We have got to have a tax increase. (1 Viewer)

[ALiberalModerate]

I did not know where to put this thread. On the surface it is an economics thread, but its very relative to current events so I put it here. Anyway,we have got to have a tax increase.

Right now the national debt is about 8 trillion dollars. That is about 26,000 dollars for every family in America. Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, it still is extremely expensive and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This coupled with the Katrina disaster, the war on terrorism, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and congress’s usual appetite for pork is rapidly leading to unsustainable deficit levels.

Don’t get me wrong, there is still plenty of capital out there to float the federal government’s debts. Increasingly, that capital is largely foreign, but just the same, there is plenty of capital out there and we would have to borrow a lot more money that we are now before there would not be enough capital out there to float the T-bills. The problem is, and what the ideologues don’t talk about, is that the cost of servicing this debt is increasing almost exponentially. Right now we are spending about 22 to 23 cents on every dollar of federal revenue to service debt. That means that for every dollar you give the federal government, about a forth of it just pays interest. Therefore, only about 75% of the money you pay in federal taxes actually goes to pay for defense or domestic spending. As we borrow more, the cost of servicing that additional debt increases which only means there is less money to spend on defense or domestic programs….which means we just borrow more and further increase the cost to service debt. It’s a vicious cycle.

There are those who believe that we can grow our way to balanced budgets again. If that were the case, we would be well underway towards doing just that because the economy is growing and has been growing at a healthy pace.

There are those who believe that the answer is in cutting spending and not raising taxes. No doubt about it, the government wastes a chunk of the taxpayer’s dollars. This latest transportation bill is a glaring example of that. However, as much pork that there is in it, even if you were to trim out the bulk of it, you still would have huge budget deficits. Maybe if you pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and massively reduced the amount of money earmarked to rebuild after Katrina and seriously cut out all the pork barrel spending and all the corporate welfare and cut defense spending substantially, then you might actually have a chance at a balanced budget at our current level of taxation. However, any reasonable person knows that doing those things is not practical and is only wishful thinking. Moreover, when one considers that this president has yet to veto one spending bill, its just not going to happen.

Instead, what will happen is that we will see massive cuts to small federal expenditures like National Parks and National Forests. It is no secret that there are some radicals out there like Grover Norquist who if they had their way, would sell out our national treasures. It’s not unreasonable to believe that if we continue down the path we are going, we could one day be visiting “Sprint PCS Yellowstone National Park”. Even still, even if we privatized all the national parks and forests, we still would have a huge budget deficit because that’s such a small proportion of federal spending anyway. Even if we completely got rid of Welfare, we would still have a huge budget deficit because even welfare is not one of the largest government expenditures.

The only practical answer is to return to something like the 90s level of taxation again. No one likes a tax increase. I know that our household pays in thousands and thousands of dollars every year to Uncle Sam, but we have to pay for what we spend. That is just the bottom line. If you don’t like the spending, then vote in people who cut it out, but in the mean time, you have to pay for what you spend. If we don’t, we are headed for an economic collapse. It’s just that simple. You can argue about the perceived fairness of a flat tax, but its not practical. You can say its class warfare, but its not, its simply a recognition of the fact that it costs a certain amount of money to run the government and that money has to be raised some how. Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about going to some paralyzing almost socialist European level of taxation, but rather I am talking about returning to taxation levels of the nineties which as history has shown was a good balance of taxation and economic growth. Either way, something has to be done.

 

[cnredd]

[Moderator mode]

Thread moved to "Economics" forum...

[/Moderator mode]

 

[Stherngntlmn]

If we slimmed down the aid package, cutout the fat from the Highway Bill, put the able bodied people of new orleans to work rebuilding their own city in a workfare program, scrapped a huge amount of the NASA budget, and collected the money Mexico owes us for babysitting their illegals... we'd be just fine

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If we slimmed down the aid package, cutout the fat from the Highway Bill, put the able bodied people of new orleans to work rebuilding their own city in a workfare program, scrapped a huge amount of the NASA budget, and collected the money Mexico owes us for babysitting their illegals... we'd be just fine

Can anyone say "Pie in the sky".

There is pragmatism and there is ideology, I think your response falls in the latter catagory.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

I think cutting the current budget and instilling workfare programs is a lot more practical and efficient than throwing money at any evacuee who has a frown on their face and expecting the tax payers to cover all the extra expense without any sort of federal fiscal responsibility in other areas.

 

[Tashah]

I have to agree with Southern. This admisnistration is spending money faster than a Washington lobbyist. Something has got to give. Everyday the US Treasury is borrowing money from Japan, China, S. Korea, and the UK to fund both our vices and our virtues. We simply have to get our monetary house in order and do this forthwith.

We are already enslaved to oil. Do we really wish to extend this costly enslavement to an additional entity.... foreign moneylenders?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I think cutting the current budget and instilling workfare programs is a lot more practical and efficient than throwing money at any evacuee who has a frown on their face and expecting the tax payers to cover all the extra expense without any sort of federal fiscal responsibility in other areas.

Thats great, but it still does nothing of substance about the budget deficit.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Thats great, but it still does nothing of substance about the budget deficit.

... cutting the budget down to barebones, and using rebuilding jobs as an incentive for aid programs doesn't do anything about the deficit?





:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

... cutting the budget down to barebones, and using rebuilding jobs as an incentive for aid programs doesn't do anything about the deficit?





:roll:

Which once again is pie in the sky thinking. It is simply not going to happen. If you read my post, I am giving a pragmatic solution to a current problem. You are simply saying if this were the case and that were the case and if we did this, then, everything would be great.

 

[robin]

Why is the government of the world's richest country with the largest economy having to borrow money ?
Could an arms budget as if the cold war was still on, have something to do with it I wonder ?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Disagree.

The real reason that the US is in so much debt, is that your country is fighting an extremely expensive war, and secondly your federal government is spending like a drunken sailor.

If you raise taxes it ultimatley has a detremental effect on the economy. Less money in people's pockets, means less money to spend on products.

What the U.S needs to do, is get out of Iraq. Spend less on NASA, cut farm subsidies, close down corporate tax loop holes, spend less on weapons programs that are no use in fighting terrorists, down size government agencies, and cut out the pork barrelling by Congressmen, and Senators.

Then you will find that America has more than enough to spend on health care, education, natural disaster prevention, and generating alternative energy sources.

But I suppose all of those recomendations are much harder to swallow than simple tax increases.

Also, if you lower taxes to spurn on economic recovery, then government MUST REDUCE SPENDING, until revenues from increased economic growth come into the system. I thought that much made sense.

America is a rich nation, its just that there is so much economic inefficiency, in the the way your government manages money. This problem exists regardless of a Republican or Democrat administration. In short, you guys have far too much beauracracy!

P.S Sooner or later America, must reduce it's federal defecit. Otherwise it will hurt the American economy, and the global economy.

P.P.S What ever happened to Republican's that believed in small government? What ever happened to Republicans that believed in cautious spending of Tax payer's dollars? Or did they just become social conservative versions of the Democrats?

 

[128shot]

We became the strongest country in the world because we have very rich men with large amounts of capital to expand into gianormously huge mutli-national companies that have a far stronger influence than anyone has seen. The american people made us strong, the government does nothing but reflect that in some ways, such as our military..


The government has been borrowing money for years, for once, I wish it would just lock itself into its own budget!!!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Disagree.

The real reason that the US is in so much debt, is that your country is fighting an extremely expensive war, and secondly your federal government is spending like a drunken sailor.

If you raise taxes it ultimatley has a detremental effect on the economy. Less money in people's pockets, means less money to spend on products.

What the U.S needs to do, is get out of Iraq. Spend less on NASA, cut farm subsidies, close down corporate tax loop holes, spend less on weapons programs that are no use in fighting terrorists, down size government agencies, and cut out the pork barrelling by Congressmen, and Senators.

Then you will find that America has more than enough to spend on health care, education, natural disaster prevention, and generating alternative energy sources.

But I suppose all of those recomendations are much harder to swallow than simple tax increases.

Also, if you lower taxes to spurn on economic recovery, then government MUST REDUCE SPENDING, until revenues from increased economic growth come into the system. I thought that much made sense.

America is a rich nation, its just that there is so much economic inefficiency, in the the way your government manages money. This problem exists regardless of a Republican or Democrat administration. In short, you guys have far too much beauracracy!

P.S Sooner or later America, must reduce it's federal defecit. Otherwise it will hurt the American economy, and the global economy.

P.P.S What ever happened to Republican's that believed in small government? What ever happened to Republicans that believed in cautious spending of Tax payer's dollars? Or did they just become social conservative versions of the Democrats?

More pie in the sky. It isnt going to happen. I am a realist, as a realist I know the only solution is to go back to ninties level taxation. Which by the way is still the lowest tax rates of the industrialized world.

 

[Ether]

I did not know where to put this thread. On the surface it is an economics thread, but its very relative to current events so I put it here. Anyway,we have got to have a tax increase.

Right now the national debt is about 8 trillion dollars. That is about 26,000 dollars for every family in America. Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, it still is extremely expensive and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This coupled with the Katrina disaster, the war on terrorism, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and congress’s usual appetite for pork is rapidly leading to unsustainable deficit levels.

Don’t get me wrong, there is still plenty of capital out there to float the federal government’s debts. Increasingly, that capital is largely foreign, but just the same, there is plenty of capital out there and we would have to borrow a lot more money that we are now before there would not be enough capital out there to float the T-bills. The problem is, and what the ideologues don’t talk about, is that the cost of servicing this debt is increasing almost exponentially. Right now we are spending about 22 to 23 cents on every dollar of federal revenue to service debt. That means that for every dollar you give the federal government, about a forth of it just pays interest. Therefore, only about 75% of the money you pay in federal taxes actually goes to pay for defense or domestic spending. As we borrow more, the cost of servicing that additional debt increases which only means there is less money to spend on defense or domestic programs….which means we just borrow more and further increase the cost to service debt. It’s a vicious cycle.

There are those who believe that we can grow our way to balanced budgets again. If that were the case, we would be well underway towards doing just that because the economy is growing and has been growing at a healthy pace.

There are those who believe that the answer is in cutting spending and not raising taxes. No doubt about it, the government wastes a chunk of the taxpayer’s dollars. This latest transportation bill is a glaring example of that. However, as much pork that there is in it, even if you were to trim out the bulk of it, you still would have huge budget deficits. Maybe if you pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and massively reduced the amount of money earmarked to rebuild after Katrina and seriously cut out all the pork barrel spending and all the corporate welfare and cut defense spending substantially, then you might actually have a chance at a balanced budget at our current level of taxation. However, any reasonable person knows that doing those things is not practical and is only wishful thinking. Moreover, when one considers that this president has yet to veto one spending bill, its just not going to happen.

Instead, what will happen is that we will see massive cuts to small federal expenditures like National Parks and National Forests. It is no secret that there are some radicals out there like Grover Norquist who if they had their way, would sell out our national treasures. It’s not unreasonable to believe that if we continue down the path we are going, we could one day be visiting “Sprint PCS Yellowstone National Park”. Even still, even if we privatized all the national parks and forests, we still would have a huge budget deficit because that’s such a small proportion of federal spending anyway. Even if we completely got rid of Welfare, we would still have a huge budget deficit because even welfare is not one of the largest government expenditures.

The only practical answer is to return to something like the 90s level of taxation again. No one likes a tax increase. I know that our household pays in thousands and thousands of dollars every year to Uncle Sam, but we have to pay for what we spend. That is just the bottom line. If you don’t like the spending, then vote in people who cut it out, but in the mean time, you have to pay for what you spend. If we don’t, we are headed for an economic collapse. It’s just that simple. You can argue about the perceived fairness of a flat tax, but its not practical. You can say its class warfare, but its not, its simply a recognition of the fact that it costs a certain amount of money to run the government and that money has to be raised some how. Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about going to some paralyzing almost socialist European level of taxation, but rather I am talking about returning to taxation levels of the nineties which as history has shown was a good balance of taxation and economic growth. Either way, something has to be done.

So are you basing your argument on what's best for the country, or what's within political possibilities? The two are not always synonomous, and they certainly are not in this case.

For now, we'll disregard the effects taxation will have on social utility and the economy in general. You claim that spending cuts are not politically feasible. Do you think tax increases are? Especially from a president who specifically railed against his opponent in the last election for wanting to get rid of the tax cuts? Even if the president isn't worried about his legacy and ******* the voters off, the congressmen who are worried about re-election will certainly not sign onto any tax hikes. Both Bush and the GOP know what happened to Bush 41 when he raised taxes.

So I fail to see how tax hikes are more politically possible than spending cuts.

but we have to pay for what we spend. That is just the bottom line. If you don’t like the spending, then vote in people who cut it out, but in the mean time, you have to pay for what you spend. If we don’t, we are headed for an economic collapse. It’s just that simple.

Who's "we"? The politicians are the ones spending the money, not the voters. The idea of a direct correlation between voter wants and congressional action throws out decades of work in public choice theory. No matter how much a handful of people mobilize and vote for spending cuts, they still have to pay for what "they spend". So tell me, if a majority of the country votes for the existing level of spending (due to public choice theory, even that statement is inaccurate, but we'll use it just for simplicity's sake), why should I pay if I voted for a candidate who wanted to cut spending? Can you explain that to me?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So are you basing your argument on what's best for the country, or what's within political possibilities? The two are not always synonomous, and they certainly are not in this case.

For now, we'll disregard the effects taxation will have on social utility and the economy in general. You claim that spending cuts are not politically feasible. Do you think tax increases are? Especially from a president who specifically railed against his opponent in the last election for wanting to get rid of the tax cuts? Even if the president isn't worried about his legacy and ******* the voters off, the congressmen who are worried about re-election will certainly not sign onto any tax hikes. Both Bush and the GOP know what happened to Bush 41 when he raised taxes.

So I fail to see how tax hikes are more politically possible than spending cuts.



Who's "we"? The politicians are the ones spending the money, not the voters. The idea of a direct correlation between voter wants and congressional action throws out decades of work in public choice theory. No matter how much a handful of people mobilize and vote for spending cuts, they still have to pay for what "they spend". So tell me, if a majority of the country votes for the existing level of spending (due to public choice theory, even that statement is inaccurate, but we'll use it just for simplicity's sake), why should I pay if I voted for a candidate who wanted to cut spending? Can you explain that to me?

I don’t think that Bush will raise taxes. I do think who ever is elected in 2008 will be forced to. Its not about fairness or ideology, it’s about pure pragmatism. If the government, which is the arm of the people, spends say a trillion a year, but the people only pay 800 billion a year in taxes, then at some point we have to pay for what is being spent. It is just that simple. If we don’t like what our government is spending money on, then we have the choice of voting them out the next election cycle. However, this notion of not paying for what is spent just because you don’t like what its being spent on is ridiculous and is bad economics.

 

[ludahai]

Which once again is pie in the sky thinking. It is simply not going to happen. If you read my post, I am giving a pragmatic solution to a current problem. You are simply saying if this were the case and that were the case and if we did this, then, everything would be great.

It isn't going to happen because you lefties whine and moan everytime those who argue for fiscal responsibility argue that a program needs to be cut!

 

[ludahai]

More pie in the sky. It isnt going to happen. I am a realist, as a realist I know the only solution is to go back to ninties level taxation. Which by the way is still the lowest tax rates of the industrialized world.

Taiwan is one of the members of the industrialized world and taxes here are far lower than in the United States. I pay about 6-8% income tax and we have a 5% VAT in addition to various user fees and corporate taxes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Taiwan is one of the members of the industrialized world and taxes here are far lower than in the United States. I pay about 6-8% income tax and we have a 5% VAT in addition to various user fees and corporate taxes.

Its a tiny country, you cant compare it. Thats like saying that communism works ok in Cuba, so it should work great in the USSR.

What are these programs that ought to be cut? As I pointed out in my original post, unless you are talking about pulling out of Iraq, slashing defense spending, cutting back Katrina aid dramatically, and cutting out almost all the porkbarrel, then your not going to have balanced budgets without a tax increase.

Republicans spend money faster than communists anymore. You control everything yet the spending is more out of control today than ever under the Dems. Clinton never proposed, thats Clinton that never proposed, a single budget with over 3% growth over the previous year. Bush has averaged 8% so far. Reagan averaged 11% growth in his proposals.

Moreover, unlike Clinton, Reagan nor Bush has ever vetoed a single budget.

You have to have a lot of social programs to compete moneywise with corporate welfare and lining the pockets of defense contractors.

 

[Ether]

I don’t think that Bush will raise taxes. I do think who ever is elected in 2008 will be forced to. Its not about fairness or ideology, it’s about pure pragmatism. If the government, which is the arm of the people, spends say a trillion a year, but the people only pay 800 billion a year in taxes, then at some point we have to pay for what is being spent. It is just that simple. If we don’t like what our government is spending money on, then we have the choice of voting them out the next election cycle. However, this notion of not paying for what is spent just because you don’t like what its being spent on is ridiculous and is bad economics.

In other words, you do not care about what's best for the country - only about what the politicians are willing to do. I think it is very dangerous to support policies just because they are politically feasible. It leads to a sort of political relativism, where anything goes as long as people in Congress sign on.

I will ask you again, why should people be forced to pay for expenditures which they did not support? Why should we have to foot the bill for two-four years until we can vote out the big spenders? Is it bad economics to not want to pay for the deficits that these politicians are running up?

Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You only care about "pragmatism". In other words, you want whats good for the legislators, rather than what's good for the country.

And to repeat: Trying to form a direct correlation between government actions and the popular intentions, as you did in the first couple sentences, is another attempt to throw out decades of public choice theory.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

In other words, you do not care about what's best for the country - only about what the politicians are willing to do. I think it is very dangerous to support policies just because they are politically feasible. It leads to a sort of political relativism, where anything goes as long as people in Congress sign on.

I will ask you again, why should people be forced to pay for expenditures which they did not support? Why should we have to foot the bill for two-four years until we can vote out the big spenders? Is it bad economics to not want to pay for the deficits that these politicians are running up?

Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You only care about "pragmatism". In other words, you want whats good for the legislators, rather than what's good for the country.

And to repeat: Trying to form a direct correlation between government actions and the popular intentions, as you did in the first couple sentences, is another attempt to throw out decades of public choice theory.

When have legislators ever cared whether or not the money is actually there for them to spend. Moreover, most of their spending is what the people who elected them want. Some bridge in Alaska, I might not want it, but you can bet some voters in Alaska did. The same is true all over. I am not being relative, I am merely saying that if you spend money, you have to foot the bill. I would go so far to say that if people were having to pay for what the government actually did spend, they would be more critical of needless government spending.

 

[Ether]

When have legislators ever cared whether or not the money is actually there for them to spend. Moreover, most of their spending is what the people who elected them want. Some bridge in Alaska, I might not want it, but you can bet some voters in Alaska did. The same is true all over. I am not being relative, I am merely saying that if you spend money, you have to foot the bill. I would go so far to say that if people were having to pay for what the government actually did spend, they would be more critical of needless government spending.

Ok, let's take your bridge in Alaska. Some voters in that particular state wanted it. That makes sense, they should pay for it. Why should the rest of the nation cough up the cash and subsidize Alaskan infrastructure?

I totally agree that if you spend money, you need to foot the bill. The difference here is that it is not us spending money - it is the politicians. And we know from public choice theory the reason why the politicians never need to fully obey the wants of their constituency. Rational ignorance; dispersed costs and concentrated benefits; a lag in between feedback cycles, etc etc,. I think if you stopped identifying the government as "of the people", you would realize it is absurd to blame the voters for the spending habits of Congress.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ok, let's take your bridge in Alaska. Some voters in that particular state wanted it. That makes sense, they should pay for it. Why should the rest of the nation cough up the cash and subsidize Alaskan infrastructure?

I totally agree that if you spend money, you need to foot the bill. The difference here is that it is not us spending money - it is the politicians. And we know from public choice theory the reason why the politicians never need to fully obey the wants of their constituency. Rational ignorance; dispersed costs and concentrated benefits; a lag in between feedback cycles, etc etc,. I think if you stopped identifying the government as "of the people", you would realize it is absurd to blame the voters for the spending habits of Congress.

Its really all neither here nor there. It isnt like we can simply choose not to pay for what is being spent. We cant, the only thing that can happen is to delay paying for it. All that does it make sure the cost of servicing the debt increases and the government only borrows more. Which in the end, only makes the problem that much bigger.

 

[Iriemon]

This is why we have such large deficits:

http://debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=72561&postcount=1

As long as people refuse to consider tax cuts or spending cuts, some politicians will pander to the will of the people and give them what they want.

Used to be people thought like this:

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan, 1981.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

Nowdays you don't hear much about it. On the news, you get a vague reference to a "deficit" but when was the last time you heard a news reporter asking a question with reference to $8 trillion debt this country has?

If we care about our future, we must put aside the arguments about whether we should cut spending or increase taxes and do both. Or country got along just fine in the 90s with a 39% top tax rate -- that would increase revenues around $400 billion a year and make a big dent in the deficits. We also must cut spending on all levels.

Our representatives are not getting the message. They are continuing the cut taxes and increase spending. Write your representatives. He is a letter I sent to all 3 of mine not long ago, you may use it if you wish. You can find your reps and their email addresses on the web.

+++

Dear Senator [or representative] ,

Two recent items in the news prompted me to write to you. One item pointed out that U.S. Government spending has increased 6.1% so far this year. The other article noted that Congress was considering the issue of whether the tax cuts passed since 2000 should be made permanent.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Public Debt owed by the United States Government has increased by over 500 billion dollars so far in fiscal year 2005. Since 2000, the U.S. Government debt has increased by over 2.2 trillion dollars. The U.S Government debt is higher, as a ratio to federal tax revenues (including social security), than it has ever been in the last five decades, or more.

As a taxpayer, I like to see a smaller portion of my paycheck being taken out for federal income taxes. As a father, however, I am more concerned about the government my children inherit being burdened with an oppressive level of debt. Their generation is going to have enough problems dealing with “baby boomer” retirement and health care, and whatever other problems the world hands them.

I wholeheartedly support the position taken by President Bush on March 3, 2001:

“Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.”

I think it is wrong for our government to fund its operations by borrowing and creating debt the next generation will have to bear. This practice makes a mockery of the noble sentiments expressed in another statement by the President, in his state of the union address in January, 2003:

“This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.”

I hope, when you consider issues related to additional spending and extending tax cuts, that you will do so with this noble sentiment in mind, so that our generation will live up to the President’s promise and pass on to our children a strong America, not burdened by a massive debt; and so that history will not look at ours as the “pass-the-buck” generation.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Yours truly,

 

[Ether]

Its really all neither here nor there. It isnt like we can simply choose not to pay for what is being spent. We cant, the only thing that can happen is to delay paying for it. All that does it make sure the cost of servicing the debt increases and the government only borrows more. Which in the end, only makes the problem that much bigger.

So explain to me again why we should raise taxes instead of cutting expenditures to pay for the debt?

 

[Iriemon]

So explain to me again why we should raise taxes instead of cutting expenditures to pay for the debt?

We like spending more on defensen than all other nations on earth combined and having the most expensive and powerful military. We like getting those SS checks in the mail and have help with medicare. We like the fact that we don't have to see pictures of children starving and living in the streets in America. We have to pay interest on the Republican debt accumulated to date.

But it is a tradeoff -- we have to be willing to do both, IMO. As it stands now, people who benefit from govt expenditures aren't willing to give up their SS checks, and those who pay taxes aren't willing to pay more. The Govt spends more and more and takes in less.

As a result, we are the pass the buck generation.

Shameful.