How convenient that your analysis elides debt servicing from war and increased discretionary military spending. Debt rose the most under Reagan and Bush and now Trump with the same call for cutting taxes while bloating military spending. And let's not forget the TARP and other bailouts in 2008. But by all means, talk about "corrective market forces that curb waste" -- tell me, when has any government in history been run by "market forces"?
That the highest earners pay the most taxes in nominal terms should not be a surprise, it's just basic math. 10% of $1B is still more than 20% of $1M. These self-annointed elites are still hoarding an incredible amount of wealth, with average tax rates that are often more lower than lower income brackets. Yet, they consume more services than lower income people.
Social Security is more than 90% funded by payroll taxes collected exclusively for that purpose. Combining that budget item with HHS and other departments funded by more general income taxes is quite misleading. Defense is the largest single expenditure in the US budget -- even more so when factoring in the VA.
Finally, more dollars can always be printed because the US dollar holds the highly privileged position of being the "world's currency", and exploiting the benefits from that, such as printing a near-endless supply of USD without causing a gallon of milk to cost $1500 (yet).
Numbers aside, you seem to suggest that The Free Market could correct our path to fascism, and that pesky human services and wanton over-regulation are what are really preventing us from reaching our final enlightened form... We are all much closer to being destitute than we are to being next in line for billionaire-dom. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."
> you seem to suggest that The Free Market could correct our path to fascism, and that pesky human services and wanton over-regulation are what are really preventing us from reaching our final enlightened form...
Not quite. I am merely pointing out that capitalism and free markets are not the enemy and that larger, more involved governments, which the political left (to which I'd assign the author) support, are a perfect breeding ground for sleaze, corruption and nepotism. This effect btw. can be observed in all of the states in which socialism has been tried. Each and every time, without exception, citizens are fleeing from these countries into capitalist countries and it's never the other way round.
I'd argue that free markets are usually the enemy. They are not self-regulating, they are profit-maximizing. Capital's interests are not aligned with the Public's interests. Do you enjoy drinking contaminated water? Breathing leaded gasoline? Being locked in your office/factory with no fire suppression or escape routes? Why won't someone please think of the poor billionaires' profits?
Look no further back than right now to find that sleaze, corruption, and nepotism: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, David Ellison, and so many more.
Would you estimate that socialism is practiced in Europe? Are Europeans fleeing? Have you found many examples of socialism in the Central and Southern Americas which have been allowed to operate without external interference? There is a rich history of the USA interfering in socialist and generally leftist countries with democratic processes. See Salvador Allende to begin. Death squads, hyperinflation, and authoritarian fascist regimes will certainly sway a few people to flee those situations.
This is the classic flawed reasoning on the left. Capitalism & free markets =/= lawlessness.
A small & focused government would have more resources, not less, to function in one of its core tasks, which is enforcement of law. Environmental protection is very compatible with a small govt and free markets as long as the legal system can focus on enforcing those environmental laws.
On the other hand, in a dysfunctional bloated government (as in large parts of Europe and the US) the legal arm is overburdened and suffocated by an ever-growing body of laws and regulations whose enforcement remains out-of-reach in any realistic scenario. Add in rampant lobbyism, lawmakers who are corrupt and dumb as sh*t, and and a fast-growing subset of the population that doesn't share the values of liberal democracies (thus keeping police and courts busy) and you have the perfect breeding ground for high-level lawlessness.
And to your question: while Europe's population looks stable from the outside, an "exchange" in happening in the background. If the working man's net pay is ~ 34% of the gross pay, while at the same time, a small family can get ~3k EUR per month in govt handouts + free healthcare without anyone working, it's not exactly incentivizing high performers to stay (and yes, many are leaving and for good reason).
>Do you enjoy drinking contaminated water? Breathing leaded gasoline?
The Soviet Union had worse environmental problems than any of the capitalist countries.
>There is a rich history of the USA interfering in socialist and generally leftist countries with democratic processes.
True, but the US interfered very little in Vietnam in the years after 1975 and in Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge took over, and still millions of Vietnamese fled the country after 1975 on makeshift boats and still millions of Cambodians were killed by their own government.
No country interfered to any significant degree with the Soviet Union except during the first 5 years of the Union's existence because after they had eliminated internal competition to their rule, the Soviets were very competent at national security and were mostly immune to outside interference.
In those other socialist-leaning nations the spending is there just hidden in the form of jobs. A much higher percentage of labor is governmental -- usually around 25% more.
The US can get away with what it's doing because we just have that much more productive economic activity going on here.
Reminder that the Republican policy for the last 40 years includes things like starve the beast in order to build up/support inefficient government spending so that they can make exactly this argument.
When one party is ACTIVELY sabotaging the Federal government in order to achieve political goals they can't get at the ballot box, and in order to set the grounds to make exactly the argument you are, we have to wonder, what exactly is the solution? Is it to do the thing we were manipulated to be forced to do, or to throw out the party that cared more about their goals than our country, are willing to destroy our government's ability to govern, and are willing to spend 40 years being manipulative to achieve it? I say throw out the part that intentionally spent 40 years destabilizing our government and TRYING to deliver worse outcomes.
