Government Spending

It Is Time For You to Stop All of Your Spending


Rick Santelli throws another fit:

For a quieter take on the same message, see's interview with former New Mexico Governor, and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate, Gary Johnson:

And for how the state governments we are supposed to be crying for jacked up their spending during the good times of 2002-2007, read Reason's May 2009 cover story.

NEXT: If You Want to Know Just How Stoopid Your Elected Officials Are, Read This Op-Ed on Lifting The Travel Ban to Cuba

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh wow, that makes a LOT of sense to me dude.


    1. That’s so fucking awesome I’m going to shit myself and then eat it.

  2. Given how many people rely on government for virtually every need or want they have, the call to “stop spending” is bound to cause a huge outcry amongst three sizable groups: those that are dependent on the largesse, those that administer the largesse and those that support the system ideologically or emotionally. Whether these three groups constitute a large enough to scotch any spending reductions is, of course, the issue.

    The entire focus of modern prgressivism is to foster the growth of these groups to make reduction in the size of Leviathan impossible. We’ll see how close to their goal we are very soon.

  3. With all due respect to Terry Meyers (if that is your real name) and to Rick Santelli, if you have politicians stop spending tax money, exactly how do you want them to fill their day?

    1. Mass seppuku would be a good start.

    2. They could unpass laws.

    3. Killing Hookers

  4. They could wax my car. I’d give ’em $30.

    1. A government wax-job would cost at least in the tens of thousands, Jeffersonian.

      1. I know where you can get a good wax-job! This chick lives in a trailer park in Enid, Oklahoma, and…

  5. Cutting capital gains to 0% is no different than any of the other economic micromanagement BS that comes out of Washington. It bugs me to no end.

    As long as there’s a tax on labor, there should be a tax on capital gains at the same rate.

    If you want to normalize taxes, eliminate exceptions and eliminate corporate taxes.

    1. Eliminating corporate taxes and keeping capital gains as regular income ends the double taxation too (and, to be honest is the better solution). However, ending capital gains is more politically possible.

      1. Double taxation is a dividends issue, not a capital gains issue. I only brought up capital gains because it was in the vid clip. But yeah, dividends, capital gains, and wages should all be taxed at the same rate, while corporate taxes should be eliminated. Note that the elimination of corporate taxes would not eliminate IRS audits of corporation, who would be looking for personal income that’s shielded as corporate expenses.

        I agree that eliminating corporate taxes is not politically feasible. Which speaks to the economic illiteracy of the populace.

        1. What is your rationale for taxing capital gains (other than short-erm) as ordinary income?

          1. Because it is ordinary income. I’ve never agreed with the notion that non-wage income is somehow not income. Profiting from an investment is no different in my eyes than profiting from labor.

            I also don’t buy the short-term vs. long-term debate. Again, that’s another instance of trying to micro-manage the economy by favoring one type of investment over another. Policy implementation via taxation is what has given us the mess of a tax code we have now.

            1. Profiting from an investment is no different in my eyes than profiting from labor.

              Which in turn is “no different” than a corporation profiting from production.

              1. Corporate income gets taxed as it’s distributed to workers and owners in the form of wages and dividends. Corporate taxes are simply an inefficient double-taxation mechanism.

                1. Uh…we tried cutting corporate taxes…DIDN’T WORK

                  1. You’re such a tool. I’m talking about tax simplification, not the Laffer curve.

                  2. when did we cut corporate taxes?

                2. Corporate income gets taxes as its distributed to workers and owners in the form or wages, dividends and capital gains.

                  This is why you are wrong above about double taxation only being an issue on dividends. Dividends and cap gains are fungible. Pay a dividend and the value of the stock drops by the amount of dividend. Refuse to pay dividends, or use the money for stock buybacks instead, and value of stock goes up.

                  This is a problem with the current capital gain system. By having a lower rate on long term cap gains, it discourages dividends. Dividends are often a measure of the health of a company. You cant lie about profits if the dividend checks are bouncing.

                  Dividends/Cap gains need to be treated the same way. The only way to do this that makes sense is either to not tax either at all or to not tax corporations and to tax dividends/cap gains as regular income.

                  I prefer the latter.

                  Of course, eliminating all income tax would be even more preferred.

                  1. Another option would be to make all corporations pass-thru, so shareholders pay taxes on their share of profit, whether retained or payed out as dividends. Then, dividends wouldnt be taxes (as the tax was already paid as pass-thru profit), and capital gains would only be paid above your basis price, which would change every year as profits were retained/dividends paid out.

                    While that works for S corps, that would be an absolute mess for C corps.

              2. Which in turn is “no different” than a corporation profiting from production.

                Corporations dont profit from production. The shareholders profit from production, either in the form of dividends or capital gains.

            2. Note that even if you tax capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as ordinary income it would still have a tax advantage – no Social Security or Medicare taxes.

              If I earn $50K through my job, I pay $3750 to OASDI. If I earn $50K working for myself, I pay $7500 OASDI. If I earn $50K on my investment, I pay $0 OASDI.

              1. The OASDI tax only exists to perpetuate the fraudulent notion that OASDI is somehow a savings plan. That whole taxation system should be scrapped and OASDI should be folded into the general fund.

        2. except you need to adjust capital gains taxes for inflation so you are only taxing real gains.

          1. I’d like (optional) altertanate definitions of inflation for this too please, while we are day dreaming. Sitting on a pile of gold or silver and converting them back to funny money to shouldn’t be a taxable event.

  6. You’d have to be pretty stupid to want the government to stop spending during a sluggish economy…”hey, let’s put more people out of work, see how that goes!”

    1. Wasteful spending doesn’t help anyone.

      1. Even wasteful government spending helps…and there are plenty of non-wasteful infrastructure projects that could put people back to work and improve the country.

        1. Citation needed.

        2. Japan tried that. All they got was 2 decades with no economic growth and massive debt. Oh yeah, it also eviscerated the Japanese savings rate, a truly impressive feat.

        3. Surely Dan t is making a funny. Has he not heard of the 2018 debt shock or saw what happened in Europe?

        4. Your butt-buddy Obama told us that was what the one trillion dollars was supposed to do. So what the hell happened?

    2. Then I’m pretty stupid. Just curious, but if your tax receipts are less than your liabilities for labor and benefits, what possible solution could there be other than layoffs?

    3. I don’t see you breaking any windows Dan. What about the poor glass man?

    4. You’d have to be pretty stupid to want government to spend in a sluggish economy… “Hey, let’s disincentivize hiring in the private sector and keep people out of work, see how that goes!”

    5. Don’t be his porn, people.

    6. So Dan, when the economy is good, it’s OK for the government to cut back on spending? Or does your argument then become: “There’s so much money around, the government needs to take some and give it to the disadvantaged”?

    7. And we could totally have raised spending now easily, if you’d cut spending during the boom instead. Looks like the statists fucked up. Oops.

  7. Bonus points for Pretenders reference.

    1. Pathetic. You mean a KINKS reference. God.

    2. Pathetic. You mean a KINKS reference. God.

    3. Pathetic. You mean a KINKS reference. God.

  8. As we speak, I am firing off an email to Ezra Klein detailing how I think Santelli is a ratfucking douchebag.

  9. If I really wanted to be a ratfucking shit-stirrer, this would be an excellent opportunity to spoof Matt Welch.

  10. Adding Rick Santelli to “guilty of sedition” list.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.