As you can see, the DoD is down to 19% and that includes the VA and retirement funds for US military.
The military spending is more than DoD and VA. There's other programs like Energy Department expenditures, NASA, and the % of debt from past borrowing. Considering all military one needs to nearly double the $700 Million number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
We spend about 5% of our GDP. Instead we could spend 3% of GDP and still outspend the next top 5 nations combined. Of which those 5 nations are our friends economically. China is the noteable economic friend who is unlikely to be a military friend.
Who has the biggest slices after the DoD? Why it's Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Guess what, those are ballooning larger and larger each year while revenues (like the payroll tax which was cut by Obama) are in decline.
SS is fairly easy - it's mostly paid for. And for 30 years other US Programs have borrowed from SS to cover their expenditures. Those other programs, like military, need to pay back their borrowing. The next step I'd do is a flat tax at a lower rate. One could keep the lower rate of SS in effect if we were to treat all money earned equally instead of charging zero to funds above 100K.
The Rich are already paying above their fair share (top 10% pay 71% of the budget or top 1% pays 36% of federal budget) while the bottom half are paying
nothing in federal income taxes, how is that fair?
Tax was never intended to be everyone pays their 'fair share'. It covers needed expenses for the less fortunate that would have a difficult time surving without. Gov spending on unemployed does stimulate the economy compared to what no spending would. As for the rich they're paying a rate that's nearly the lowest in about a century. The 1% may pay 36% of the budget but they own nearly 42% of the wealth. They're getting a deal compared to others in the society.
So raising taxes to fix this monster is not possible.
I agree that taxes alone won't cover it all. We need to cut programs too. Actually doing both cuts of programs and tax increases is a quicker path out of the abyss.
Then why did Reagan's policies create 20 million jobs during his two terms but Obama has lost 2 million in his first term? Why did revenues nearly double under Reagan's policies but we got nothing out of Obama's? If you look at the worst years of Reagan's spending, it was the last two that had the Democrats in full control of Congress. I will remind you of the Speaker of the House's,Tip Oneill, famous quotes about all of Reagan's 8 budgets, "Dead on arrival."
The last 30 years has proven we can grow the economy but not float all boats. We've grown the rich and poor while shrinking the middle class.
And Reagan, like every President, owns the responsibility for the budgets in their term. Reagan worked closely with Congress to horse trade. He was willing to increase social spending if the Dems allowed him to increase Star Wars and the military budget. Reagan's hand failed to Veto the bad budget, he signed and accepted it. 'The Buck Stops Here' - should be engraved in the Presidential Desk as we in society define a period by a President. It's probably as unfair as defining a football win by a particular Quarterback. Both are team efforts. None the less the President does have the power to overturn the hundreds in the Congress on the Budget should they have the cahones to do so.
The only thing we can do is cut, cut spending and cut taxes to minimize the disaster that is about to hit us like a Cat 5 hurricane.
Cutting taxes is the wrong answer. Taxes are already low. Regan realized his program failures and raised taxes. Obama should expire the Bush cuts immediately, heck he should have done it day 1 in the office.
As for the Keynesian failures, let me point out FDR, Nixon, Carter, and now Obama. Supply side that worked was JFK and Reagan.
Clinton was actually the best president for the economy in a while. Obama is bad but still better than GWBush. I suggest you read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco...president-in-last-66-years-w-and-obama-worst/ along with the link on the top of Presidents and Prosperity. The top 5 worst Presidents economically only 1 was a Dem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/12/09/the-five-worst-presidents-for-the-economy-1w/
