Around $9 trillion in annual unreported Federal spending

[JohnStOnge]

That's right. I had an ephiphany a couple of days ago. I realized that the Federal government is spending something on the order of $9 trillion per year that nobody is talking about. Well, they talk about some of it but certainly not all.

I say that because it is getting to the point where even "conservative" talking heads are referring to opting not to raise taxes or to tax cuts as "spending." See, all money belongs to the government and if someone has money that the government doesn't take from them then the government is giving them that money. Spending it. It's pretty much become an accepted concept.

So...let's see. The latest convenient source of information I have access to that provides some idea as to how much the government is spending in this way is the report accessable at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/20374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It only goes through 2005. But in 2005 the total income for all households in the United States was about 9.7 trillion dollars and the Federal government only took about 2 trillion of it. So that means our Federal government spent about 7.7 trillion dollars through that process. That was 2005. In 2012 dollars 7.7 trillion is about $9 trillion. I think it's reasonable to assume that it was somewhere in that ballpark in 2011 and will be again this year.

That means the government spends more on letting people keep the money they earn than it spends on everything else. For how long are we going to let this outrage continue?

[JohnStOnge]

Come to think of it, since most of the other stuff we silly citizens thought was spending is really "investing," it looks like almost ALL government spending is accounted for by this outrageous failure by government to take everything everybody makes.

[AZGrizFan]

WTF are you talking about?

[JohnStOnge]

WTF are you talking about?

Ok. I'm sure you've noticed that it's become in vogue to refer to opting not to raise people's taxes as "spending." Also tax cuts. If you've been watching TV, you've probably seen that done a lot during the discussion of the "Buffet" rule. Obama will talk about how we are "spending" money by not raising the taxes of millionaires. Also, he will say that we are "spending" X billion dollars by virtue of keeping the "Bush tax cuts."

It's been going on for a long time but I noticed it first starting to really take hold with Clinton. Tax cuts were refered to as "spending" and spending was referred to as "investment."

If you follow the logic involved any income that the government does not collect in taxes is "spending." So if you had $9.7 trillion in total income earned in the United States in 2005 and government collected $2 trillion in federal taxes, the federal government "spent" $7.7 trillion in 2005 dollars by virtue of not collecting all income in taxes. Well...I guess they'd have to leave something for the State and local governments to take. But that's the idea.

It's just an illustration of the absurdity of referring to either opting not to raise taxes...as would be the case if the Buffet Rule is rejected...or to cutting taxes...such as was the case with the Bush tax cuts... as "spending." It's not spending. "Tax breaks" aren't spending either. And we aren't "subsidizing" people or corporations when we establish tax breaks and tax incentives. Keeping your own money rather than having it taken from you by force is not being "subsidized."

[93henfan]

WTF are you talking about?

[AZGrizFan]

WTF are you talking about?

Well, I still don't get what he's trying to say.

[DSUrocks07]

[Pwns]

In a budget of around 3 and a half trillion a year, there's 9 trillion a year unreported?

[Ibanez]

Is this MENSA math? Flash, what are you talking about?

[danefan]

By my count its $6.93 trillion unreported.

The's 35% of $69.6 trillion.

Carry the 1 and take the square root.

[CitadelGrad]

I don't think you guys get what John is trying to say. He is absolutely right. I noticed it about a year ago. All of the shills who carry water for the Democrats and the Obama administration have been referring to money that they don't collect in taxes as an expenditure. At first I didn't know what the hell they were talking about, until one of them was called out on a news talk show. He explained that when the government doesn't increase taxes, the additional revenue denied to the government is actually an expenditure because it stays in the pocket of the taxpayers. Of course that type of illogic assumes that all money earned by individuals and corporations actually belongs to the government. They view the money that you keep after taxes as a transfer payment.

[danefan]

I don't think you guys get what John is trying to say. He is absolutely right. I noticed it about a year ago. All of the shills who carry water for the Democrats and the Obama administration have been referring to money that they don't collect in taxes as an expenditure. At first I didn't know what the hell they were talking about, until one of them was called out on a news talk show. He explained that when the government doesn't increase taxes, the additional revenue denied to the government is actually an expenditure because it stays in the pocket of the taxpayers. Of course that type of illogic assumes that all money earned by individuals and corporations actually belongs to the government. They view the money that you keep after taxes as a transfer payment.

Maybe you can provide an example of someone in the Administration discussing this to help us better understand?

[GannonFan]

I don't think you guys get what John is trying to say. He is absolutely right. I noticed it about a year ago. All of the shills who carry water for the Democrats and the Obama administration have been referring to money that they don't collect in taxes as an expenditure. At first I didn't know what the hell they were talking about, until one of them was called out on a news talk show. He explained that when the government doesn't increase taxes, the additional revenue denied to the government is actually an expenditure because it stays in the pocket of the taxpayers. Of course that type of illogic assumes that all money earned by individuals and corporations actually belongs to the government. They view the money that you keep after taxes as a transfer payment.

Maybe you can provide an example of someone in the Administration discussing this to help us better understand?

I get what they mean - it's like when pols talk about Big Oil and the tax breaks they get and it's referred to as a "subsidy" as in it's something the government gives to them, i.e. they give them money since they don't take that money.

With that said, I think they are taking this further than what politicians, especially Dems, mean when they say this. Sure, if you carry it forward to an extreme, any money in the US (GDP of $14 trillion or so) technically belongs to the government so therefore all of it is "spent" even if the government doesn't directly spend it since you can call money that government lets you keep is considered spending. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the draconian idea here that the Dems are trying to make the case that the government has the entire GDP and spending is all of that.

[CitadelGrad]

I don't think you guys get what John is trying to say. He is absolutely right. I noticed it about a year ago. All of the shills who carry water for the Democrats and the Obama administration have been referring to money that they don't collect in taxes as an expenditure. At first I didn't know what the hell they were talking about, until one of them was called out on a news talk show. He explained that when the government doesn't increase taxes, the additional revenue denied to the government is actually an expenditure because it stays in the pocket of the taxpayers. Of course that type of illogic assumes that all money earned by individuals and corporations actually belongs to the government. They view the money that you keep after taxes as a transfer payment.

Maybe you can provide an example of someone in the Administration discussing this to help us better understand?

Fuck. What is so hard to understand?

-- All money earned by individuals and corporations belongs to the government.
-- Individual and corporate taxes collected are federal revenue.
-- Individual and corporate revenue not collected by the government is a federal expenditure.

[danefan]

Maybe you can provide an example of someone in the Administration discussing this to help us better understand?

Fuck. What is so hard to understand?

-- All money earned by individuals and corporations belongs to the government.
-- Taxes collected are federal revenue.
-- Individual and corporate revenue not collected by the government is a federal expenditure.

The "cost" of tax breaks is generally accounted for as compared to a baseline tax code and the assumed revenue generated by it. Any tax cuts beyond that have a "cost". Any increase in taxes generally represents a revenue raiser.

There is huge disagreement in Gov't as to what that baseline is, but I've never heard anyone use the baseline of revenue as full GDP. All of the arguments generally agree though that approx. 18% of GDP as the historical point of tax revenue collection......but hey I'm a shill for Obama so I probably just ignored it.

[AZGrizFan]

By my count its $6.93 trillion unreported.

The's 35% of $69.6 trillion.

Carry the 1 and take the square root.

See. That's ALL it took, JSO.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe you can provide an example of someone in the Administration discussing this to help us better understand?

I get what they mean - it's like when pols talk about Big Oil and the tax breaks they get and it's referred to as a "subsidy" as in it's something the government gives to them, i.e. they give them money since they don't take that money.

With that said, I think they are taking this further than what politicians, especially Dems, mean when they say this. Sure, if you carry it forward to an extreme, any money in the US (GDP of $14 trillion or so) technically belongs to the government so therefore all of it is "spent" even if the government doesn't directly spend it since you can call money that government lets you keep is considered spending. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the draconian idea here that the Dems are trying to make the case that the government has the entire GDP and spending is all of that.

If THAT'S what he's saying that's as retarded as his argument regarding the words "gay" and "homosexual" being slipped into our lexicon to make gayness more "acceptable" to the masses.

[CitadelGrad]

Fuck. What is so hard to understand?

-- All money earned by individuals and corporations belongs to the government.
-- Taxes collected are federal revenue.
-- Individual and corporate revenue not collected by the government is a federal expenditure.

The "cost" of tax breaks is generally accounted for as compared to a baseline tax code and the assumed revenue generated by it. Any tax cuts beyond that have a "cost". Any increase in taxes generally represents a revenue raiser.

There is huge disagreement in Gov't as to what that baseline is, but I've never heard anyone use the baseline of revenue as full GDP. All of the arguments generally agree though that approx. 18% of GDP as the historical point of tax revenue collection......but hey I'm a shill for Obama so I probably just ignored it.

When the context is GOP opposition to tax increases and the world expenditure is used, then it's pretty clear that the Dem position is that all GDP is the property of the government. That context is different than talking about the cost of letting tax cuts expire.

In short, the Dems seem to believe that any money that isn't collected in taxes is the same as a transfer payment.

[danefan]

The "cost" of tax breaks is generally accounted for as compared to a baseline tax code and the assumed revenue generated by it. Any tax cuts beyond that have a "cost". Any increase in taxes generally represents a revenue raiser.

There is huge disagreement in Gov't as to what that baseline is, but I've never heard anyone use the baseline of revenue as full GDP. All of the arguments generally agree though that approx. 18% of GDP as the historical point of tax revenue collection......but hey I'm a shill for Obama so I probably just ignored it.

When the context is GOP opposition to tax increases and the world expenditure is used, then it's pretty clear that the Dem position is that all GDP is the property of the government. That context is different than talking about the cost of letting tax cuts expire.

In short, the Dems seem to believe that any money that isn't collected in taxes is the same as a transfer payment.

But again, your definition of the baseline may just be different. For some GOP members, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.

I haven't seen or heard of anyone using full GDP as the baseline. (course that doesn't mean some people don't, but it seems quite extreme).

[GannonFan]

When the context is GOP opposition to tax increases and the world expenditure is used, then it's pretty clear that the Dem position is that all GDP is the property of the government. That context is different than talking about the cost of letting tax cuts expire.

In short, the Dems seem to believe that any money that isn't collected in taxes is the same as a transfer payment.

But again, your definition of the baseline may just be different. For some GOP members, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.

I haven't seen or heard of anyone using full GDP as the baseline. (course that doesn't mean some people don't, but it seems quite extreme).

The problem with baselining is that either party can choose the baseline and it doesn't then need to be the same baseline for each policy they talk about. When talking about Big Oil, the Dems can use the baseline of total GDP (without saying so) and therefore any tax break is money being "given" to Big Oil (and can therefore be "taken" back). For the GOP, they do the same with the Bush tax cuts - assume the baseline is after those cuts were enacted, and therefore anything that comes after they are ended are in essence "tax hikes". Baselining is great in that it can be an objective measure, however, neither party uses baselining that way and therefore skews the numbers to whatever they want them to be, thereby forfeiting any objectiveness. But that's what they do in everything anyway so it's not a big surprise.

[GannonFan]

I get what they mean - it's like when pols talk about Big Oil and the tax breaks they get and it's referred to as a "subsidy" as in it's something the government gives to them, i.e. they give them money since they don't take that money.

With that said, I think they are taking this further than what politicians, especially Dems, mean when they say this. Sure, if you carry it forward to an extreme, any money in the US (GDP of $14 trillion or so) technically belongs to the government so therefore all of it is "spent" even if the government doesn't directly spend it since you can call money that government lets you keep is considered spending. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the draconian idea here that the Dems are trying to make the case that the government has the entire GDP and spending is all of that.

If THAT'S what he's saying that's as retarded as his argument regarding the words "gay" and "homosexual" being slipped into our lexicon to make gayness more "acceptable" to the masses.

I can't really improve upon this comment.

[CitadelGrad]

When the context is GOP opposition to tax increases and the world expenditure is used, then it's pretty clear that the Dem position is that all GDP is the property of the government. That context is different than talking about the cost of letting tax cuts expire.

In short, the Dems seem to believe that any money that isn't collected in taxes is the same as a transfer payment.

But again, your definition of the baseline may just be different. For some GOP members, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.

I haven't seen or heard of anyone using full GDP as the baseline. (course that doesn't mean some people don't, but it seems quite extreme).

I'm not defining the baseline. I simply pointing out that anyone who believes that not raising taxes is a federal expenditure, the only logical conclusion is that that person also believes that the entire GDP is the property of the federal government. How else could you possibly believe that money left in the pockets of individuals and corporations is an government expenditure?

[danefan]

But again, your definition of the baseline may just be different. For some GOP members, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.

I haven't seen or heard of anyone using full GDP as the baseline. (course that doesn't mean some people don't, but it seems quite extreme).

The problem with baselining is that either party can choose the baseline and it doesn't then need to be the same baseline for each policy they talk about. When talking about Big Oil, the Dems can use the baseline of total GDP (without saying so) and therefore any tax break is money being "given" to Big Oil (and can therefore be "taken" back). For the GOP, they do the same with the Bush tax cuts - assume the baseline is after those cuts were enacted, and therefore anything that comes after they are ended are in essence "tax hikes". Baselining is great in that it can be an objective measure, however, neither party uses baselining that way and therefore skews the numbers to whatever they want them to be, thereby forfeiting any objectiveness. But that's what they do in everything anyway so it's not a big surprise.

I agree 100%. If you don't agree on the baseline how do you compare your proposal to the other side? Its apples and oranges, but it is what happens.

[danefan]

But again, your definition of the baseline may just be different. For some GOP members, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.

I haven't seen or heard of anyone using full GDP as the baseline. (course that doesn't mean some people don't, but it seems quite extreme).

I'm not defining the baseline. I simply pointing out that anyone who believes that not raising taxes is a federal expenditure, the only logical conclusion is that that person also believes that the entire GDP is the property of the federal government. How else could you possibly believe that money left in the pockets of individuals and corporations is an government expenditure?

You keep using this term "raising taxes". Raising from what? Raising implied from a baseline of something.

I could very easily believe that 18% of GDP is the amount of revenue the Government needs to obtain in taxes to sustain our infrastructure and standard of living.

If I do believe that then its logical to conclude that not raising taxes high enough to to get to that level will result a federal government expenditure to close that gap or a cut in services (entirely different discussion).

Sorry, but I'm not following how that has to lead me to the belief that "the entire GDP is the property of the federal government."

[CitadelGrad]

What is your fixation with the baseline? We aren't talking about a baseline. The Dems I've heard talk about this aren't talking about a baseline. They are talking about any tax decreases at any time without regard to a baseline. How many ways can I say it? Just how thick is your skull?