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

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-co...E1-165x300.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:

Quote:

---

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/curren...on-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:

Quote:

---

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