Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by Crazyhole, Jul 16, 2019.
That's what Mnuchin is projecting this year's deficit will be. #winning?
no dems or reps want to actually reduce spending.
That is unacceptable
Can't blame this one on Obummer.
Blame is in the last 20 years which is both parties. Neither party seem to want to deal with it.
Damn. When is Trump's big tax cut gonna kick in???!?!?
This is of course another blatant lie by you. Clinton had a balanced budget.
I don't know how far back it really goes, but both Clinton and Bush had balanced budgets for a while. It really started to get out of control after 9/11 but things seemed to be headed back in the right direction for a couple of years before the housing collapse. I honestly wouldn't even be that upset right now if we were still going 400-500 billion in the red because we would at least be looking at increased revenues in the next few years but this is ridiculous. Since 2003 we have only had 2 years where revenue went down from the previous year. This year we will bring in over 100 billion dollars more than we did last year. It just doesn't make sense that we can't curb spending somewhere so that we at least don't get worse every year.
It doesn't help when you've got Modern Monetary Theory economists in the ear of all of the politicians.
Yeah, you'd think cutting the amount of revenue the Federal Government brings in (you know, taxes) wouldn't cause stuff like this to happen!!!
We didn't cut revenue. It went up by 100 billion dollars.
We cut the increase. Same thing.
Even if we went back to the later Obama years where we were increasing by 200 billion a year, we would still be adding 900 billion in debt every year. If you can come up with a plan on how to increase revenue by 900 billion I'm all ears.
I've always understood that balancing the budget depends on estimated taxes matching estimated expenses. You want to rail against spending (justifiably, I might add) while ignoring the fact that Trump and the Republicans CUT TAXES on the wealthiest 1 percent.
It's hard to wring our hands about the increasing Federal debt when our "fiscally conservative" lawmakers deliberately voted to increase that annual Federal debt.
They cut taxes on everybody. Stop acting like it is just the 1 percent. Also, even you took all of the top 1 percent's income every year, you wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. It's not a revenue problem. So stop playing the wealth envy card.
I'm playing the wealth responsibility card.
Folks here like to wail about the percentage of low-income Americans who don't pay enough (or any) income taxes. But shouldn't that concern include wealthy corporations and individuals who 'play the tax-avoidance' game'? Or is that concern too "envious" to be legitimate?
Clinton actually didn't, despite the Republicans saying they helped. It's actually a charade, long story. Surpluses still get spent.
Although Clinton had a massive deficit planned for '95, because the tax increases only boosted revenue for 1 year. Clinton predicted the debt would reach $7T by 2000. That's how the Republicans won Congress in '94.
Also, the small surplus in 2000 hid the fact that we had 2 quarters of negative growth and deficits. It was really Q1 that boosted things. That's why W. walked into a recession before he was even in a quarter.
Over $10T in value was wiped off of Wall Street in 2000, which is why it was already 'out-of-hand' by 2000 October, and 'officially' a recession 2001 March.
People forget Wall Street benefited from the 401k ramp-up in the '90s, and that led to a lot of investments in all sorts of companies producing nothing. That came to roost by mid 2000.
The spending ramped up in 2002+ because W. got many votes for pork. The cost of the wars wasn't the only cost, but the pork for the votes more than doubled it.
Actually, in high income tax states, the top 3-5% may pay more federal taxes.
Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes but they also shouldn't get subsidies. Their earnings go to investors who pay taxes on that income. You can double tax that the most profitable entities make but until the lower 50% of wage earners actually do pay taxes we will never balance the budget with spending increases like we have.
The top 1% pays more than 37% of taxes and pays more than the entire bottom 90%.
Tell me, oh centralized planner, when have they paid enough?
Remember that year obama passed a budget? Me neither
Id be interested to know how much shookster pays in taxes. Im guessing he is in that 10% bracket but still likes to lecture us on how much to pay
You caught me! I live under a bridge and pay zero federal taxes. Fortunately my laptop is paid for and I get free internet off the nearby IHOP.
Here's a wild thought: When we can live with a budget that is balanced and, ideally, is starting to pay down our Federal debt.
Yeah, it's all those fiscally conservative Republicans could talk about for eight years. Then what happened?
Like I said, you can take all of their income and all of their wealth and you won’t balance the budget. The only way that is going to happen is to cut spending. Period.
You didn’t address this point before. You just repeated your wealth envy point again. You’re not for solutions, you’re just for sticking it to people that have more than you. We don’t get better as a whole by dragging high achievers down.
actually the rapist Clinton just happened to be President during the internet boom. i'm assuming you had yet to be consummated in the Denny's bathroom at that time
My guess was waffle house...
We need to reduce the % of spending increases every year. Cut some overlapping govt departments. Add more automation in government to reduce head counts. Reduce government benefits to be inline with the private sector. Increase taxes on some that pay nothing. Get more people off public assistance and into the workforce. Drop stupid programs like free phones and anything else that is non life essential.
It already has. Want a ride in it?
I'm on record in numerous threads as saying we need to address the Federal budget deficit---which most certainly will require budget cuts.
But after RAILING and RAILING and RAILING about the deficit throughout the Obama years, those fiscally-conservative Republicans suddenly got super-quiet once Trump took office. Instead of a focused plan to address the Federal budget, this Republican Administration has green-lighted EVEN MORE SPENDING for crying out loud!!!
So Puh--LEEZ spare me any song and dance about those "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans. The only difference between the two major parties when it comes to Government Spending is what they like to spend our money on.
he's so dead set on opposing Trump I wouldn't put it past him to be upset if he did benefit from it
Let me ask you something. Would you be happy if Trump pushed an initiative with the budget similar to regulations where you’d have to cut two programs for every one you added. Or $2 for every $1?
What are the chances that the House would take up such a budget?
lol just a reminder for the dumbshits insisting that Obama "reigned in spending" and blaming Republicans for everything - spending only slowed under Obama because of a GOP congress. This isn't even disputable, just go back to 2010 and start reading.
Congress passes budgets and sets spending. This is a concept that seems so goddamn hard for lefties on her to understand but it's true, and it's law. We don't have Kings or Emperors here.
this is an actual solution to the problem.
The funny thing is, it isn't even modern. They are essentially just a fiat version of the Free Silver advocates of the 1890s.
Hypotheticals in this case are bullshit because NEITHER party is showing ANY interest whatsoever in developing a balanced budget, let alone actually cut the Federal deficit. So if you want to play games and act like this is all on 'those dems', be my guest. But there is absolutely no defense of the Republicans in Congress or the White House when it comes to the deficit either.