your growth figures in the black

Sluggish insignificant growth may well be the norm for a number of years if you consider 2.5% sluggish insignificant growth. The US is not China although some projects to ugrade your inferstructure would not go amiss. You should be glad the figures are in positive territory you would like to think economic growth keeps pace with population growth. I definitely think you should build more roads to nowhere and some very fast trains and when you become a low cost country paying pittance wages again you too can have spectacular economic growth

You have to stop this love affair with China. Their growth is completely bogus and you know it.

I keep telling you Tom you have to see it from a different perspective. Asians aren't driven by a two year electoral cycle, they can take a long term view and build a building that can be empty for ten years or a train line to a town that isn't there yet. But they have lifted millions of their people, I don't expect they will get to your lofty standards but then you might not stay there for long. I take the view Tom that different systems can exist and that they may be valid. I don't have the mentality of a Chinese person, I want to see things happen now too, but I also know that what might be good and reasonable might not be a good fit. The three rivers project could never have been built in my country or yours, not because we couldn't do it but we don't possess the same typography and national will to sweep the environmentalists aside